alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Penn-Texas Corporation v. Murat Anstalt et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal from judgment entered December 7, 1959, granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before December 5, 1960, with notice of argument for the January 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Motion to dismiss appeal from order entered May 26, 1960, granted, with $10 costs. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

                    In the notice document announcing the “Procedures and Costs for Use of the Research Data Center,” appearing on page 67584 in the                     **Federal Register**                     issue of Thursday, November 18, 2004, the notice is amended to extend the comment period as follows:                 

                    On page 67584 under the                     **DATES**                     heading, change “December 9, 2004”, to “March 1, 2005.”                 

All other information in the document remains unchanged. 

Dated: December 8, 2004. 

James D. Seligman, 

Associate Director for Program Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

[FR Doc. 04-27514 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
SWEE TWATER
CARBON

8
g

HB Permitted Mining Activities

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

CHtéyenne
e:

62 R6IW_ 60

°
o
nN
3S
i
o
Q
o
©
So

100

Miles

Map 3-6

Permitted Mining Activities
§ 224.5 Review by the reviewing official. ( a ) If, based on the report of the investigating official under § 224.4(b), the reviewing official determines that there is adequate evidence to believe that a person is liable under § 224.3 of this part, the reviewing official shall transmit to the Attorney General a written notice of the reviewing official's intention to issue a complaint under § 224.7.
( b ) Such notice shall include— ( 1 ) A statement of the reviewing official's reasons for issuing a complaint;
( 2 ) A statement specifying the evidence that supports the allegations of liability;
( 3 ) A description of the claims or statements upon which the allegations of liability are based;
( 4 ) An estimate of the amount of money or the value of property, services, or other benefits requested or demanded in violation of § 224.3 of this part;
( 5 ) A statement of any exculpatory or mitigating circumstances that may relate to the claims or statements known by the reviewing official or the investigating official; and
( 6 ) A statement that there is a reasonable prospect of collecting an appropriate amount of penalties and assessments.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEHMAR GLADDEN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 161 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of August, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### NARINSKY v. FIDELITY SURETY CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Insueance—Action on Policy—Peodtjction of Books—Demand.

Failure of plaintiff, in an action on a fire policy on a stock of goods, to produce books and vouchers, may not be complained of, there having been no proper demand for their production.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 28, Cent. Dig. Insurance, §§ 1348, 1385.]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.

Action _ by Sarah Narinsky against the Eidelity Surety Company, as attorney in fact, and representing John W. Newberry and others, underwriters of the Eidelity Insurance Association, on a fire policy on a stock of goods. Erom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

W. E. Kisselburgh, for appellant.

Goldfogle, Cohn & Lind, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

Only one ground of error need be referred to, and that relates to the failure to produce books, papers, and vouchers. In the first place, there was' not a proper demand for their production, and, in the second place, their nonproduction was sufficiently excused. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER RE BRIEFING

SCHEDULE FOR MOTION

ON INTERLOCUTORY

APPEAL AND STAY

To the statement of issues, please add these questions:

3. Since Section 1292(b) requires that the certification be in the order in question,

isn’t it too late to entertain a Section 1292(b) appeal? Cite all authority.

4. If an interlocutory appeal is desirable, would a better approach be to sever the

Section 17200/1940 Act claim, proceed to a bench trial thereon, and enter a Rule

54(b) judgment, so that the entirety of the claim can go up on appeal?

Please invite the SEC to participate in the briefing, filing on the same schedule as

plaintiffs. Otherwise, the briefing schedule is approved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 571 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maryland Williams, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 14, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the first (two counts) and second degrees, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In view of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, we hold as harmless the error in the charge relating to the fact that 12 grand jurors had to agree to the indictment. This error should not be repeated. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20090

Summary Calendar

DAVID THOMAS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

C. ZAKHORIA, Houston Police Officer; C. ROZEK, Houston Police Officers;

M. CHAPNICK, Houston Police Officer,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CV-3251

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Plaintiff-Appellant David Thomas, Jr. filed this action against Houston

police officers and others alleging use of excessive force in arresting him in the

restroom of a Whataburger restaurant. The case was tried before a jury which

returned a verdict in favor of Defendants-Appellants, and the district court

entered a take-nothing judgment dismissing Thomas’s action. Proceeding pro

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 24, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 10-20090 Document: 00511422554 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2011
No. 10-20090

se and in forma pauperis on appeal, Thomas contends only that the jury verdict

was against the great weight of the evidence and that it should be reversed and

his case remanded for a new trial.

