alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 32,818

#### *Anna*C. Humphrey, *Appellee,*v. S. B. Spencer, *Appellant.*

(57 P. 2d 15)

Opinion filed May 9, 1936.

*C. W. Reeder*and *Cy Leland,*both of Troy, for the appellant.

*Ralph U. Pfouts,*of Atchison, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

This was an action in ejectment. Plaintiff prevailed, and defendant appeals.

The facts were these: In 1929 defendant borrowed $2,500 from a bank in Atchison, giving his note and a mortgage on a 109-acre farm as security. The bank assigned the note and mortgage to plaintiff. Thereafter defendant made default in the payment of interest and taxes; and to avoid foreclosure he conveyed the farm to plaintiff by warranty deed, pursuant to a contemporaneous agreement between plaintiff and defendant to this effect:

Plaintiff agreed to lease the farm to defendant for about twenty-one months — -from January 25,1933, until November 1,1934 — without any rental charge, and that the defendant should have the option to repurchase the farm during that interval for $3,300, which was *913the approximate amount of out-of-pocket money as principal, interest and taxes the farm was costing the plaintiff. In this contract was the following recital:

> “It is mutually agreed and stipulated among the parties hereto that there is no indebtedness now owing from the said party of the second part [defendant] to the said party of the first part; that the option to purchase the above-named property on or before November 1, 1934, is definite and must be acted upon within that time by the party of the second part.”

Defendant did not take advantage of his option to repurchase and failed to vacate the premises at the end of the lease term, November 1, 1934.

On December 7, 1934, this action was begun. The petition stated the cause of action in the usual terms required in ejectment. The answer was a denial of plaintiff’s title. The facts were developed as stated above. Defendant adduced no defense, except the futile talking point that the note and mortgage had not actually been returned to him. He did not claim that he considered himself indebted to plaintiff in any amount whatsoever, and, of course, he was not. The quoted paragraph of his agreement was to the contrary. *(Hoyt v. National*Bank, 115 Kan. 167, 222 Pac. 127; *Jett & Wood Merc. Co. v. Keoneke,*141 Kan. 791, 44 P. 2d 199.) The. fact that the satisfied note and mortgage had not been surrendered to defendant was without significance in this case. It did not impair the binding force of defendant’s written agreement nor that of his deed conveying the farm to plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### William Prante, Guardian, v. Oscar Lompe, Guardian.

Filed June 22, 1905.

No. 14,298.

Error to the district court for Nemaha county: William H. Kelligar, Judge.

*Application for supersedeas denied.*

*H. A. Lambert*and *0. 0.*French, for plaintiff in error.

*F. Ferneau, Stull é Fawosby*and *W. F. BucJc, contra.*

Sedgwick, J.

' Upon application for that purpose the county court of Nemaha county made an order appointing a guardian for Harman Ray, as an incompetent person, and upon proceedings in error in the district court for that county this order was reversed and the cause was set down for trial in the district court. The parties interested, desiring to prosecute proceedings in error in this court to reverse the order of the district court, applied to that court for a supersedeas of its order, Avhich Avas refused; and the cause having been docketed in this court upon proceedings in error, application is made to this court for a supersedeas of the judgment of the district court. It is, of course, within the discretion of the district court to determine whether a supersedeas should be alloived. Rut this is a legal discretion, and where such supersedeas is refused, this court will in a proper case supersede the judgment of the district court upon proper terms. With this in view we have examined the record presented, and are satisfied that the district court properly exercised its discretion, *211When the judgment of the county court was reversed, and the cause set down for trial in the district court, the latter court became possessed of the cause, and application may be made to that court for such orders upon the parties interested as may be necessary to protect the property involved and the rights of all of the parties. The decision of the district court will, of course, be presumed to be correct until, upon the record, it is found to be otherwise, and this cannot be determined in this court before a final hearing. In the meantime the judgment of the district court is in full force, and there is no necessity for a supersedeas. The application is therefore

