alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jennings and others *v.*Lowenstine and others.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York,*

May 17, 1887.)

Patents for Inventions — Process for Shaping Lace Mitts—Patentable Novelty.

The claim relating to a process for shaping lace mitts contained in letters patent granted November 9, 1880, to Warren P. Jennings, for a mitt-shaping machine, is wanting in patentable novelty by reason of the prior known state of the art, and a bill to restrain infringement of said claim will be dismissed.

In Equity.

*Arthur v. Briesen,*for plaintiff.

*W. A. Jenner,*for defendant.

Wheeler, J.

This suit is brought upon letters patent No. 234,286, dated November 9,1880, and granted to Warren P. Jennings for a mitt-shaping machine, the process of shaping lace mitts, and the mitts as shaped. There is no charge that the defendants infringe as to the machine. The case turns principally upon the claim as to the process. That consists in first stretching the mitts lengthwise, and thereby contracting them at the desired point, and in then subjecting them, first to the direct action of steam, and next to heat, for the purpose of setting the fibers to the desired form. Prom the evidence in the case it clearly appears that similar articles were shaped by stretching them over forms, enlarging them where they were too small, and contracting them where they were too large, and then exposing them, first to steam, and then to heat, according to the method of the patent, for the purpose of setting the fibers in the desired form. The patent is for contracting the mitts where contraction is desired, without mentioning enlargement. This contraction is precisely according to the old process. The only difference between the processes is that by the old process the articles were first made too small for the large parts, as well as too large for the small parts, and then correspondingly enlarged and contracted; while by the process of the patent the articles are first made large enough for the large parts, and shaped only by contraction where they are too large. The treatment of the parts operated upon is precisely the same in each. This is all that this claim of the patent assumes to cover. The machine has new contrivances for holding the ends of the mitts, but they are not covered by this claim. The patentee invented means of applying the process, rather than the process, and this claim, upon this consideration, must fail for want of novelty to support it; The claim for the mitts themselves rests wholly upon their being contracted laterally between their ends, without reducing the number of meshes at their contracted parts. There does not appear to be any patentable novelty about this.

Let a decree be entered dismissing the bill of complaint, with costs.
Case 1:11-cv-00460-RBK-JS Document 11 Filed 07/28/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 223
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15243]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Open Meeting of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) 
Executive Panel

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Executive Panel will 
deliberate on the findings and proposed recommendations of the 
Subcommittee on Diversity. The matters to be discussed include: Female 
and minority male officer accessions, retention, development, command 
climate, evaluation and mentoring programs, and accountability.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 16, 2009, from 9:30 
a.m. to 11:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Boardroom, CNA, 4825 Mark 
Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846. Some members of the Executive 
Panel may participate via teleconference.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR Catherine Masar, CNO Executive 
Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846, telephone: 
(703) 681-9633.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Individuals or interested groups may submit 
written statements for consideration by the CNO Executive Panel at any 
time or in response to the agenda of the scheduled meeting. All 
requests or statements must be submitted to the Designated Federal 
Officer at the address detailed below.
    Statements submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this 
meeting notice must be received by the CNO Executive Panel at least 
five days prior to the respective meeting to allow adequate time for 
consideration.
    The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions 
with the CNO Executive Panel Chairperson and will ensure they are 
provided to members of the CNO Executive Panel before the meeting that 
is the subject of this notice.
    Individuals desiring to participate via teleconference must submit 
their contact information (to include e-mail address) to CDR Catherine 
Masar at the below address.
    To contact the Designated Federal Officer, write to Executive 
Director, CNO Executive Panel (N00K), 4825 Mark Center Drive, 2nd 
Floor, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.

    Dated: June 23, 2009.
A. M. Vallandingham,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-15243 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
# Employer Rail

- Report Specification Sheet 
- Report of Stock Options and Other Payments (12-21) 
- Application for Employer Reporting Internet Access (08-22) 
- Supplemental Report of Compensation (06-16) 
- Prepayment Notice of Employees' Applications and Claims for Benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (11-11) 
- Notice of RUIA Claim Determination (11-11) 
- Q&A: Railroad Retirement Service Credits and Pay for Time Lost 
- Letter to Notify Employer of Possible Incorrect Name Which Prevents the Crediting of Compensation & Service Records (04-96) 
- Reject and/or Error Referral Listing Letter (06-06) 
- Notice of Lien (08-12)
ACCEPTED

14-14-00753-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/11/2015 3:59:50 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/11/2015 3:59:50 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
NO. 07-06-0321-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

______________________________

IN RE SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED

THIRTY DOLLARS U.S. CURRENCY

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Real party in interest, My Van Le, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the trial

court to withdraw its order compelling My Van Le to produce certain federal income tax

returns. The real party in interest bears the burden of providing a record sufficient to

establish his right to mandamus relief. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1); Walker v. Packer, 827

S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). In this case the record provided by the

real party in interest is insufficient to establish his right to the relief requested. No clerk’s

record was provided and the appendix to the real party in interest’s brief does not contain

all of the necessary documents. Accordingly, the relief requested is denied. 

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice
#### Douglass *against*Clark.

