alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hattie L. McLAUREN and Mattie Lou Jackson, Plaintiffs, v. KINGSWAY TRANSPORTS, Limited, Hector Henry Roberge and Jesse Cobb, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 27, 1956.

Nathan Gross, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Dominic J. Cornelia, New York City, for Kingsway Transports and Hector Henry Roberge.

Galli & Locker, New York City, for Jesse Cobb.

LEVET, District Judge.

Motion is made by plaintiffs for an order directing that a commission be issued to examine certain witnesses upon written interrogatories. All witnesses whose statements are sought are physicians who treated plaintiffs and who live in the City of Philadelphia.

The cause of action arose in the State of New York. The plaintiffs were and are residents of Philadelphia. The defendant Jesse Cobb is also a resident of Philadelphia. The defendant Kingsway Transports, Limited is a corporation having its principal place of business in Montreal, Canada, and the defendant Roberge is a citizen of Canada.

The attorney for the defendants Kingsway Transports, Limited and Ro-berge is content with written interrogatories but wishes to submit cross-interrogatories. The attorneys for the de*358fendant Cobb object to written interrogatories and seek an open commission.

Under the circumstances it is my opinion that written interrogatories are unsatisfactory and that an open commission should issue. In this case each party should bear the respective expense of attendance in Philadelphia for such examinations.

Accordingly, the motion made by plaintiffs to issue written interrogatories is denied and it is directed that an open commission issue upon which each party shall bear the respective expense of attendance.

Settle order on notice.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        A notice of intent was published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the                         **Federal Register**                         (82 FR 39779) on August 22, 2017 for the supplement to the 2015 Final Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT) Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS). The 30-day scoping period ends on September 21, 2017. This notice announces a 15-day extension of the scoping period until October 6, 2017.                    

# DATES:

Public comments will be accepted during the 45-day scoping period from August 22, 2017 to October 6, 2017.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Comments may be provided via mail to the address provided below or through the project Web site at                         *http://nwtteis.com/​.*                         Comments must be postmarked or received online by October 6, 2017 for consideration during the development of the Supplemental EIS/OEIS. Anyone interested in receiving electronic project updates can subscribe on the project Web site to receive notifications via email for key milestones throughout the environmental planning process.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. John Mosher, 360-257-3234,                         *john.g.mosher@navy.mil.*                         U.S. Pacific Fleet, Attention: NWTT Supplemental EIS/OEIS Project Manager, 3730 North Charles Porter Avenue, Building 385, Oak Harbor, Washington 98278-3500.                    

Dated: September 14, 2017.

S.E. Milewski,

Deputy Division Director, Administrative Law Division, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-20013 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2473 

To modify the project for the improvement of the Shallotte River, North 

Carolina, to change the authorized depth to 8 feet. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 8, 2011 

Mr. MCINTYRE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To modify the project for the improvement of the Shallotte 

River, North Carolina, to change the authorized depth 

to 8 feet. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHALLOTTE RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA. 

4 The project for the improvement of the Shallotte 

5 River, North Carolina, authorized by the Act of March 4, 

6 1913 (37 Stat. 807), is modified to change the authorized 

7 maintenance depth to 8 feet. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
1

The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, United States District Judge

for the Southern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 95-2477

___________

Francis J. Picray, Jr., *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 * Appeal from the United States

City of Des Moines, Iowa; City * District Court for the

of Des Moines, Legal Department; * Southern District of Iowa.

