alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 16,035.

#### State of Colorado acting by and through the State Board of Land Commissioners *v.*Harrah et al.

(196 P. [2d] 256)

Decided July 19, 1948.

Mr. H. Lawrence Hinkley, Attorney General, Mr. Duke- W. Dunbar, Deputy, Mr. George K. Thomas, Assistant, for the State.

' Mr. F. E. Dickerson, Mr. William F. Dwyer, for'defendant in error Harrah.

*469
      *In Department.*

Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes before us on motion of the Attorney General for advancement on the docket. In examining the record to that end, we find that no final judgment has been rendered and no determination of the issues made by the trial court, and that the sole question here presented for review is the propriety of an order of the trial court denying a motion for summary judgment interposed by the Attorney General in behalf of the state of .Colorado, as plaintiff, after answer filed in behalf of defendant. It further appears that subsequent to the denial of the motion, review of which is here sought, the Attorney General in behalf of the state of Colorado filed a further pleading as well as a motion in the trial court to have the case set for trial therein, which motion still stands without disposition.

Defendant in error, Harrah, although not filing a separate motion for dismissal of the writ of error herein, urges in his brief, that it should be dismissed. It is elementary that other than to orders of the kinds specifically enumerated in rule 111 R.C.P., a writ of error here lies only to a final judgment, and that questions with respect to other interlocutory orders may be presented only on review of the final judgment. We said in *Boxwell v. Greeley Union National Bank,*89 Colo. 574, 5 P. (2d) 868: “Doubtless it may be true that both parties upon this review desire to have this court determine the propriety of the order of the district court dismissing the action as against the bank. Under the almost unbroken line of decisions we cannot with propriety do so, because the order or judgment, which the plaintiff in error has brought up for review, is not a final judgment, but interlocutory, to which neither an appeal nor writ of error lies unless some statute expressly authorizes it, and we have no such p'ermissive *470statute in this state.” The order denying motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not subject to review. The federal court has specifically so held. *Jones v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,*108 F. (2d) 123.

Accordingly the writ of error is dismissed.

Mr. Chief Justice Burke and Mr. Justice Hays concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 573

 546

 626

 631

 644

 689

 665

 647

 663

 710

 720

 747

 719

 699

 727

 689

 707

 714

 746

 756

 814

 836

 873

 901

 795

 926

 930

 948

 944

 958

 933

 445

 451

 456

 462

 469

 486

 520

 524

 525

 544

 575

 570

 556

 559

 566

 512

 510

 551

 552

 566

 603

 617

 639

 687

 631

 711

 720

 722

 716

 709

 716

 482

 485

 515

 522

 543

 561

 572

 563

 571

 597

 616

 627

 614

 606

 615

 573

 583

 606

 617

 632

 680

 714

 737

 751

 733

 781

 783

 777

 791

 790

 787

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 242

 239

 230

 237

 237

 251

 275

 254

 253

 263

 266

 276

 277

 286

 296

 286

 289

 305

 294

 289

 282

 282

 286

 287

 289

 314

 312

 308

 304

 318

 317

 223

 224

 220

 218

 218

 225

 224

 228

 231

 238

 240

 245

 256

 264

 270

 273

 277

 272

 273

 259

 258

 255

 254

 267

 268

 269

 277

 288

 295

 297

 300

 228

 229

 226

 226

 228

 235

 239

 239

 239

 248

 249

 254

 263

 272

 277

 279

 282

 286

 284

 271

 268

 270

 273

 276

 276

 280

 288

 295

 300

 303

 308

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 4, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

FARRAR PARK AT DUTCH SLOUGH
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED
              PURSUANT TO ss.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


       In connection with the quarterly report of Spire Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the period ended March 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Roger
G. Little, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:   May 13, 2008                  By:  /s/ Roger G. Little
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Roger G. Little
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President


          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,
or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Daniel B. McCoy, Respondent, v. Gas Engine and Power Company and Others, Appellants and Respondents.