NEW-YORK,

May, 1817.

When the era - recites another thepbtotiiSno bound to the payment *oí*certain duties from J. ^ ¡^he’derendmt ^payoi/Md sEtE, “2 tm-d 1 harmleá» «Eiigationtd to he consi-, dereda? an un» dertauingtopay off the recited! S-etom a pie» brnd^aUa?1*

THIS was an actioníóf debt on bond. The condition of the bond, as set forth in the oyer, was as follows“ Whereas the said *Zebulon*(the plaintiff) and *Levi Rice,*heretofore executed their bond to the United States, conditioned to pay the collecof the twentieth collection district of the state of New-York, the amount of duty payable by the said *Levi Rice,*by virtue of the act of congress of the United Slates, passed the 24th day of *July,*1813, entitled *an act, laying duties on licenses to distillers of spirituous liquors,*on two certain stills of the said *Levi*Rice, situate in Lenox, as by the said bond may more fully appear: Now, therefore, it the said *Sylvester*Clark, above bounden, well and truly pay off and discharge the said bond, and hold the said *Zebulon*harmless and indemnified from the pay-P . *f,*i .» ii _ r *J*ment thereof or any part thereof, and from all costs, damages, *. .*’ o *1*and charges, thence arising to the said *Zebulon,*then the above obligation to be null and void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue.” The defendant pleaded, 1. *Non*factum. 2. *Non damnificatus:*to which last plea there was a general demurrer, ami joinder in demurrer.

The case was submitted to the court without argument

*178*Per Curiam.*

Whether this plea be good or not will depend upon what is to be deemed the true construction of this bond. If the defendant is to be considered as undertaking to pay off and discharge the recited bond, the plea is bad *•,*but if it .be considered a bond of indemnity, and to save the plaintiff harmless from all damages, by reason of the recited bond, the plea, is good. (1 *Saund.*117. *n.*1. 1 *Bos. and Pull.*688.) We are inclined to think the good sense and sound interpretation of the bond is according to the latter construction, and that the words, “ pay off and discharge” were thrown in, without being understood to require the defendant actually to pay off such bond.

This construction is much strengthened by th&,circumstance, that it appears from the recited bond that the dSfelskti&t was not the person who was to pay the duties. They were due from JSicc, with whom the plaintiff was bound. We are accordingly of opinion, that the defendant is entitled to judgment on the demurrer.

Judgment for the defendant.
Exhibit No. 32.1
 Marketing Acquisition Corporation
 File No. 0-52072
 Form 10-Q
 Quarter ended June 30, 2010
 
 
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
 as adopted Pursuant to Section 906
 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 -
 Chief Executive and Financial Officer
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Marketing Acquisition Corporation (Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Timothy P. Halter, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Dated: August 9, 2010

By:/s/ Timothy P. Halter

Timothy P. Halter

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
 
  
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Marketing Acquisition Corporation and will be retained by Marketing Acquisition Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Fatima Pareja, Appellant, v City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

[854 NYS2d 380]

Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the bus on which she was a passenger hit a pillar on White Plains Road. At trial, the bus driver testified that he swerved to avoid an oncoming car that cut in front him.

There is no evidence that the offensive summation remarks of defense counsel cited by plaintiff improperly affected the verdict *(cf. Kohlmann v City of New York,*8 AD2d 598 [1959]). Moreover, these remarks were brief and, after a 12-day trial with numerous witnesses, were unlikely to have affected the outcome. We nonetheless observe that the remarks of defense counsel were uncalled for. There is no justification for attacking the credibility of opposing counsel. The veracity of counsel is simply not a subject for summation.

There was nothing improper about admitting into evidence plaintiffs verified bill of particulars *(see Owen A. Mandeville, Inc. v Zah,*38 AD2d 730 [1972], *affd*35 NY2d 769 [1974]) to demonstrate her alleged failure to provide notice of prior injuries. Statements and allegations in pleadings are always admissible as evidence, and may be used for any legitimate purpose at trial *(Holmes v Jones,*121 NY 461 [1890]).

There was no requirement to charge sections of the Vehicle and Traffic Law that have no relevance or reasonable connection to the manner in which the accident is said to have occurred *(see Sutton v Piasecki Trucking,*59 NY2d 800 [1983]; *Vail-Beserini v Rosengarten,*267 AD2d 812 [1999]). The sections cited by plaintiff were not relevant to this accident.

We have reviewed the balance of plaintiffs argument and find it without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         101,404
<SECURITIES>                                       504
<RECEIVABLES>                                  106,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               208,632
<PP&E>                                       3,011,349
<DEPRECIATION>                                 921,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,298,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,955
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,136,779
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,298,687
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               400,526
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                254,610
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            254,610
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   254,610
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.52
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:11-cv-00390-CCC-JAD Document 9 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 39
Case 2:11-cv-00390-CCC-JAD Document 9 Filed 11/30/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 40
Case 2:11-cv-00390-CCC-JAD Document 9 Filed 11/30/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 41
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 3, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00630

- CV

THE HUFF ENERGY FUND, L.P. , WRH Energy Partners, L.L.C., William R."Bill" Huff,

Rick D'Angelo, Ed Dartley, Bryan Bloom, and Riley

- Huff Energy Group, LLC,

Appellant s

v.