Reginald V. Sipfle, employee of *

the City of Des Moines; Nelda * [UNPUBLISHED]

Mickle, employee of the City of *

Des Moines, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: February 2, 1996

 Filed: February 22, 1996 ___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Francis J. Picray, Jr., appeals from the district court's1

grant of summary judgment to defendants in this civil rights

action. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties'

briefs, we conclude the district court properly granted summary

judgment, and properly denied Picray's motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 99.1
   United States Patent
6,562,037Paton ,   et al.
May 13, 2003  Bonding of soft biological tissues by passing high frequency electric current there through
 
 Abstract
 
 A technique for bonding soft biological tissue having an incision therein with forceps adapted to grip a portion of the tissue on both sides of the incision. Electrodes are secured to the forceps for contacting the tissue portion. An electrical power source provides a high frequency electrical signal to the electrodes to be passed through the tissue portion. The electrical power source is controlled to provide the electrodes with one voltage signal during a first of two stages, and another voltage signal during a second of the two stages. During the first stage the voltage rises linearly. During the second stage, the voltage is stabilized and is modulated with a low frequency rectangular signal. A clamping means applies force with the forceps to compress the tissue at one level or at different levels during two time periods while the high frequency voltage is passed through the electrodes. The tissue impedance is measured as a function of time, with its minimal value being determined and stored. At an instant when the impedance reaches its minimal value, the linear rise of the high frequency voltage is stopped, and the voltage is stabilized at the attained level. After that the ratio of the tissue impedance to its minimal value is determined as a function of time. The passing of the high frequency voltage to the electrodes is stopped as soon as such ratio reaches a preset value, which is specific for each tissue being bonded. The material for making electrodes is selected so that the electrode may serve as an effective heat sink for conducting heat away from the tissue surface. The electrodes are dimensioned relative to the thickness of tissue in a compressed state.
 
 Inventors:
Paton; Boris E. (41A, Chkalova Str., Apt. 26, Kiev, UA); Lebedev; Vladimir K. (7/10, Luteranskaya Str., Apt. 15, Kiev, UA); Vorona; David S. (81, Vernadskogo Ave., Apt. 139, Kiev, UA); Karchemsky; Volodimir I. (11/39 Gogolevskaya Str., Apt.17, Kiev, UA); Furmanov; Yuri A. (42/1, Build 12, Prospect Nauki, Apt. 4, Kiev, UA); Lebedev; Alexsey V. (7/10, Luteranskaye Str., Apt. 15, Kiev, UA); Vasilchenko; Valery A. (3, Malishko Str., Apt. 408, Kiev, UA); Sidorenko; Dmitry F. (15A, Koltsova Str., Apt. 77, Kiev, UA); Iemchenko-Ribko; Vitaly P. (3, Tulchinskaya Str., Apt. 32, Kiev, UA); Ivanova; Olga N. (25, Shchorsa Str., Apt. 6, Kiev, UA); Furmanov; Alexandr Y. (42/1, Build 14, Prospekt Nauki Apt. 6, Kiev, UA); Zhyvodernikov; Yevgen V. (27-B, Malinovsky Str., Apt. 138, Kiev, UA); Lyashenko; Andrei A. (20, Wolkov Str., Apt. 103, Kiev, UA); Savitskaya; Irina M. (24, Komarova Str., Apt. 9, Kiev, UA)Appl. No.:
022869Filed:
February 12, 1998Current U.S. Class:
606/51; 606/52Intern'l Class:
A61B 018/18Field of Search:
606/32,33,34,35,41,42,45,46,50,51,52
CHIEF JUSTICE

 CAROLYN WRIGHT

JUSTICES

 DAVID L. BRIDGES

 MOLLY FRANCIS

 DOUGLAS S. LANG

 ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

 ROBERT M. FILLMORE

 LANA MYERS

 DAVID EVANS

 DAVID LEWIS

 ADA BROWN

 CRAIG STODDART

 BILL WHITEHILL

 DAVID J. SCHENCK

LISA MATZ

CLERK OF THE COURT

(214) 712-3450

theclerk@5th.txcourts.gov

GAYLE HUMPA

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR

(214) 712-3434

gayle.humpa@5th.txcourts.gov

FACSIMILE

(214) 745-1083

INTERNET

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/5THCOA.ASPX

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

600 COMMERCE STREET, SUITE 200

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

(214) 712-3400

September 22, 2015

Mr. Thomas Clark

Ms. Jill Malouf

Clark, Malouf & White, L.L.P.

