alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Northern Bank of Kentucky, plaintiffs, *vs.*John Wright and Albert T. Yenni, defendants.

Where, in an action brought against two defendants, as joint debtors, the summons is served on only one, who appears, no appearance being entered for the other, the judgment should be entered against both defendants, but directing the amount recovered to be made of the joint property of both, arid the individual property of the defendant served.

(Before Robertson, Ch. J. at special term,

February —, 1866.)

Motion to vacate an order vacating a judgment as to one of the defendants.

Robertson, Ch. J.

The order made in this action, which the present motion seeks to vacate, was that the judgment against the defendant Yenni be vacated. The judgment roll and affidavits before me show that the suit was brought against the two defendants, as joint debtors, and that pro*605cess was served only on the defendant'Wright. The judgment does not profess to be entered upon any appearance for the defendant Tenni, and the notice of appearance . annexed to the roll is only fon his co-defendant Wright. There must be some mistake, therefore, in supposing there was a notice of appearance given for both defendants. If there was, the attorney for Wright has deposed that his authority to appear for Tenni came from Wright alone. If there ever was a partnership between the defendants, upon which I do not undertake to pass; it was dissolved before such notice of appearance (if any) was given, and in such case the attorney who appeared was unauthorized by the defendant not served, and this would have entitled the defendant Tenni to have had any default opened, and to have put in a defense.

The statute *(Code,*§ 136) permits a party to sue persons as joint debtors, and in case of non-service of a summons upon any, to enter a judgment against all the defendants jointly indebted, to be enforced against their joint property. The order how under review, cuts off this right on the part of the plaintiffs, and was evidently made through inadvertence. It must, therefore, be modified, by allowing the judgment to stand against both defendants, but directing the amount recovered to be made of the joint property of both defendants, and the property of the defendant served. As a condition of such amendment, the plaintiffs must pay the costs of this motion, fixed at $10. If they fail-to make such amendment, and pay such costs, the motion must be denied, with like costs.
Highlights since last Presentation!

(what I’ve been doing at NCNR while you’ve been away)
1. Safety

2. Inventoried EVERYTHING

3. Maintenance on existing Lab equipment

4. Keeping all labs cleaned & stocked (daily!)

5. Maintenance on SE equipment (CCRs and helping others)

6. Purchased Equipment

7. Cross Training

8. Special Projects 

9. Summary
(except B189, E131, and G100-1)

Thanks Polly McCarthy!


• Rectangular Quartz Cell Inventory

• Banjo Cell Inventory

• Ti Cell Accounting SANS

• NSE Cell Inventory

• Characterization Accessories options

• Lab Supplies Physical Inventory (Trailers, Basement, E-wing 

Closet)

• Lab Equipment Inventory

• Deuterated Inventory

• Swagelok and VCR Inventory...
PM’d and serviced
PM’d and Calibrated
The -80C °and -40C ° freezers and 3 large refrigerators 

are also now under a new service contract!
TGA in A115 

was 

serviced, 

PM’d and 

calibrated in 

July of 2022
Mass 

Spectrometer 

is on the way 

for the TGA!
The DLS was 

given its final 

service in 

June of 2022
We have 

purchased a 

Labconco 

RapidVap 

N2/48 Dry 

Evaporator!

(Should be onsite before the Holidays!)
VDL23, volatile safe 100C max

Not currently assigned to a 

specific Lab...
a new Yamato 300C

This replaces the 300C 

Yamato that was in E132 

(which failed!)
a new Yamato 200C

This means we have a drying 

AND a vacuum oven in A115!
0.75L

One in E135, one in E134, 

and a spare out in the North 

Trailer!
Cross Training
Annual and 

Basic 

Maintenance 

on CCRs

Completed
Worked with 

Alan Ye on 9T 

magnet and 

with Cedric 

Gagnon on 

testing the 

manual for 

same.
• SAXsess and XRD filter changes as/when needed

• Now giving Vacuum Oven, Torch, and General Lab training

• Crane operator

• Various Lab equipment

• Source User Approved

• Clean-up in B147 (Empty sample cans)

• Various Laboratory Equipment (ie Nanodrop)
nist.gov/ncnr/sample-prep-labs
Now have electronic User 

Manuals for ALL lab 

equipment!

