alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

I n R e : Dolores Narvaez, Luis Narvaez,

Eduardo Velarde, Jose Juan Velarde,

Julieta Duran, Luz Magdalena Escobar and

Jose Antonio Velarde Juarez

,

Re lator s

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 1 33

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

The Court has considered Rel a tor s ’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinio n

that the case should be set for submission without oral argument. A submission date has not yet

been determined. The parties will be provided with advanced notice of the setting. See

Tex.R.App.P. 39.8

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25 th day of September , 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM
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

DAY HIGH

 24,215

 23,146

 23,166

 23,724

 22,933

 21,163

 20,452

 21,003

 20,002

 19,058

 20,064

 20,858

 22,695

 24,865

 23,704

 21,104

 19,465

 20,481

 20,071

 18,774

 17,409

 17,493

 18,818

 19,356

 20,532

 21,516

 21,596

 21,893

 21,891

 22,186

 8,410

 7,754

 7,096

 6,534

 6,246

 6,359

 7,020

 8,639

 8,549

 8,158

 7,927

 7,381

 6,779

 7,897

 7,065

 5,183

 4,851

 6,013

 7,048

 6,786

 7,394

 7,780

 7,632

 7,872

 8,370

 7,700

 8,364

 6,864

 6,352

 6,046

 15,796

 15,142

 14,762

 14,340

 14,271

 12,928

 13,746

 14,925

 14,247

 13,396

 12,899

 13,468

 14,021

 15,679

 14,053

 12,428

 12,003

 13,013

 13,840

 12,750

 12,563

 12,774

 13,241

 13,381

 13,665

 14,352

 14,090

 13,699

 13,371

 13,565

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 3, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
#### William B. Reid, Appellant, v. The Medical Society of the County of Oneida, Respondent. George C. Reid, Appellant, v. The Medical Society of the County of Oneida, Respondent. J. Orley Stranahan, Appellant, v. The Medicial Society of the County of Oneida, Respondent. John E. Groff, Appellant, v. The Medical Society of the County of Oneida, Respondent.

Judgment, in each case, affirmed, with one bill of costs. Held, that the actions were prematurely brought. All concurred.
LOGO

EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

We
hereby consent to the references to our firm, in the context in which they appear, and to the information regarding our reserves estimates of Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. (the "Company") as of
December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2006, and to our audit of the reserve estimates as of December 31, 2007, included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008, as well as in the notes to the financial statements included therein.

We
also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-152311) and the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-138704 and 333-144878) of the references to our firm, in the context in which they appear, and to the information regarding our
reserves estimates of the Company as of December 31, 2008, and December 31, 2006, and to our audit of the reserve estimates as of December 31, 2007, included in the Company's
Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as well as in the notes to the financial statements included therein.

NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:

/s/ C.H. (SCOTT) REES III, P.E. C.H. (Scott) Rees III, P.E.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Dallas,
Texas
March 10, 2009

---



QuickLinks
19–008 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–400 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE BILL (H.R. 3630) TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR THE CREATION OF JOBS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2012.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 554] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 554, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of the conference report 

to accompany H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011. The resolution waives all points of order against 

the conference report and against its consideration. The resolution 

provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Finally, the resolution provides that the previous question shall be 

considered as ordered without intervention of any motion except 

one hour of debate and one motion to recommit if applicable. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against the conference report 

and its consideration includes the following: 

• Clause 9 of rule XXII, which prohibits the inclusion of 

matter in a conference report not committed to the conference 

by either House; 

• Clause 10 of rule XXI, which prohibits the consideration of 

a bill if it has the net effect of increasing mandatory spending 

over the five- or ten-year period; 

• Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation providing new budget authority in excess of a committee’s 302(a) allocation of such authority; 

• Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation that would cause revenues to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

be less than the level of total revenues set forth in the concurrent resolution on the Budget; • Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction of the 

Budget Committee unless reported by the Budget Committee; 

and • Section 13302(a) of the Budget Enforcement Act, which 

prohibits consideration of legislation that would provide for a 

net increase in Social Security benefits or decrease in Social 

Security taxes in excess of .02 percent of the present value of 

future taxable payroll for a 75-year period or in excess of 

$250,000,000 for the first five-year period after the legislation 

becomes effective. 