Our review of the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and

the applicable law, convinces us that there is no basis for our reversing the

verdict of the jury or the judgment of the district court entered pursuant thereto.

Accordingly, that judgment is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-20090 Document: 00511422554 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2011
#### § 221.14 Transferability of Guarantee; Note Register.

A Noteholder may assign, transfer or pledge an Eligible Note to any Person. Any such assignment, transfer or pledge shall be effective on the date that the name of the new Noteholder is entered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement. A.I.D. shall be entitled to treat the Persons in whose names the Eligible Notes are registered as the owners thereof for all purposes of this Guarantee and A.I.D. shall not be affected by notice to the contrary.
#### § 151.4 Minimum limits for motor vehicle insurance.

The insurance shall provide not less than $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident for bodily injury liability and $100,000 per incident for property damage or $300,000 combined single limit for all bodily injury liability and property damage liability arising from a single incident, except where the Director of the Office of Foreign Missions grants a special exception.

[54 FR 24555, June 8, 1989]
### §§2995 to 2995c. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519

Section 2995, Pub. L. 88–452, title IX, §901, as added Pub. L. 92–424, §27(a), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 704; amended Pub. L. 93–644, §12, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2328; Pub. L. 95–568, §17(a)(42), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2443, related to program and project evaluation.

Section 2995a, Pub. L. 88–452, title IX, §902, as added Pub. L. 92–424, §27(a), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 704; amended Pub. L. 93–644, §12, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2329; Pub. L. 95–568, §17(a)(43), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2443, related to cooperation and consultation with other Federal agencies.

Section 2995b, Pub. L. 88–452, title IX, §903, as added Pub. L. 92–424, §27(a), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 704; amended Pub. L. 93–644, §12, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2329, related to evaluation by other Federal agencies.

Section 2995c, Pub. L. 88–452, title IX, §904, as added Pub. L. 95–568, §16, Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2439, set forth authorization of appropriations.

A prior section 2995c, Pub. L. 88–452, title IX, §904, as added Pub. L. 92–424, §27(a), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 705, which provided for the publication of summaries of evaluations of the results of research, was omitted as superseded in the general reorganization and amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 93–644, §12, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2327.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 9912(a) of this title, prior to the general amendment of chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title by Pub. L. 105–285.
# Delegation of Certain Reporting Authority

# Memorandum for the Secretary of Agriculture

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the functions conferred upon the President by section 13 of Public Law 806, 80th Congress (15 U.S.C. 714k), to provide the specified report to the Congress. 

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 04-27469

Billing code 3195-01-P
#### In the Matter of the Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner. Joshua S. Sparrow, Respondent.

Motion by respondent (1) for reconsideration of this court’s determination made July 20, 1977 which resulted in an order of said date that directed that respondent be disbarred and his name struck from the roll of attorneys and (2) to modify the punishment by reducing same to a suspension for a period of years. Motion denied. Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Gulotta, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

September 3, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00445

- CV

ESTATE OF DELFINA E. ALEXANDER , Deceased

From the County Court at Law No

. 2

, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- PBA

- 000133

- L2 Honorable Jesus Garza , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Costs are assessed against the party that incurred them.

It is so ORDERED on September 3, 2014

.

_____________________________ Sandee Br yan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of September, 2014

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
### §274f–5. Criteria, standards, and regulations with respect to organs infected with HIV

#### (a) In general

Not later than 2 years after November 21, 2013, the Secretary shall develop and publish criteria for the conduct of research relating to transplantation of organs from donors infected with human immunodeficiency virus (in this section referred to as "HIV") into individuals who are infected with HIV before receiving such organ.

#### (b) Corresponding changes to standards and regulations applicable to research

Not later than 2 years after November 21, 2013, to the extent determined by the Secretary to be necessary to allow the conduct of research in accordance with the criteria developed under subsection (a)—

(1) the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network shall revise the standards of quality adopted under section 274(b)(2)(E) of this title; and

(2) the Secretary shall revise section 121.6 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations).

#### (c) Revision of standards and regulations generally

Not later than 4 years after November 21, 2013, and annually thereafter, the Secretary,1 shall—

(1) review the results of scientific research in conjunction with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to determine whether the results warrant revision of the standards of quality adopted under section 274(b)(2)(E) of this title with respect to donated organs infected with HIV and with respect to the safety of transplanting an organ with a particular strain of HIV into a recipient with a different strain of HIV;

(2) if the Secretary determines under paragraph (1) that such results warrant revision of the standards of quality adopted under section 274(b)(2)(E) of this title with respect to donated organs infected with HIV and with respect to transplanting an organ with a particular strain of HIV into a recipient with a different strain of HIV, direct the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to revise such standards, consistent with section 274 of this title and in a way that ensures the changes will not reduce the safety of organ transplantation; and

(3) in conjunction with any revision of such standards under paragraph (2), revise section 121.6 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations).