Motion granted on consents filed by all parties, and order signed. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20433-20434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8540]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 335]


Delegation of the Authorities of the Assistant Secretary of State 
for Administration to William H. Moser

    By virtue of the authority vested in me by the laws of the United 
States, including the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as 
amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), and Delegations of Authority 323 and 198, I 
hereby delegate to William H. Moser, to the extent authorized by law, 
all authorities vested in the Assistant Secretary of State for 
Administration, including authorities vested in the Secretary of State 
that have been or may be delegated to the

[[Page 20434]]

Assistant Secretary of State for Administration.
    Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary of 
State, the Deputy Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State for 
Management and Resources, the Under Secretary of State for Political 
Affairs, and the Under Secretary of State for Management may exercise 
any function or authority delegated herein.
    Nothing in this delegation of authority shall be deemed to 
supersede any other delegation of authority. This delegation shall 
expire upon the appointment by the President of an Assistant Secretary 
for Administration, unless sooner revoked.
    This delegation shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
Patrick F. Kennedy,
Under Secretary for Management.
[FR Doc. 2011-8540 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-35-P
(No. 73—CC—202

#### Sargent-Welch Scientific Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 15, 1973.*

Sargent-Welch Scientific Company, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*341Per Curiam.
### §§1070a–2 to 1070a–6. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–325, title IV, §401(i), July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 482

Section 1070a–2, Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, §411B, as added Pub. L. 99–498, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1313; amended Pub. L. 100–50, §3(b)(2), (c)–(f)(1), (4), (5), (g), June 3, 1987, 101 Stat. 337, 338; Pub. L. 102–54, §13(g)(1)(B), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 275, related to eligibility determination for dependent students.

Section 1070a–3, Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, §411C, as added Pub. L. 99–498, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1316; amended Pub. L. 100–50, §3(b)(3), (c)(1), (f)(2), (4), (5), (g), (h)(2), June 3, 1987, 101 Stat. 337, 338; Pub. L. 100–369, §7(c), July 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 837; Pub. L. 102–54, §13(g)(1)(C), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 275, related to eligibility determination for independent students with dependents other than a spouse.

Section 1070a–4, Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, §411D, as added Pub. L. 99–498, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1319; amended Pub. L. 100–50, §3(b)(4), (c)(1), (f)(3), (4), (g), June 3, 1987, 101 Stat. 337, 338; Pub. L. 100–369, §7(c), July 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 837; Pub. L. 102–54, §13(g)(1)(D), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 275, related to eligibility determination for single independent students or for married independent students without other dependents.

Section 1070a–5, Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, §411E, as added Pub. L. 99–498, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1322, related to regulations and updated tables.

Section 1070a–6, Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, §411F, as added Pub. L. 99–498, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1323; amended Pub. L. 100–50, §3(h)(1), (i)–(m), June 3, 1987, 101 Stat. 338, 339; Pub. L. 100–369, §7(a), (c), July 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 836, 837; Pub. L. 101–610, title I, §185(1), (2), Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3167, related to definitions and determinations.
#### William G. Kilhoffer, as Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., of C. B. Russell Company, a Bankrupt, Respondent, v. Charles B. Russell and Others, Appellants.

Judgment modified by reducing the amount of plaintiff’s recovery to an amount sufficient, with the amount now on hand and any amount plaintiff may realize on the judgment recovered against Ella M. RusseE to pay the $7,902.85 claims of creditors as proven and aEowed and the fees and reasonable expenses of plaintiff as trustee, and as so modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Settle order before Mr, Justice Foote on two days’ notice. A11 concurred.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 724

 731

 738

 748

 747

 742

 741

 733

 736

 713

 720

 721

 732

 721

 725

 703

 683

 690

 735

 745

 758

 757

 758

 764

 768

 778

 752

 700

 726

 707

 723

 584

 597

 511

 607

 595

 647

 615

 619

 570

 617

 535

 582

 572

 501

 447

 388

 519

 554

 560

 555

 577

 603

 594

 534

 579

 564

 518

 586

 536

 487

 528

 636

 640

 636

 666

 674

 679

 665

 674

 668

 665

 634

 623

 622

 610

 578

 535

 579

 598

 623

 629

 641

 665

 668

 657

 654

 666

 655

 641

 614

 608

 598

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 2, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
(No. 74-CC-500

#### Mobil Oil Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 17, 1974.*

Giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
### Part F—Certain Multiyear Grants and Contracts

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This part was, in the original, part J of title IX of Pub. L. 103–227 and has been designated part F of this subchapter for purposes of codification.
Exhibit 10.6

Effective December 21, 2010, the Board of Directors of National Bancshares
Corporation and David C. Vernon, President and Chief Executive Officer of
National Bancshares Corporation and its subsidiary, First National Bank,
have agreed to amend the terms of Mr. Vernon`s November 14, 2006 employment
agreement.

The term of the employment period was amended to continue until
December 31, 2012 and shall be automatically extended for one year
periods thereafter, unless Mr. Vernon receives written notice from the
Board of Directors on or before November 30, 2012 that the employment
period will end on December 31, 2012.

All provisions of the original employment agreement dated
November 14, 2006, other than the aforementioned amendment, shall remain
in full force and effect.
(December 22, 1947.)

#### Atlantic & Pacific Packing Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Isidore Weinstein, Doing Business as Weinstein’s Food Stores, Appellant.

Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [See 272 App. Div. 1073; *post,*p. 811.]
###### Editorial Note on Part 26

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear by T.D. ATF-451, 66 FR 21668, 21669, May 1, 2001.

#### § 26.192 Samples and analysis.

The chemist of the Treasury of Puerto Rico may take samples of the product to be shipped in order to determine that it is eligible for tax-free status.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-11306

Summary Calendar

ROYAL MAYNE HOPPER, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:00-CV-1490-E)

March 2, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Royal Mayne Hopper, Jr., federal prisoner #27844-048, contests

the dis missal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as meritless. On

double jeopardy grounds, Hopper’s petitio n attacks his 1993

criminal sentence, cont ending it was followed by the “civil

forfeiture” of his Social Security retirement benefits under 42

U.S.C. § 402(x)(1)(A)(i).

Hopper’s double jeopardy claim is premised on an error in the

imposition of his sentence, rather than in the manner in which his

sentence is being executed

. Therefore, the claim should have been

asserte d in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or2

correct the sentence. See C ox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr.

, 911

F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990) (“Section 2255 provides the primary

means of collateral attack on a federal sentence. Relief under

this section is warranted for any error that occurred at or prior

to sentencing. A petition under § 2241 attacking custody resulting

from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained only where the

petitioner establishes that the remedy provided for under § 2255 is

inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”

(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted)).

A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion must be filed in the district where

the sentence was imposed; Hopper’s was in the District of Nevada.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I. , 821 F.2d 1129,

1132 (5th Cir. 1987). Therefore, the district court lacked

jurisdiction to construe Hopper’s petition as a § 2255 motion. I d.

In the light of the foregoing, the judgment is AFFIRMED on the

ground that Hopper failed to state a claim for relief under § 2241.

See Sojourner T v. Edwards

, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992) (court

of appeals may affirm district court’s judgment on an y basis

supported by record), cert. denied , 507 U.S. 972 (1993).

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          18,381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,939)
<INVENTORY>                                     84,971
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               223,623
<PP&E>                                         303,840
<DEPRECIATION>                               (178,153)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 411,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,765
<BONDS>                                        112,598
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,895
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   411,666
<SALES>                                        496,940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               496,940
<CGS>                                          367,677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  367,677
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               103,320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,707
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,297
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,410
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,410
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.87
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 215

 211

 212

 211

 204

 198

 200

 214

 210

 220

 212

 192

 177

 184

 188

 191

 189

 185

 188

 185

 179

 168

 156

 133

 146

 148

 162

 167

 189

 191

 189

 193

 189

 183

 190

 189

 196

 180

 170

 170

 158

 168

 176

 177

 178

 173

 166

 174

 165

 157

 111

 114

 134

 138

 143

 154

 201

 199

 201

 201

 198

 192

 192

 203

 201

 204

 198

 183

 172

 179

 184

 186

 185

 178

 181

 179

 174

 161

 130

 122

 140

 142

 152

 160

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 11, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

GREENS LANDING ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Exhibit 99.3
 
 NEWS RELEASE
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    
    Contact:June 15, 2011
    
    Investor Relations(800) 536-7453
 Torch Energy Royalty Trust Announces the Effective Date of the Court Approved Settlement with
Derivative Unitholder Plaintiff and Constellation Energy Partners LLC
 Trust Venture
Company, LLC v. Constellation Energy Partners LLC
  About the Trust
  Forward-Looking Statements
###### Editorial Note on Part 27

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 27 appear by T.D. ATF-474, 67 FR 11231, Mar. 13, 2002, and T.D. ATF-479, 67 FR 30799, May 8, 2002.

#### § 27.31 Warehouse receipts covering distilled spirits.

The sale of warehouse receipts for distilled spirits is equivalent to the sale of distilled spirits. Accordingly, every person engaged in business as an importer of distilled spirits who sells, or offers for sale, warehouse receipts for distilled spirits stored in customs bonded warehouses, or elsewhere, must register and keep records as a dealer in liquors at the place where the warehouse receipts are sold or offered for sale, in accordance with part 31 of this chapter.

(26 U.S.C. 5121, 5122, 5123, 5124)
EXHIBIT
32




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 Crown Equity Holdings Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period from ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:




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 results of operation of the Company.





/s/
      Kenneth BosketKenneth
      BosketCEODated:
      January 31, 2011




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company  for
purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.







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 Crown Equity Holdings Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period from ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:




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 results of operation of the Crown
Equity.





/s/
      Lowell HoldenLowell
      HoldenCFODated:
      January 31, 2011




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Crown Equity  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.




2