If the conference report is considered on Friday, February 17, 

2012, the waiver of all points of order also includes a waiver of 

clause 8(a)(1) of rule XXII, which prohibits the consideration of a 

conference report until the third calendar day on which the conference report has been available in the Congressional Record. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-440-CV

EX PARTE JAMES A. TENNIAL

	----------

	FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the “Motion To Dismiss Appeal” filed by the Appellant, the Texas Department of Public Safety.   It is the court's opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).  

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

								PER CURIAM	

PANEL D: WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: March 30, 2006
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 ELEV

 221.96

 222.03

 221.91

 221.53

 220.83

 220.93

 219.38

 219.39

 219.98

 219.90

 220.73

 221.04

 221.02

 221.60

 220.53

 221.02

 220.70

 220.03

 221.66

 221.22

 220.36

 218.56

 219.34

 219.12

 219.02

 219.39

 220.26

 220.53

 219.74

 219.65

 219.38

 48,282

 48,464

 48,150

 47,152

 45,315

 45,577

 41,554

 41,579

 43,100

 42,893

 45,054

 45,865

 45,813

 47,336

 44,531

 45,813

 44,975

 43,230

 47,493

 46,338

 44,088

 39,473

 41,451

 40,889

 40,635

 41,579

 43,827

 44,531

 42,480

 42,248

 41,554

STORAGE

-2,311

+182

-314

-998

-1,837

+262

-4,023

+25

+1,521

-207

+2,161

+811

-52

+1,523

-2,805

+1,282

-838

-1,745

+4,263

-1,155

-2,250

-4,615

+1,978

-562

-254

+944

+2,248

+704

-2,051

-232

-694

CHANGE

2,626

2,358

2,173

2,080

1,515

1,031

886

791

756

1,272

1,749

2,201

2,618

2,571

2,903

2,843

2,803

2,683

2,405

1,763

1,223

991

1,526

965

522

486

509

474

1,112

1,588

1,833

PUMPING

 1,343

 235

 409

 409

 566

 590

 878

 934

 418

 417

 678

 857

 1,134

 816

 1,468

 776

 798

 1,225

 814

 1,528

 1,324

 2,065

 801

 1,115

 2,340

 1,721

 1,765

 1,737

 4,029

 2,243

 2,133

PUMPING

 5,499

 4,704

 4,733

 4,708

 3,617

 2,739

 3,768

 2,435

 2,213

 2,727

 2,210

 3,754

 4,274

 4,274

 6,323

 4,240

 5,331

 5,543

 2,854

 4,042

 4,050

 4,844

 1,737

 2,157

 1,714

 587

 0

 0

 355

 1,813

 1,789

PUMPING

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

GEN.

*

-365

-41

+16

-110

-374

+326

-274

+15

+198

-166

-97

-261

-314

-123

-74

-162

-101

-170

-422

+176

-267

+143

-124

-154

-43

-48

-95

-92

+228

+167

-503

OR

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL O'NEILL FOREBAY April 1, 2009

DAILY OPERATIONS

MARCH 2009 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE GEN.

ACRE-FEET O'NEILL

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -9,039 51,256 0 99,034 37,566 -3,111

ACRE-FEET -9,039 101,666 0 196,434 74,512

SUMMARY

 0

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

O'NEILL GEN. 0

SAN LUIS PUMP 196,434 0

 50,593

DOS AMIGOS PUMP 74,512

DELIVERIES 

S. LUIS O'NEILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 155

 1,085

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,240

 2,460

CALIF. DOS AMIGOS

AQUEDUCT

3,415

2,713

2,795

2,645

2,116

2,104

2,005

2,576

2,444

1,934

2,326

3,080

3,078

3,410

3,548

2,981

3,005

3,375

3,835

3,049

3,284

3,448

2,134

2,022

2,362

2,347

2,484

1,710

2,011

2,185

2,243

 82,664

 163,964

S. LUIS

DELIV.

GAINS(+)

LOSS(-)

C.F.S.

INFLOW - C.F.S

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

TOTAL 270,946

-6,171

* DAILY DEL. FIGURES UNAVAILABLE. TOT. DEL. IS INCLUDED IN COMPUTING MONTHLY TOTALS
#### Anna M. Healy, Respondent, v. William J. Healy and Michael C. Healy, as Executors, etc., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 70

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29022-29030, May 29, 2001.

#### § 70.422 Registration of manufacturers of nonbeverage products.

For provisions regarding the registration of persons claiming drawback on distilled spirits used in the manufacture of certain nonbeverage products, see part 17 of this chapter.