Overruled.
§ 49.700 Will a violation lead to forfeiture of a paleontological resource? ( a ) A paleontological resource related to a violation under this part is subject to forfeiture.
( b ) The bureau may either deposit forfeited resources into an approved repository, or transfer or assign administration of the forfeited resources to Federal or non-Federal institutions to be used for scientific or educational purposes.
§ 404.48 What process will Reclamation follow to determine if a feasibility study is ready for review? ( a ) Reclamation will evaluate whether the feasibility study adequately addresses all of the items required in Reclamation's standards for conducting a feasibility study, and is, therefore, ready for review. Reclamation standards and requirements for the content of a feasibility study are available at your local Reclamation office. Reclamation will notify you in writing of the outcome of this determination within 90 business days from the date of Reclamation's receipt of the feasibility study;
( b ) If the feasibility study does not include the required information, you will be notified in writing of the reasons why, and you will have an opportunity to make changes and re-submit the corrected feasibility study to Reclamation for additional review. Where appropriate, Reclamation will work with you to suggest approaches to correct the feasibility study;
( c ) Once Reclamation determines that the feasibility study includes all of the required information, Reclamation will review the study to determine, based on application of the criteria set forth in § 404.49, whether or not it is appropriate to recommend to Congress that it authorize construction of the project;
( d ) Reclamation's review of the feasibility study will take no longer than 180 business days from the date that Reclamation determines that the study includes all of the required information and is ready for review; and
( e ) Reclamation will document its findings in a feasibility report, as more fully described in section § 404.50.
§ 3120.12 Requirements. ( a ) Each BLM state office will hold sales at least quarterly if eligible lands are available for competitive leasing.
( b ) Lease sales will be conducted by a competitive auction process.
( c ) The BLM may issue a lease only to the highest responsible and qualified bidder. If a person does not pay the minimum monies owed the day of the sale, the BLM may refer that person to the Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector General, Administrative Remedies Division, for appropriate action, including potential suspension and debarment.
( d ) The national minimum acceptable bid will be as specified in § 3103.1 of this chapter and payable on the gross acreage and will not be prorated for any lands in which the United States owns a fractional interest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements together with the related footnotes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,157
<PP&E>                                          16,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 245,599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,020
<BONDS>                                        309,192
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                    (69,103)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   245,599
<SALES>                                          9,223
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,223
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    409
<INCOME-TAX>                                       143
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                266
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       266
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case Number: 20-21870-CIV-MORENO

(10-20800-CR-MORENO)

DERRICK HARRELL, 

Movant,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE

THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Jared M. Strauss, United States Magistrate 

Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, 

filed on May 5, 2020. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (D.E. 20) on 

November 30, 2020. The Court has reviewed the entire file and record. The Court has made a 

de novo review of the issues that the objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation present, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is 

ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Strauss’s Report and Recommendation is 

AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Accordingly, it is

ADJUDGED that Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence is DENIED for the 

reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees that Hobbs Act Robbery 

qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)’s elements clause, which forecloses 

relief in this case. United States v. St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335, 346, 351 (11th Cir. 2018),

abrogated in part on other grounds by United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). It is 

Case 1:20-cv-21870-FAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

further

ADJUDGED that no certificate of appealability issue.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 22nd of February 2021.

______________________________________

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

United States Magistrate Jared M. Strauss

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-21870-FAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2021 Page 2 of 2
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


World War I





Contact Us
  Contact Us
 contact webmaster
 Last updated: July 24, 2020
 Tools Calendar
Teachers
Site Index
Contact Us


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
#### Elizabeth Dwyer v. Louis Greenblatt.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 4.412 Statement of reasons; statement of standing; reply briefs. ( a ) An appellant must file a statement of reasons for appeal with the Board no later than 30 days after the notice of appeal was filed. Unless the Board orders otherwise upon motion for good cause shown, the text of a statement of reasons may not exceed 30 pages, excluding exhibits, declarations, or other attachments.
( b ) Where the decision being appealed relates to land selections under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended, the appellant also shall file with the Board a statement of facts upon which the appellant relies for standing under § 4.410(e) within 30 days after filing of the notice of appeal. The statement may be included with the notice of appeal filed pursuant to § 4.411 or the statement of reasons filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section or may be filed as a separate document.
( c ) Failure to file the statement of reasons and statement of standing within the time required will subject the appeal to summary dismissal as provided in § 4.402, unless the delay in filing is waived as provided in § 4.401(a).
( d ) The filing of a reply brief is discouraged. However, an appellant who wishes to file a reply brief may do so within 15 days after service of an answer under § 4.414. ( 1 ) The reply brief is limited to the issues raised in the answer.
( 2 ) Unless the Board orders otherwise upon motion for good cause shown, the text of a reply brief may not exceed 20 pages, excluding exhibits, declarations, or other attachments.
( e ) The requirements of § 4.401(d) apply to a statement of reasons and a reply brief.
[47 FR 26392, June 18, 1982, as amended at 67 FR 4368, Jan. 30, 2002; 75 FR 64666, Oct. 20, 2010; 88 FR 5793, Jan. 30, 2023]
§ 5511.3-8 Permits to mining claimants. ( a ) Free-use timber shall be granted under § 5510.0-3(b) to the record owner of a valid mining claim if such claim was located subsequent to July 23, 1955, or if the Government's right to manage the surface resources has been established in accordance with Group 3400 of this chapter, and he requires more timber than is available to him for prospecting, mining, or processing operations on his claim or claims after disposition of timber from his claim by the United States. The claimant shall be entitled to the free use of timber for such requirements from the nearest timber administered by the Bureau which is substantially equal in kind and quantity to the timber estimated by the authorized officer at the time of application to have been disposed of by the Bureau from the claim. Upon issuance of a patent to the mining claims, the free-use privilege will automatically terminate.
( b ) The application required to be filed for free-use timber under this section must contain a statement that the timber applied for will be used for *bona fide* prospecting, mining, or prospecting operations on the claim or group of claims designated in the application. The applicant must also include a statement that he is the record owner of a valid mining claim or claims from which the timber was originally removed by the Government.
### §272. Disposal of coal or domestic iron ore