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §377E, as added Pub. L. 113–51, §2(b), Nov. 21, 2013, 127 Stat. 580.)

1 So in original. The comma probably should not appear.
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Kroll Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael G. Cherkasky,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 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.


/s/ Michael G. Cherkasky
----------------------------
Michael G. Cherkasky
Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2003


A signed original 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.
1The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1960

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Andrew W. Luster, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: July 5, 2000

 Filed: July 12, 2000

___________

Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Luster challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

convictions for witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1), and witness

retaliation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b)(2), for which the district court1

sentenced him to concurrent terms of ten years imprisonment and three years

supervised release.
-2-

Upon de novo review, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

government and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the jury’s verdict, we

conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Luster’s convictions. See United

States v. Grimaldo, Nos. 99-1517/2177, 2000 WL 709498, at *6 (8th Cir. June 2,

2000) (standard of review). It is reasonable to infer from the evidence presented that

either Jimmy or Jerry Johnson--who knew that Luster’s victim had agreed to testify

against Jimmy--conveyed the information to Luster, Jimmy’s close friend. It is also

reasonable to infer from the timing of Luster’s attack (the month before Jimmy’s trial)

and his repeated statements to the victim (“Why are you snitching on my homey” and

“Why are you testifying against my homey, you snitch”) that his purpose was to

prevent her from testifying against Jimmy and to retaliate against her for cooperating

with law enforcement in Jimmy’s case. See United States v. Jackson, 204 F.3d 812,

814 (8th Cir. 2000) (conviction may rest on indirect or circumstantial evidence, without

direct evidence).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### §14334. Limitations on sale of button cell mercuric-oxide batteries

No person shall sell, offer for sale, or offer for promotional purposes any button cell mercuric-oxide battery for use in the United States on or after May 13, 1996.

(Pub. L. 104–142, title II, §205, May 13, 1996, 110 Stat. 1336.)
### §§300p to 300p–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–79, title II, §201(a), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 630

Sections 300p to 300p–3, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XVI, §§1610–1613, as added Jan. 4, 1975, Pub. L. 93–641, §4, 88 Stat. 2262–2264; amended Apr. 22, 1976, Pub. L. 94–278, title XI, §1106(b), 90 Stat. 416; Aug. 1, 1977, Pub. L. 95–83, title I, §§103(a), 106(w), 91 Stat. 383, 385, were repealed by Pub. L. 96–79, title II, §201(a), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 632.

Section 300p related to allotments to States for health resources development.

Section 300p–1 related to payments to States for approved medical facility projects.

Section 300p–2 related to compliance provisions and withholding of payments for noncompliance.

Section 300p–3 authorized appropriations for allotments to States.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 204 of Pub. L. 96–79, set out as an Effective Date of 1979 Amendment note under section 300q of this title.
#### John Milton Oliver, appellee, v. Dollie F. Leitch and Olive Leitch, appellants.

Gen. No. 27,149.

Action to recover the balance due on a promissory note against the makers by an assignee for value before maturity. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1921.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 18, 1922.

Coburn & Bentley, for appellants. John L. Vette, for appellee.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §§2921 to 2923. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519

Section 2921, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §501, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 527; Pub. L. 89–794, title V, §501(a), Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1466; Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §107(d), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 714; Pub. L. 93–644, §8(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2300, set forth short title for this subchapter as "Headstart-Follow Through Act".

Section 2922, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §502, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 527; Pub. L. 89–253, §25, Oct. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 977; Pub. L. 89–794, title V, §501(a), Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1466; Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §107(d), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 714; Pub. L. 93–644, §8(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2300, set forth Congressional statement of purpose for Project Headstart.

Section 2923, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §503, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 528; Pub. L. 89–253, §30(d), Oct. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 979; Pub. L. 89–794, title V, §501(a), Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1466; Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §107(d), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 714; Pub. L. 93–644, §8(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2300, set forth Congressional statement of policy with respect to migrant and Indian children.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 9912(a) of this title, prior to the general amendment of chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title by Pub. L. 105–285.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-913 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Communications 

 Memorandum of Understanding between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and URUGUAY 

Signed September 13, 2006 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
URUGUAY 

Defense: Communications 

Memorandum of understanding signed 

 September 13, 2006; 

 Entered into force September 13, 2006.