[T.D. TTB-79, 74 FR 37424, July 28, 2009]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30065

Summary Calendar

 

MARIO McKINLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TERREBONNE PARISH SHERIFF

DEPUTIES, ET AL.,

Defendants,

BRYAN BOUGARD, Deputy;

PHILIP PITRE, Deputy;

DR. SPENCE; JERRY LARPENTER,

Sheriff; ROBERT BERGERON,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-2735-F

- - - - - - - - - -

July 11, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Mario McKinley has filed an application for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the district court's

dismissal of some, but not all, of the defendants in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Because McKinley has since paid the

filing fee, his IFP motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
No. 01-30065

-2-

McKinley does not address whether the district court’s order

was final and thus appealable. This court must examine the basis

of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. See Mosley

v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). 

In a case involving multiple defendants, a district court’s

order is “final” only if: (1) it adjudicates all the claims of

all the parties, or (2) the court expressly determines that there

is “no just reason for delay” and directs entry of judgment under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Riley v. Wooten, 999 F.2d 802, 804 (5th

Cir. 1993)(citation omitted). 

The order appealed from was not certified under Rule 54(b)

and does not fall into the specific class of orders listed in 28

U.S.C. § 1292(a). The order is therefore not final, and this

court is without jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, the

appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

McKinley’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel and

court-appointed counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw as counsel

are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being reasserted before the

district court. 

IFP MOTION DENIED AS MOOT; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEW

COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; APPEAL DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL LORENZO MORRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-94-46, CA-99-772-7)

Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 30, 2001

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Michael Sacks, SACKS & SACKS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lorenzo Morris seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). 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 on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Morris, Nos. CR-94-46; CA-99-

772-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2001). 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
###### Editorial Note on Part 13

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 13 appear by T.D. ATF-449, 66 FR 19085, Apr. 13, 2001.

#### § 13.53 Appeal of notice of revocation.

Within 45 days after the date of receipt of a notice of revocation by operation of law or regulations, the certificate holder may file a written appeal with the appropriate TTB officer. The appeal should set forth the reasons why the certificate holder believes that the regulation or law at issue does not require the revocation of the certificate.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, DC 20549
 
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): July 18, 2011
  Packaging Corporation of America
  Delaware
    
    1-15399
    
    36-4277050(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 1900 West Field Court, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045
 (847) 482-3000
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2 (b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2 (b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4 (c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4 (c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02. Results of Operations and Financial Condition.
   Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
  99.1
    
    Second Quarter 2011 Earnings Press Release dated July 18, 2011.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA(Registrant)By:
    /s/   MARK W. KOWLZANChief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/  RICHARD B. WESTSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
479 P.2d 766

#### Edward S. IKELMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Leeta Mae IKELMAN, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

No. 9013.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 18, 1971.

Toulouse, Moore & Walters, Larry D. Beall, Albuquerque, for appellant.

Gallagher & Walker, Albuquerque, for appellee.

OPINION

COMPTON, Chief Justice.

Appellant appeals from a judgment denying her petition to vacate a judgment in a divorce proceeding. The decree, which included a separation agreement executed by the parties hereto, was entered on October 27, 1967. On September 26, 1968, appellant filed a petition to set aside the decree on the grounds that the agreement was tainted with fraud and that the decree had been fraudulently obtained. At a hearing, the trial court denied the petition but modified the decree as to allow appellant alimony of $100.00 per month. The appellant appeals and the appellee cross-appeals.

Appellant contends (a) that the trial court erroneously failed to divide the community property equitably between the parties and (b) that the trial court erred in not finding that the divorce decree and separation agreement had been fraudulently obtained.

 We are unable to review the cause on the merits as no record of the hearing before the trial court was made, except the testimony of the appellee. A litigant seeking review of a ruling of the trial court has the duty to see that a record is made of the proceedings he desires to have reviewed. Section 21-2-1(14) (1) and (3), N.M.S.A. 1953; Westland Development Co. v. Saavedra, 80 N.M. 615, 459 P.2d 141; Barnett v. Cal M Inc., 79 N.M. 553, 445 P.2d 974. We have carefully searched what record there is and find nothing that would tend to support the appellant’s contentions.

In his cross-appeal appellee contends that the trial court erred in awarding alimony to appellant. What we have said with regard to the appellant is equally applicable to appellee; the record fails to show that the action of the trial court in awarding *263alimony wás improper. See Scanlon v. Scanlon, 60 N.M. 43, 287 P.2d 238.

The judgment should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

TACKETT and OMAN, JJ„ concur.
No. 21308.