12222 Merit Drive, Suite 340

Dallas, Texas 75251

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 05-15-00916-CV

Trial Court Case Number: DC-15-04034

Style: GeoTag, Inc. v. Lawrence P. Howorth

Dear Counsel:

The Court has reviewed the clerk’s record and has a question concerning our jurisdiction 

over the appeal. Specifically, there does not appear to be an appealable order. This Court has 

jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and those interlocutory orders specifically 

authorized by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final 

judgment is one that disposes of all parties and all claims. See id.

Appellant is appealing the trial court’s order granting a motion to compel arbitration. A 

party may appeal an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 171.098(a)(1) (West 2011). There is no statutory authority for appealing an order 

granting a motion to compel arbitration. See Brooks v. Pep Boys Automotive Supercenters, 104 

S.W.3d 656, 660 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

So that this Court can determine its jurisdiction over the appeal, appellant is requested to 

file, by OCTOBER 2, 2015, a letter brief of no more than 3 pages explaining how this Court has 

jurisdiction over the appeal. Appellee may file a responsive letter brief of no more than 3 pages 

within 10 days of appellant’s brief. No extension of time will be granted. If either party will be 

relying on information not in the record before this Court, that party must obtain a supplemental 

clerk’s record from the trial court containing that information.

We suspend the current deadline for appellant’s brief on the merits. After it has 

received briefs regarding the jurisdictional issue, the Court will either: (1) dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction; or (2) notify the parties by letter that the Court appears to have jurisdiction 
2

over the appeal and of the new deadline for appellant’s brief. We caution appellant that failure to 

file a jurisdictional brief by OCTOBER 2, 2015, may result in dismissal of the appeal without 

further notice.

Respectfully,

/s/ Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court

cc: Mr. William Dunn

Dunn Sheehan, LLP

3400 Carlisle St., Suite 200

Dallas, Texas 75204

LM/rz
#### *In re*Shevill and others, Bankrupts.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

November 27, 1880.

Mortgage — Covenant in.

The terms of a covenant in a mortgage — the agreement to pay the joint debt of two named parties, and any individual debt of either of them — will not cover a copartnership obligation of a firm composed of such parties and a third party. s

Benedict, D. J.

The difficulty in the way of allowing the First National Bank of Brooklyn to prove its debt against the individual property of Thomas Shevill and Benjamin Shevill, respectively, is that their demand rests upon a copartnership obligation of the firm of Thomas Shevill & Go., composed of Thomas Shevill, Benjamin Shevill, and Randolph N. Bowlby. The covenant in the mortgage given by Thomas Shevill and Benjamin Shevill does not help' the case of the bank, for the reason that there is no promise to pay the debts of the firm of Thomas Shevill & Go. The covenant is simply to pay any joint debt of Thomas Shevill and Benjamin Shevill, and any individual debt of either Thomas or Benjamin Shevill. The debt sought to be proved is neither the joint debt of Thomas and Benjamin Shevill, nor the individual debt of Thomas or Benjamin Shevill, but the debt of a firm composed of Thomas Shevill, Benjamin Shevill, and Randolph N. Bowlby.

The proof of debt against the individual estates must be disallowed.
Exhibit 10.7





ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF RIGHTS UNDER   SHOPPING CENTER PURCHASE AGREEMENT


For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, PHILLIPS EDISON GROUP LLC , an Ohio limited liability company (“Assignor”), hereby assigns, transfers and sets over to STAUNTON STATION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), all of Assignor’s right, title, and interest as Purchaser to acquire the land and improvements known as Staunton Plaza located in Staunton, Virginia (the “Center’) from Staunton Plaza, LLC pursuant to a certain Shopping Center Purchase Agreement dated as of December 18, 2013, as amended (the “Agreement”) with Waynesboro Plaza, LLC and Staunton Plaza, LLC, each Virginia limited liability companies (individually and collectively referred to as “Seller”), as Seller, with respect to, among other properties, the Center, such assignment to include a prorated portion of the Deposit (as defined in the Agreement) made by Assignor (such prorata portion to be determined based upon the percentage of the allocable portion of the purchase price in the Agreement relating to the Center as against the aggregate purchase price thereunder).