Where the disposal of coal or iron ore is covered by section 631, no deduction shall be allowed for expenditures attributable to the making and administering of the contract under which such disposition occurs and to the preservation of the economic interest retained under such contract, except that if in any taxable year such expenditures plus the adjusted depletion basis of the coal or iron ore disposed of in such taxable year exceed the amount realized under such contract, such excess, to the extent not availed of as a reduction of gain under section 1231, shall be a loss deductible under section 165(a). This section shall not apply to any taxable year during which there is no income under the contract.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 82; Pub. L. 88–272, title II, §227(a)(3), (b)(3), Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 98.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1964—Pub. L. 88–272 inserted "or domestic iron ore" in section catchline, and "or iron ore" wherever appearing in text.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1964 Amendment

Pub. L. 88–272, title II, §227(c), Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 98, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending this section and sections 631, 1016, 1231, and 1402 and section 411 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare] shall apply with respect to amounts received or accrued in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1963, attributable to iron ore mined in such taxable years."
Date:

California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Enclosure A

Rules t hat we re Adopted and Amended by the Following

Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management District s

and a re Submitted a s Revisions to the

State of California Implementation Plan for Achieving

and Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

District Rule

Number Date Adopted

or

Amended Title

Antelope Valley

AQMD 701 0 4/15/14 Air Pollution Emergency

Contingency Actions

(amended)

Butte County

AQMD 101 0 4/24/14 Definition s (amended)

Butte County

AQMD 400 0 4/24/14 Permit Requirements

(amended)

Butte County

AQMD 401 0 4/24/14 Permit Exemptions

(a mended)

Butte County

AQMD 432 0 4/24/14 Federal New Source Review

(amended)

Butte County

AQMD 433 0 4/24/14 Rice Straw Emission

Reduction Credits (amended)California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Enclosure A (continued)

Rules t hat w ere Adopted, Amended , or Rescinded by the Following

Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts

and a re Subm itted As Revisions to the

State of California Implementation Plan for Achieving

and Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

District Rule

Number Date Adopted

or Amended Title

Feather River

AQMD 3.15 08/04/14 Architectural Coatings

(amended)

Feather River

AQMD 3.22 10/06/20 14 Stationary Internal

Combustion Engines

(amended)

Feather River

AQMD 3.8 06/02/14 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

(amended)

Feather River

AQMD 10.1 10/06/2014 New Source Review

(amended)

Feather River

AQMD 10.9 10/06/2014 Rice Straw Emission

Reduction Credits and

Banking

(amended)

2California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Enclosure A (continued)

Rules t hat w ere Adopted, Amended , or Rescinded by the Following

Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts

and a re Subm itted As Revisions to the

State of California Implementation Plan for Achieving

and Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

District Rule

Number Date Adopted

or Amended Title

Great Basin

Unified APCD 431 12/20/13 Particulate Emissions

(amended)

Mojave Desert

AQMD 464 06/23/14 Oil

- Water Separators

(amended)

San Joaquin Valley

APCD 4901 09/18/2014 Wood Burning Fireplaces and

Wood Burning Heaters

(amended)

San Luis Obispo

County APCD 222 05/28/14 Federal Emission Statement

(adopted)

Santa Barbara

County APCD 323.1 6/19/14 Architectural Coatings

(adopted)

3California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Enclosure A (continued)

Rules t hat w ere Adopted, Amended , or Rescinded by the Following

Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts

and a re Subm itted As Revisions to the

State of California Implementation Plan for Achieving

and Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

District Rule

Number Date Adopted

or Amended Title

South Coast AQMD 1130 5/2/14 Graphic Arts (amended)

4
```

[Federal Register: September 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 169)]
[Notices]               
[Page 53730-53731]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01se10-113]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7148]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Richard Hawkins--Third Mind''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Richard Hawkins--Third Mind,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also

[[Page 53731]]

determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the 
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, from on or about October 22, 
2010, until on or about January 16, 2011; at the Hammer Museum, Los 
Angeles, CA, from on or about February 13, 2011, until on or about May 
22, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 25, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-21842 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```