#### Jerry Arthur Woods, *v.*The People of the State of Colorado.

(397 P.2d 871)

Decided December 28, 1964

*213Bruce Ownbey, for plaintiff in error.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, Jon P. Moore, Assistant, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Frantz

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Woods was charged in an information with “wilfully, knowingly and unlawfully” selling at retail, serving and distributing “a quantity of malt liquor as defined by the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1953, 75-2-4, namely twenty-four bottles of Coors beer to Richard Earl Erickson and to diverse other persons, to the complainant herein unknown, without being licensed so to do by the State of Colorado in violation of C.R.S. 1953 75-2-3 . . .” Section 75-2-4 has to do with malt liquor of more than 3.2% alcohol by weight. To the charge, Woods pled not guilty.

At the trial, there was testimony of a transaction between Woods and Erickson involving “four six-packs” of Coors beer. This was the only testimony relating to the subject of the transaction. The evidence is mute regarding the alcoholic content of this beer.

Motions to dismiss for lack of proof, filed at the conclusion of the People’s case and at the conclusion of the defense, were denied. Failure of proof of the offense charged is now urged by writ of error as ground for reversal.

Our General Assembly treated, as a separate subject of regulation, fermented malt beverages having 3.2% or less of alcohol by weight. C.R.S. ’53, 75-1. Malt liquor containing “more than three and two-tenths per cent *214alcohol by weight” was regulated in another and distinctive manner. C.R.S. ’53, 75-2. The General Assembly thus legislatively recognized two kinds of malt drinks, dealt with them separately and differently, and made it clear that they are cognate but disjoined subjects of legislation. *Big Top, Inc., v. Schooley,*149 Colo. 116, 368 P.2d 201.

The evidence in this case merely showed that the liquor involved was beer. It failed to disclose, however, on which side of the 3.2% of alcohol, by weight, it was. The court should not assume an alcoholic content under such circumstances which would place Woods in violation of C.R.S. ’53, 75-2. *DuVall v. Augusta,*115 Ga. 813, 42 S.E. 265.

“The burden was on the State to show” that the beer contained “more than 3.2 per cent alcohol by [weight], as was alleged in the information . . .” *Crosby v. State,*97 Okl. Crim. 46, 257 P.2d 847. “Where the statute makes the character of beverages sold the substance of the offense, such character must be proved by the state.” *State v. Patton,*297 S.W.2d 19 (Mo. App.). In the Patton case the court considered statutes which had “divided malt beverages into three classifications.”

In his brief the Attorney General has conceded that the evidence is fatally deficient in that it fails to make any showing of the alcoholic content of the beer involved. Our perusal of the record in this case reveals the propriety of this concession.

The judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 13 , 20 1 1

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 11

- 00 699

- CR

____________
MARIO ROBERTO BONILLA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1287154



### MEMORANDUM OP IN ION

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal in th is case , personally signed by
appellant, has been filed with this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2. Because this Court

has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant = s request.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the Clerk of the Court to
issue the mandate of the Court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally.

Do Not P ublish

C T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)
### **CHAPTER 25—MISCELLANEOUS ANTI-DRUG ABUSE PROVISIONS**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—ANTI-DOPING AGENCY

Sec.
2001.
Designation of United States Anti-Doping Agency.
2002.
Records, audit, and report.
2003.
Authorization of appropriations.
2004.
Information sharing.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—NATIONAL METHAMPHETAMINE INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE

2011.
Definitions.
2012.
Establishment of clearinghouse and advisory council.
2013.
NMIC requirements and review.
2014.
Authorization of appropriations.
Editorial Note on Part 70
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29022-29030, May 29, 2001.

§ 70.606 Claimant to furnish proof. The claimant shall furnish proof to the satisfaction of the appropriate TTB officer regarding the following: ( a ) That the tax on the liquors, or the tax and duty if imported, was fully paid; or the tax, if not paid, was fully determined.
( b ) That the liquors were lost, made unmarketable, or condemned by a duly authorized official, by reason of damage sustained as a result of a disaster or other cause of loss specified in this subpart.
( c ) The type and date of occurrence of the disaster or other specified cause of loss, and the location of the liquors at the time.
( d ) That the claimant was not indemnified by a valid claim of insurance or otherwise for the tax, or tax and duty, on the liquors covered by the claim.
( e ) That the claimant is entitled to payment under this subpart.
#### Belle Koehler, Respondent, v. The Village of Albion, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.