alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                           7,736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  127,506
<ALLOWANCES>                                       974
<INVENTORY>                                     65,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               217,075
<PP&E>                                         956,748
<DEPRECIATION>                                 412,445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 819,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          201,862
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (467,953)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   819,262
<SALES>                                        408,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               408,778
<CGS>                                          336,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  336,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,838
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,678
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,583)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,997)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,997)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6860

GEORGE BERNARD WISCHHUSEN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK CONROY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA99-347-S)

Submitted: December 20, 1999 Decided: January 5, 2000

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Bernard Wischhusen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph

Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

George Bernard Wischhusen, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Wischhusen

v. Conroy, No. CA-99-347-S (D. Md. June 2, 1999). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Robert E. Dewey, appellee and cross-appellant, v. M. Ellen Sim Dewey, appellant and cross-appellee.

226 N. W. 2d 751

Filed March 6, 1975.

No. 39324.

Bauer, Gaiter & Geier, for appellant.

Baylor, Evnen, Baylor, Curtiss & Grimi’t and Walter E. Zink, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.

Clinton, J.

• On December .12, 1974, wé filed’our opinion herein. Dewey v. Dewey, 192 Neb. 676, 223 N. W. 2d 826. While our original opinion does not expressly so state, we were in fact ruling upon a motion of the appellee to dismiss. That motion had been filed previous to the filing of briefs and we had reserved ruling thereon. Subsequently briefs were filed and oral argument heard on all issues raised in the. briefs. In his brief the appellee asserted a cross,-appeal, assigning errors under Rules 1 d and'8 b 3, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, .1974. This cross-appeal attacked the order of the District Court awarding additional alimony to the appellant.

It is now called to our attention that our ruling on the motion to dismiss did not dispose of the cross-appeal. No mandate has issued and,motions by both parties are still pending. We now believe, in the light of the foregoing circumstance, that we should have passed upon the judgment of the lower court rather than merely upon the motion to dismiss. Accordingly our opinion is modified. The portion of the opinion which reads as follows is withdrawn: “The appeal must accordingly be *237dismissed. Appeal dismissed.” The following is substituted for the part withdrawn:'

“The part of the judgment of the lower court denying relief to the defendant is affirmed because the District Court had no power to modify the decree in order to grant the relief requested.”

The following is added to the opinion:

The appellee has perfected under Rules 1 d and 8 b 3, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 1974, a cross-appeal attacking the part of the decree increasing the alimony awarded defendant. If this award of increased alimony was purportedly made under the provisons of section 42-372, R. R. S. 1943, then it too was void and must be vacated for the reasons already given. An examination of the application to modify and the order of the court affirmatively shows that the award of additional alimony was purportedly made under section 42-372, R. R. S. 1943, and not upon a showing of change of circumstances as authorized by section 42-365, R. R. S. 1943. The trial court specifically found: “That the evidence adduced in support of said motion to modify is cumulative to that adduced prior to November 16, 1972, no new facts or circumstances being shown thereby; . . . that the respondent by said motion seeks only to have the court re-examine the evidence adduced at said trial and arrive at a conclusion opposite and contrary to that contained in said decree of November 16, 1972.” The order awarding additional alimony was void and is vacated.

Affirmed in part, and in part reversed.
Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CASE NO. 4:08cv324-RH/WCS LISA P. JACKSON, etc., et al., Defendants. ________________________________________/
ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR PUBLISHING A NOTICE OF RULEMAKING FOR LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS
The defendants Environmental Prot ection Agency and Administrator (collectively “the EPA”) have move d to extend by 30 days—to November 14, 2010—the deadline set out in paragraph 6 of the consent decree entered December 30, 2009, ECF No. 153. The deadline is for publishing a notice of final rulemaking for numeric water quality criteria for lake s and flowing waters. No party has addressed, and this or der expresses no opinion on, the question whether an extension to November 14—a Sunday—w ill have the effect of extending the deadline to November 15. Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH -WCS Document 192 Filed 10/27/10 Page 1 of 3Page 2 of 3

Case No: 4:08cv324-RH/WCS The plaintiffs have consented to the motion for an extension. Two intervenors—the South Florida Water Mana gement District and the Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, Inc.—have filed responses in opposition to the motion. But neither asserts the extension is unwarranted. The EPA has shown good grounds for the requested extension. This order grants it. Instead of asserting that the requested extension is unwarranted, the responding intervenors assert that the re quested extension is not long enough, and they assert, in effect, that the consent decree should not have been entered in the first place. The Water Management Districtalso asserts that I have no jurisdiction to grant the extension because an appeal is pending from the consent decree. The assertion that a longer extension is needed , even if true, would not warrant a denial of the 30-day extension the EPA has requested. And the assertion that the requested extension is beyond my jurisdiction is wrong. The consent decree specifically authori zes an extension request of precisely this kind. See Consent Decree, ECF No. 153, at 9-10. The pendency of an appeal does not deprive a district court of juri sdiction to enforce and take action under an injunction. That is all the EPA ha s requested and this order provides. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: The EPA’s motion, ECF No. 188, to extend the deadline for publishing a Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH -WCS Document 192 Filed 10/27/10 Page 2 of 3Page 3 of 3