Working with Alan to finish 

updating the web pages...
Titanium Sans Cell: 

The Saga Continues!
Project!

Neutron Spin Echo 

Cell: 

The Saga Begins!

5/6/2022

path length total count number signed out/in repair MIA unaccounted for TOTAL % ACTUAL

in box % #'s (X) + (L) % Box ct

0mm 25 25 100% 0 0 0 0% 25 100% 25

1mm 40 28 54% 4 -12 8 20% 52 130% 40

2mm 36 29 67% 0 -7 7 19% 43 119% 36

4mm 35 28 67% 0 -7 7 20% 42 120% 35
Any suggestion for 2023 Shutdown?

CIMS inventory

Locker inventory

B147 clean-up

Assist SE personnel

Inventory Sheet Updates

Maintain all Labs (daily)

CWP
1. Safety!

2. Have almost everything inventoried and up to date and will 

continue!

3. Lab equipment has been calibrated and maintenance performed as 

required

4. All labs are cleaned, stocked, and waiting for you!

5. Purchased Equipment

6. Performed Maintenance on several types of SE equipment

7. Worked on cross-training within Sample Environment and others 

and will continue!

8. Special Projects 
Thank you for 

watching!
Exhibit 99.4

                               [Chase Letterhead]


Chase Bank USA, N.A.
201 N. Walnut Street
Wilmington, DE 19813

                                               March 29, 2005

          Management Report on Internal Control over Administration of
                 the Chase Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2004-2

Management of Chase Bank USA, N.A. (the "Bank"), as Administrator of the Chase
Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2004-2 (the "Owner Trust") is responsible for
establishing and maintaining effective internal control over its Administration
of the Certificates held by the Owner Trust and the Notes issued by the Owner
Trust in compliance with the Chase Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2004-2
Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2004 (the "Administration" of the Owner Trust),
which is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the proper
Administration of the Owner Trust.

There are inherent limitations in any internal control, including the
possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of controls.
Accordingly, even effective internal control can provide only reasonable
assurance with respect to Administration of the Owner Trust. Further, because of
changes in conditions, the effectiveness of internal control may vary over time.

Management of the Bank, as Administrator of the Chase Credit Card Owner Trust
Series 2004-2, assessed its internal control over its Administration of the
Owner Trust as of December 31, 2004, in compliance with the Chase Credit Card
Owner Trust Series 2004-2 Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2004, in relation to
the criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal
Control-Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, management
believes that the Bank, as Administrator of the Chase Credit Card Owner Trust
Series 2004-2, maintained effective internal control over the Administration of
the Owner Trust as of December 31, 2004, in compliance with the Chase Credit
Card Owner Trust Series 2004-2 Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2004, based on the
criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal
Control-Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.


/s/ Raymond Fischer
-----------------------------
Raymond Fischer
Chief Financial Officer
Chase Bank USA, N.A.

/s/ Keith Schuck
-----------------------------
Keith Schuck
President
Chase Bank USA, N.A.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          43,462
<SECURITIES>                                   108,763
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,658)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,219
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               206,224
<PP&E>                                          11,594
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,186
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           628
<OTHER-SE>                                     175,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,040
<SALES>                                         11,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,949
<CGS>                                           10,597
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    37
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,506
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,775
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,731
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,731
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
November 18, 1976

The Honorable W. J. Estelle, Jr. Opinion No. H-899 Director Texas Department of Corrections Re: Whether the estate Huntsville, Texas 77340 of a deceased employee may be paid **for** compensatory time. Dear Mr. Estelle: you have requestedour opinion regarding whether the estate **of** a deceasedemployeemay be paid for the.employee% unused compensatorytime. In National Leagueof Cities v. Usery, 49 L. Ed.Zd 245 (1976),the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional those portions of theFair Labor Standards Act which required states to pay their employeespremium rates for overtime work. As we noted inAttorney General Opinion R-883 (19761,this decision means thatmost state employees are not subject to the Act. The currentGeneralAppropriations Act, Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 743,art.V, 9 2e, at 2846, permits payment for compensatory time only where an agency or institution is subject to the terms of the Fair Labor StandardsAct. In Attorney GeneralOpinion H-883, we expressed the opinion that personswho were separated from state employment would not be entitled to be paid for compensatory time. In our opinion, a similarresult obtains with respect to deceased employees. We are supported in this opinion by section 7g of article V of the GeneralAppropriations Act, which specifically permitspayment to the estate of a deceased employee for "all of the employee'saccumulated vacation leave and for one-half of his accumulated sick leave." Since the Legislature failed to provide for payment of unused compensatory time to the estateof a deceased employee, it is our opinion that no such payment is authorized.

p. 3774The HonorableW. J. Estelle,Jr. - page 2 **(H-899)**

SUMMARY The estate of a deceased state employee may not be paid for the employee'sunused compensatory time. Very truly yours,

. /$!&~&of Texas

Opinion Committee jwb

p. 3775
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

KANSAS’ ECONOMY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Public Safety 

Communications Research (PSCR) Division is the primary federal laboratory 

focused on conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation for 

public safety communications technologies. Their mission is to accelerate 

communications innovation in support of public safety communities and the 

citizens they serve. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allocated $300 Million 

from the Public Safety Trust fund to NIST PSCR to perform critical public safety 

communications R&D during a 10-year period. PSCR implemented numerous 

research mechanisms to support the development and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network: grants, Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) contracts, prize challenge competitions, and internal research. 

These research mechanisms were housed within six research portfolios and crosscutting initiatives to maximize their impact: 

•	 User Interface/User Experience •	 Public Safety Analytics 

•	 Location-Based Services •	 Security 

•	 Mission Critical Voice •	 Resilient Systems 

While the ultimate impact of these research mechanisms is the increased safety 

of first responders and their communities through improved communications

technologies, PSCR was interested in better understanding how their R&D 

investments to date result in economic impacts that ripple outward to state 

economies. An independent analysis was conducted to demonstrate how PSCR’s 

deployment of the $300 Million from the Public Safety Trust Fund translated into 

broader impacts to the United States, including jobs, earnings, value added, and 

total economic output. PSCR’s R&D investments resulted in economic output 

in 33 of the 50 states. Results of the analysis are presented here. 

For more information, see NIST PSCR’s Economic Impact Study. 

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit . 

2 Prize Challenge 

Participants 

Awards Totaling 

$0.1 Million 

amount.

KANSAS BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$0.1 Million 

OUTPUT 

$0.5 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$0.3 Million 

EARNINGS 

$0.1 Million 

JOBS 

2 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

**All values are rounded; thus, the 

sum of the components may not 

sum exactly to the NIST Investment 

https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr
VCAT ti

VCAT meeting

Portrait

R

VCAT Office

You are here phones

EXIT

W

M

Room

M W

Cafeteria

Courtyard
VCAT Agenda Review VCAT Agenda Review - October 13 October 13-14, 20

14, 20

Day 1

3⁄4 Introductions, NIST Update, and Challenges for the VCAT3⁄4 Strengthening Planning and Performance Evaluation for NIST 

Services

• Convene Breakout Groups on Measurement Services Measurement Services -- Analytical Chemi

Analytical Chemi

Radiation, and Mechanical Metrology

• NIST Proposed Steps to Strengthen Planning and Performance Evaluatio

Measurement Services

• Strengthening Calibration Services and Standard Reference Strengthening Strengthening Calibration Calibration Services Services and Standard Standard Reference Reference Materials Pr

Materials Pr

• Discussion on Measurement Services Planning and Management

3⁄4 Administration’s Priorities in InnovationDay 23⁄4 Measurement and Standards Needs in Forensic Science

• Policy Perspective on Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States• White House Response to the National Academy’s Report on Strengthening • Overview Examples and Lab Tour of Forensic Science Activities at NIST Overview Overview, Examples Examples, and Lab Tour of Forensic Forensic Science Science Activities Activities at NIST

3⁄4 Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) II Safety Management Discus3⁄4 External Needs Assessment Activities 3⁄4 Wrap-Up Discussion, Recommendations, and Plans for 2010 V

Up Discussion, Recommendations, and Plans for 2010 V

R tReport
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Charles Gary Spaniak, Sr., Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, certify that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 3 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2011 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.




Date: July 25, 2012/s/ Charles Gary Spaniak, Sr.Charles Gary Spaniak, Sr.Chief Executive Officer
No. 15,561.

#### Pierce et al. *v.*The Ætna Life Insurance Company et al.

*Dbainage*— Act *of March 9th, 1875.*— Lien *of Assessment Under.*— Priority *of Mortgage Lien.*— Under the act of March 9th, 1875 (Acts of 1875, p. 97), an assessment for the construction of a ditch is not a lien upon the land benefited superior to a prior mortgage thereon. The act, indeed, contains no provision making the assessment a lien upon the land benefited.

From the White Circuit Court.

*T. F. Palmer, for*appellants.

*G. W. Bushnell, E. B. Sellers*and *W. E. Uhl,*for appellees.

McBride, J.

A question meets us at the threshold of this case which renders unnecessary the consideration of several questions argued by counsel.

This was a suit by the appellee for strict foreclosure of a mortgage on land, which was executed September 12th, 1877. The appellants claim a prior lien on the land by virtue of an assessment for the construction of a ditch. The petition for the location of the ditch was filed July 23d, 1878. The order establishing it was made by the board of county commissioners September 5th, 1878. The statute under which the ditch was constructed was that of March 9th, 1875; Acts of 1875, p. 97. That statute contained no provision declaring assessments liens upon the lands benefited. It provided that the assessments made should be placed upon the tax duplicate and collected as *“*other taxes,” etc. It did not, however, attempt to declare that they were taxes, and it is manifest they were not. Nor did it declare that they should have the lien of taxes. They were simply collected by the same processes and agencies as were used in the collection of taxes. As was said in *State, ex rel.,*v. *Ætna Life Ins. Co.,*117 Ind. 251, we do not doubt the power of the Legislature to provide that such assessments shall be a lien on lands benefited, *285and, also, to provide that the lien shall have priority over preexisting mortgages. Indeed, there would see.m to be much reason for providing that a mortgagee, whose security is enhanced in value by the construction of a public drain, should have the lien of his mortgage subordinated to the lien of a fair assessment for the cost of its construction. Necessarily, however, before the rights of a lien-holder could be thus affected he would be entitled to his *“*day in court,” and the statute in question contains no provision for notice to lien-holders, or to.any persons except owners.

Filed April 27, 1892.

Ve can only declare the law as it is, not as we may think it ought to be. If it is defective, so that the full measure of justice can not be meted out, the remedy must come from the law-making power. In addition to the case above cited, see on the question as to the relative priority of the lien of ditch assessments and mortgages, *Cook*v. *State, etc.,*101 Ind. 446.

The rights of the appellants were clearly junior and subordinate to those of the appellee.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit
32




ALLETE
2008 Form 10-K/A








Section
1350 Certification of Periodic Report


By
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each
of the undersigned officers of ALLETE, Inc. (ALLETE), does hereby certify
that:




1.
            The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ALLETE for the fiscal year ended December
      31, 2008, (Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);
      and




2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      ALLETE.










Date:  February
26,
2009                                                          Donald J.
Shippar




Donald J. Shippar


President and Chief Executive Officer














Date:  February
26,
2009                                                          Mark A.
Schober




Mark A. Schober


Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer











This
certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to
that section. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that ALLETE specifically incorporates
it by reference.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to ALLETE and will be retained by ALLETE and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### J. D. Lyon *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Return of Sheriff — impeachment.

A return on a capias pro fine showing that the party can not be found, can not be impeached by proving aliunde, that he might have been found.

APPEAL PROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 4, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The seeming hardships growing out of the judgment in this case, do not authorize the interference of this court.

*710
      *Russell & Averitt, for appellant.*

*Attorney-General, for appellee.*

The commonwealth, can act only through its agents; and its rights can not be affected by the laches of such of its agents as are entrusted with the performance of mere ministerial duties. The alleged neglect of duty to the sheriff, and the interference by the *pro' tern,*attorney for the commonwealth, did not release appellant from his under-talcing to have Caldwell render himself in execution of the judgment of the court.

The return on the *capias pra fine*shows that Caldwell was not found, or in other words, that he failed to surrender himself to the custody of the officer of the law. This return can not be impeached by proving *aliunde,*that he might have been found. It was his duty to render himself in execution of the judgment, and appellant undertook that he would do so.

Until Caldwell was actually taken into custody by the court or its 'officer, he remained in the friendly custody of appellant, and the latter was bound to see that he remained within the jurisdiction of the court.

The judgment must be affirmed.