LONGVIEW ENERGY COMPANY

,

Appellee

From the 3 65th Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 09

- 12583

- ZCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed August 8, 201 3 . On September 30, 2014,

appellants filed an unopposed motion asking this court to order the district clerk to file a

supplemental clerk’s record. In the motion, appellants contend that they and appellee filed

requests for supplemental records with the d istrict clerk’s office months ago , but the requested

supplemental records were never filed despite numerous telephone calls and assurances from the

district clerk that the requested supplemental records would be filed.

Accordingly, we GRANT appellants’ motion and ORDER the District Clerk of Zavala

County to file a supplemental clerk’s record in accordance with Appellants’ “Third Request for

Supplemental Matters to be Included in the Clerk’s Record,” which was filed December 2, 2013,

and with appellee’s April 7, 2014 letter request. We ORDER the district clerk to file the

supplemental record containing the specified documents in this court on or before October 13,

2014

.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel and the

District Clerk of Zavala County.It is so ORDERED on October 3, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO :

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial  statements of American  Resources & Development  Company for the year
ended March 31, 2000,  as set forth in its annual report on Form 10-KSB for such
year,  and  is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            8,914
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   649,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (63,822)
<INVENTORY>                                     232,310
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                932,897
<PP&E>                                        1,682,221
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (597,131)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,080,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2,606,852
<BONDS>                                       2,431,293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                         245
<COMMON>                                          3,876
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2,961,546)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,080,720
<SALES>                                       4,828,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              4,828,053
<CGS>                                         3,640,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 3,640,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (1,430,698)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              584,355
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2,015,053)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2,015,053)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  867,587
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,421,111)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .24


</TABLE>
Updated: November 14, 2022

BLS Technical Advisory Committee November 17, 2022

 

9:30 am CPS Work Schedules and Work at Home Supplement

Presenters: Karen Kosanovich, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics

Discussants: Chinhui Juhn, University of Houston

Susan Lambert, University of Chicago

11:00 am Improved Methods to Increase CFOI Publishability

Presenter: Danny Friel, Office of Compensation and Working Conditions

Discussants: Ofer Harel, University of Connecticut

Brady West, University of Michigan

12:30 pm Commissioner’s Welcome and Review of Agency Developments

12:45 pm Lunch

1:30 pm Improved Hedonic Methods for Televisions and Wireless Phone Service Using Blended 

Survey and Non-Survey Data

Presenters: Craig Brown, Office of Prices and Living Conditions

Jeremy Smucker, Office of Prices and Living Conditions

Discussants: Marshall Reinsdorf, Economic Consultant and Supporting Editor for the 

2025 SNA

Bart Hobijn, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

3:00 pm Conclusion

All times Eastern Standard Time. Please contact BLSTAC@bls.gov for questions.

Virtual Registration at https://blstac.eventbrite.com
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1021 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

with respect to a portion of the Wendell H. Ford (Western Kentucky) 

Parkway, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 3, 2019 

Mr. MCCONNELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 with respect to a portion of the Wendell 

H. Ford (Western Kentucky) Parkway, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. WENDELL H. FORD (WESTERN KENTUCKY) 

4 PARKWAY. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION AS HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR.— 

6 Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

7 Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–240; 105 Stat. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1021 IS

1 2032; 131 Stat. 797) is amended by adding at the end 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(91) The Wendell H. Ford (Western Ken4 tucky) Parkway from the interchange with the Wil5 liam H. Natcher Parkway in Ohio County, Ken6 tucky, west to the interchange of the Western Ken7 tucky Parkway with the Edward T. Breathitt 

8 (Pennyrile) Parkway.’’. 

9 (b) DESIGNATION AS FUTURE INTERSTATE.—Sec10 tion 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor11 tation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–240; 109 

12 Stat. 597; 131 Stat. 797) is amended in the first sentence 

13 by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(90)’’ and inserting ‘‘sub14 section (c)(90), and subsection (c)(91)’’. 

15 (c) NUMBERING OF PARKWAY.—Section 

16 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor17 tation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–240; 109 

18 Stat. 598; 126 Stat. 426; 131 Stat. 797) is amended by 

19 adding at the end the following: ‘‘The route referred to 

20 in subsection (c)(91) is designated as Interstate Route I– 

21 369.’’. 

22 (d) OPERATION OF VEHICLES.—Section 127(l)(3)(A) 

23 of title 23, United States Code, is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1021 IS

1 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), in the 

2 first sentence, by striking ‘‘clause (i) or (ii)’’ and in3 serting ‘‘clauses (i) through (iii)’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(iii) The Wendell H. Ford (Western 

6 Kentucky) Parkway (to be designated as a 

7 spur of Interstate Route 69) from the 

8 interchange with the William H. Natcher 

9 Parkway in Ohio County, Kentucky, west 

10 to the interchange of the Western Ken11 tucky Parkway with the Edward T. 

12 Breathitt (Pennyrile) Parkway.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Case 2:11-cr-00036-SDW Document 15 Filed 03/07/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 27