Case No: 4:08cv324-RH/WCS notice of final rule making for numeric water quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters under paragraph 6 of the consen t decree is GRANTED. The deadline is extended to November 14, 2010. SO ORDERED on October 27, 2010. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH -WCS Document 192 Filed 10/27/10 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly report of General Metals Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen Parent, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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, as amended; and,



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: September 18, 2009



| |                                                                    
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Stephen Parent                                                 
| | Stephen Parent                                                     
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
H. Res. 266

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 30, 1999.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House a concurrent resolution waiving the requirements in section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 that the Congress adjourn

sine die not later than July 31, 1999. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for amendment and shall not

be subject to debate. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption

without intervening motion.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accountants

Board of Directors
Mid-Wisconsin Financial Services, Inc.
Medford, Wisconsin

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 33-37264) and Form S-3 (No. 333-138229) of Mid-Wisconsin
Financial Services, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 2010, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Mid-Wisconsin Financial Services, Inc. and
Subsidiary as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, which appears in
the December 31, 2009, Form 10-K of Mid-Wisconsin Financial Services, Inc.

WIPFLI LLP
Wipfli LLP


March 26, 2010
Green Bay, Wisconsin
#### Annie Cleveland Doing Business under the Name of Cleveland *&*Son, Respondent, *v.*New York and Queens County Railway Company, Appellant.

Second Department,

January 17, 1908.

Trial—potion for negligence — improper remarks by counsel.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries.

Judgment for plaintiff reversed because of statements of counsel informing the jury that the'defendant had settled, with: plaintiff’s witness, who. was injured in the same accident.

Appeal by thp defendant, the Mew Ttirk and Queens County Bailway Company, from a judgment of the County Court of Queens county in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the l‘9tli'day of April, Í907, upon the verdict of a jury for $1,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 6th 'day of May, 1907} denying the defendant's-motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

*Van Vechten Veeder and Nathaniel S. Corwin,*for the appellant.

*Louis Frankel [Job M. Hedges*with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

This action is brought to recover damages for injuries to property resulting from a collision between one of the defendant’s cars-and a *733loaded truck driven by the plaintiff’s servant. The drivér was called as a witness for the plaintiff, and during his examination the following colloquy took place: *“*Q. How far was the car barn from where the accident happened ? A. About a mile. Maybe a little more. [Plaintiff’s Counsel] : He settled his case. [Defendant’s Counsel] : I object to that as improper, that remark. Tire Court: I think it is improper. [Defendant’s Counsel] : And I ask your Honor to tell this jury that they must disregard that remark. [Plaintiff’s Counsel] : That remark was not made to the jury. [Defendant’s Counsel] : I move for the withdrawal of a juror. The Court: Motion denied [Defendant’s Counsel] : Exception. The Court: Something has been said about this man being injured, and his counsel says that his claim was settled. That has nothing to do with this-case,, and should not have been mentioned. [Plaintiff’s Counsel] : I am not bis counsel and never was his counsel. The Court: Well, the lawyer who is trying the case said so and he should not have said so, and you must keep it out of your mind that he did say so, or that that fact .happened.’’

We think it evident that the plaintiff’s attorney deliberately made the statement for the purpose of informing the jury that the defendant had settled with the driver. Such conduct must not be suffered to pass unnoticed. The judgment is reversed.

Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order of the County - Court .of Queens county reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.
§ 170.443 What is required to successfully include a proposed transportation facility in the NTTFI? ( a ) A proposed transportation facility is any transportation facility, including a highway bridge, that will serve public transportation needs, meets the eligibility requirements of the TTP, and does not currently exist. It must meet the eligibility requirements of the TTP and be open to the public when constructed. In order to have a proposed facility placed on the NTTFI, a Tribe must submit all of the following to the BIADOT/FHWA Quality Assurance Team for consideration: ( 1 ) A Tribal resolution or other official action identifying support for the facility and its placement on the NTTFI.
( 2 ) A copy of the Tribe's LRTP containing: ( i ) A description of the current land use and identification of land ownership within the proposed road's corridor (including what public easements may be required);
( ii ) A description of need and outcomes for the facility including a description of the project's termini; and
( iii ) The sources of funding to be used for construction.
( 3 ) If the landowner is a public authority other than the Tribe or BIA, documentation from the public authority that the proposed road has been identified in their LRTP, STIP approved by FHWA, or other published transportation planning documents.
( 4 ) Documentation clearly identifying that easements or rights-of-way have been acquired or a clear written statement of willingness to provide a right-of-way from each landowner along the route.
( 5 ) Certification that a public involvement process has been carried out for the proposed road.
( 6 ) A synopsis discussing the project's anticipated environmental impacts as well as the engineering and construction challenges.
( 7 ) Documentation that the project can meet financial or fiscal constraint requirements including financial information demonstrating that the project can be implemented using existing or reasonably available funding sources, and that the project route can be adequately maintained after construction. (See 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135.)
( 8 ) Documentation identifying the entity responsible for maintenance of the facility after construction is completed.
( b ) For those proposed roads that were included in the NTTFI as of November 7, 2016, the information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section may be submitted for approval to BIA and FHWA at any time, but is not required in order for those proposed roads to remain in the NTTFI, unless any changes or updates to the proposed road were (or are) made after that date.
[81 FR 78463, Nov. 7, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 50313, Oct. 31, 2017; 84 FR 55500, Oct. 17, 2019; 85 FR 17499, Mar. 30, 2020 ]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Background Facts on Women Workers in the United States

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Background Facts on Women Workers in the United States*,										September 1965,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/311,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 166.408 Is the grazing rental rate established by the BIA adjusted periodically? Yes. To ensure that Indian landowners are receiving the fair annual return, we may adjust the grazing rental rate established by the BIA, based upon an appropriate valuation method, taking into account the value of improvements made under the permit, unless the permit provides otherwise, following the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. ( a ) We will: ( 1 ) Review the grazing rental rate prior to each anniversary date or when specified by the permit.
( 2 ) Provide you with written notice of any adjustment of the grazing rental rate 60 days prior to each anniversary date.
( 3 ) Allow the adjusted grazing rental rate to be less than the fair annual rental if we determine that such a rate is in the best interest of the Indian landowner.
( b ) If adjusted, the grazing rental rate will become effective on the next anniversary date of the permit.
( c ) These adjustments will be retroactive, if they are not made at the time specified in the permit.
( d ) For permits granted by tribes, we will consult with the granting tribe to determine whether an adjustment of the grazing rental payment should be made. The permit must be modified to document the granting tribe's waiver of the adjustment. A tribe may grant a permit without providing for a rental adjustment, if the tribe establishes such a policy under § 166.100(a)(4) of this part and negotiates such a permit.
# C_2013098EN.01000301.xml

| 5.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/3

---

Update of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 19; OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 22; OJ C 182, 4.8.2007, p. 18; OJ C 57, 1.3.2008, p. 38; OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 19; OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 8; OJ C 35, 12.2.2010, p. 7; OJ C 304, 10.11.2010, p. 5; OJ C 24, 26.1.2011, p. 6; OJ C 157, 27.5.2011, p. 8; OJ C 203, 9.7.2011, p. 16; OJ C 11, 13.1.2012, p. 13; OJ C 72, 10.3.2012, p. 44; OJ C 199, 7.7.2012, p. 8; OJ C 298, 4.10.2012, p. 3; OJ C 56, 26.2.2013, p. 13)

2013/C 98/03

The publication of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), is based on the information communicated by the Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 34 of the Schengen Borders Code.

In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a monthly update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Home Affairs.

ESTONIA

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 247 of 13.10.2006

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 247 of 13.10.2006

Under Estonian law, aliens arriving into Estonia without a letter of invitation shall upon request by a border guard official upon entry into the country provide proof of sufficient monetary means to cover the costs of his/her stay in and departure from Estonia. Sufficient monetary means for each allowed day is considered to be 0,2 times the monthly minimum salary implemented by the Government of the Republic, i.e. EUR 64.

Otherwise the person inviting shall assume responsibility for the costs of the alien's stay in and departure from Estonia.

---
#### Alvah Bartholomew, Appellant, v. Frederick Bartholomew, Respondent.

Judgment, and order reversed as against the weight of evidence and new trial granted", with costs to appellant to abide event. No opinion. All concurred, except Cochrane and Sewell, JJ., dissecting.
§ 161.5 Can BIA waive the application of this part? Yes. If a provision of this part conflicts with the objectives of the agricultural resource management plan provided for in § 161.200, or with a tribal law, BIA may waive the application of this part unless the waiver would either: ( a ) Constitute a violation of a federal statute or judicial decision; or
( b ) Conflict with BIA's general trust responsibility under federal law.