Dated: January 27, 2014 PHILLIPS EDISON GROUP, LLC,


an Ohio limited liability company





By:PHILLIPS EDISON LIMITED


PARTNERSHIP,


a Delaware limited partnership,


Managing Member





By:PHILLIPS EDISON & COMPANY, INC.,


a Maryland corporation, General Partner





By: /s/ Sara J. Phillips


Sara J. Phillips, Vice President











The undersigned, Assignee, hereby accepts the foregoing assignment and hereby assumes and agrees to perform all of Assignor’s obligations under the Agreement and hereby releases, indemnifies and holds Assignor harmless from any loss, cost, liability or expense which may be suffered by Assignor in connection with such Agreement, except for any such loss, cost, liability or expense resulting from the acts of Assignor in connection with the Agreement taken prior to the date of this Assignment without the applicable authorization or consent of the undersigned.


Dated: January 27, 2014                        STAUNTON STATION LLC,


A Delaware limited liability company











By: /s/ Sara J. Phillips


Sara J. Phillips, Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,601,252
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,627,352
<PP&E>                                         829,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                 221,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,192,240
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          411,868
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,150
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,734,222
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,192,240
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,254,483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,279,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,279,787)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,279,787)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN
ITS FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         786,215
<SECURITIES>                                 5,984,370
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,150,612
<PP&E>                                         251,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,951,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          452,034
<BONDS>                                      2,300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,142
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,145,136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,951,312
<SALES>                                            402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               375,893
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  927,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,743,339)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,743,339)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,743,339)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2403 

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to State National 

Guards to provide counseling and reintegration services for members 

of reserve components of the Armed Forces ordered to active duty in 

support of a contingency operation, members returning from such active 

duty, veterans of the Armed Forces, and their families. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2011 

Mr. WELCH (for himself and Mr. GIBSON) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance 

to State National Guards to provide counseling and reintegration services for members of reserve components 

of the Armed Forces ordered to active duty in support 

of a contingency operation, members returning from such 

active duty, veterans of the Armed Forces, and their 

families. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Guard Out5 reach Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2403 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL GUARD COUNSELING AND 

2 REINTEGRATION SERVICES. 

3 (a) ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of 

4 Defense may provide assistance to a State National Guard 

5 to support programs to provide pre- and post-deployment 

6 outreach, reintegration, and readjustment services to the 

7 following persons: 

8 (1) Members of reserve components of the 

9 Armed Forces who reside in the State or are mem10 bers of the State National Guard regardless of place 

11 of residence and who are ordered to active duty in 

12 support of a contingency operation. 

13 (2) Members described in paragraph (1) upon 

14 their return from such active duty. 

15 (3) Veterans (as defined in section 101(2) of 

16 title 38, United States Code). 

17 (4) Dependents of persons described in para18 graph (1), (2), or (3). 

19 (b) ELEMENTS OF PROGRAMS.—Programs supported 

20 under subsection (a) shall use direct person-to-person out21 reach and other relevant activities to ensure that eligible 

22 persons receive all the services and support available to 

23 them during pre-deployment, deployment, and reintegra24 tion periods. 

25 (c) MERIT-BASED OR COMPETITIVE DECISIONS.—A 

26 decision to commit, obligate, or expend funds with or to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2403 IH

1 a specific State National Guard under subsection (a) 

2 shall— 

3 (1) be based on merit-based selection proce4 dures in accordance with the requirements of sec5 tions 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States 

6 Code, or on competitive procedures; and 

7 (2) comply with other applicable provisions of 

8 law. 

9 (d) STATE DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

10 ‘‘State’’ means each of the several States, the Common11 wealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, 

12 and the Virgin Islands. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS