alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LOWE v. UNITED STATES.

No. 14012.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

March 8, 1954.

Grace Lowe, Fairbanks, Alaska, in pro. per.

Theodore F. Stevens, U. S. Atty., George M. Yeager, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellee.

Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS and BONE, Circuit Judges.

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

In the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, an information against appellant was filed on May 7, 1953. The information was as follows:

> “The Assistant United States Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Division, District of Alaska, charges in this Information :

> “That on or about the 26th day of March, 1953, in the Fairbanks Precinct, Fourth Division and Territory of Alaska [appellant], then and there being, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully and knowingly obstruct the passage of mail by withholding and refusing to return to the Post Office at Fairbanks, Alaska, or to a duly authorized agent of the Post Office Department, a package addressed to Mrs. Eva Rodgers, said package having been delivered to the address of [appellant], after [appellant] had been requested and directed so to do, in violation of [18 U.S.C.A. § 1701] .”1

Appellant moved to dismiss the information. The motion was denied. Appellant pleaded not guilty, was tried, convicted and sentenced and has appealed. The question presented is whether the information charged an offense.

As indicated above, the information stated, in substance, that appellant unlawfully and in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1701 obstructed the passage of mail by withholding and refusing to return to the post office at Fairbanks or to a duly authorized agent of the Post Office Department the package mentioned in the information. That, however, was a mere statement of a conclusion of law. The information stated no fact or facts warranting the conclusion. It appeared from the information that the package *237was addressed to Mrs. Eva Rodgers, but it did not appear that the package was mailed to Mrs. Rodgers or anyone else. It appeared from the information that the package was delivered to appellant’s address, but it did not appear that the package was delivered by mail, or that it was ever in the mail, or that it ever constituted mail or mail matter. It appeared from the information that appellant was requested and directed to return the package to the post office at Fairbanks or to a duly authorized agent of the Post Office Department, but it did not appear that the package had ever been in any post office or in the custody, possession or control of the Post Office Department or any officer, agent or employee thereof.

We conclude that the information did not charge an offense and should have been dismissed.

Reversed and remanded for dismissal.

1

. Section 1701 provides: “Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs or retarda the passage of the mail * * * shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
Exhibit 15



Deposit Guaranty Corp.
Jackson, Mississippi

Gentlemen:

RE:  September 30, 1997 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

With respect to the subject  Quarterly  Report,  we acknowledge our awareness of
the use therein of our report  dated  October  21,1997  related to our review of
interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities  Act, such report is not considered
a part of a Registration  Statement  prepared or certified by an accountant or a
report  prepared or certified by an accountant  within the meaning of Sections 7
and 11 of the Act.

                                       Very truly yours,


                                        /s/KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                        ---------------------------
                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Jackson, Mississippi
November 14, 1997
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135338 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135338 

COA: 270699 

Saginaw CC: 04-024996-FH 

TIMMETH LEE GRAYS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 9, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

p0211 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk
#### Williams *vs.*McMichael.

[Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged m presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not oit in this case.]

On the 12th day of January, 1877, Mrs. McMichael rented to Williams a certain described lot of land for the year 1877, he promising in writing to pay her.as rent one fourth of all crops produced on the premises. He entered under the contract, and occupied until the middle of May, 1877, when his father-in-law (one Rogers) proceeded against him by affidavit (Code, §4072) as an intruder. Williams filed no counter-affidavit, nor did he give any notice to his landlady, but to the officer who came to evict him he acknowledged himself the tenant of Rogers. On these terms the officer agreed not to expel him, and did not in fact expel him, but made return on the affidavit that he had executed it by dispossessing him. Afterwards Williams rented the premises from Rogers.

On the 17th of April, 1878, Mrs. McMichael sued out a distress warrant against Williams for the rent, claiming one-fourth of the crops, according to the terms of the written contract, and fixing the value thereof at three hundred dollars. The warrant was levied and thereupon Wiliams made affidavit that the amount claimed was not due, in whole or in part. At the trial of this issue the facts above recited appeared in evidence, and the actual value of one-fourth of the crops was proved to be $189.07, the tenant himself being the only witness. The court charged the jury “ that such an eviction as shown was not such an eviction as would release the defendant from the payment of the rent due to the plaintiff.’’ The jury found for the plaintiff $189.07, the amount which the defendant himself testified that the one-fourth of the crop was worth.

*Held,*1. That without defending his possession or giving his landlady notice that it was attacked, the tenant could not treat himself as evicted, and attorn to another.

*Held,*2. That, in a civil case, where upon the widest and most favorable view that can be taken of the evidence, it presents no legal defense, the court may so instruct the jury as matter of law. So to charge is not to express or intimate an opinion as to what has or has not been proved, but to declare the legal effect of all that the defendant has attempted to prove, considering the whole as successfully established.

Bleckley, Justice.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11-18

                               DTE ENERGY COMPANY
                      BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                 OF COMMON STOCK


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months Ended March 31, 2000
                                               -------------------------------------
                                               (Thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                            <C>
BASIC:
     Net Income .............................               $116,861
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding (a) ...............                144,508
     Earnings per share of Common Stock
       based on weighted average number
       of shares outstanding ................               $   0.81

DILUTED:
     Net Income .............................               $116,861

     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding (a) ...............                144,508
     Incremental shares from assumed exercise
       of options ...........................                     27
                                                            --------
                                                             144,535
                                                            ========
     Earnings per share of Common Stock
       assuming exercise of options .........               $   0.81

</TABLE>

----------------------------
(a)      Based on a daily average.
### §404i–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 404i–1, comprising former section 114A of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3051 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
    THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THE
    CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) OF DOUGHTIE'S FOODS, INC. FOR
    THE THREE MONTHS  ENDED MARCH 29, 1997,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
    REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                                 358
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        6,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                           375
<INVENTORY>                                          3,753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    11,376
<PP&E>                                               6,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3,784
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      14,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,224
<BONDS>                                              3,082
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               998
<OTHER-SE>                                           7,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        14,464
<SALES>                                             18,692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    18,692
<CGS>                                               15,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       18,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        230
<INCOME-TAX>                                            86
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    144
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           144
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .14
        

</TABLE>
### §3221. Assignment of intelligence community personnel as language students

#### (a) In general

The Director of National Intelligence, acting through the heads of the elements of the intelligence community, may assign employees of such elements in analyst positions requiring foreign language expertise as students at accredited professional, technical, or other institutions of higher education for training at the graduate or undergraduate level in foreign languages required for the conduct of duties and responsibilities of such positions.

#### (b) Authority for reimbursement of costs of tuition and training

(1) The Director of National Intelligence may reimburse an employee assigned under subsection (a) for the total cost of the training described in that subsection, including costs of educational and supplementary reading materials.

(2) The authority under paragraph (1) shall apply to employees who are assigned on a full-time or part-time basis.

(3) Reimbursement under paragraph (1) may be made from appropriated or nonappropriated funds.

#### (c) Relationship to compensation as an analyst

Reimbursement under this section to an employee who is an analyst is in addition to any benefits, allowances, travel expenses, or other compensation the employee is entitled to by reason of serving in such an analyst position.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title X, §1021, as added Pub. L. 108–487, title VI, §612(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 3959.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 441m of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
### §4145. Application of other laws

To the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this subchapter, the following provisions of subchapter I and title I of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended [22 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.], shall apply to this subchapter: The first sentence of subsection (b) of section 4101 of this title, all of subsection (c) of section 4101 of this title and section 4109 of this title, and subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) of section 7 of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended [22 U.S.C. 1626].

(July 3, 1948, ch. 826, title II, §215, as added Pub. L. 87–846, title I, §103, Oct. 22, 1962, 76 Stat. 1112.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subchapter I, referred to in text, was in the original "title I of this Act", meaning title I of act July 3, 1948, ch. 826, 62 Stat. 1240, which is classified principally to subchapter I (§4101 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Tables.

The International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, referred to in text, is act Mar. 10, 1950, ch. 54, 64 Stat. 12. Title I of the Act is classified generally to subchapter I (§1621 et seq.) of chapter 21 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1621 of Title 22 and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 2017n of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
§ 550.116 How do I determine producibility if my well is in the Gulf of Mexico? If your well is in the GOM, you must follow either the procedures in § 550.115 of this subpart or the procedures in this section to determine producibility. ( a ) You must write to the Regional Supervisor asking for permission to determine producibility.
( b ) You must provide or make available to the Regional Supervisor, as requested, the following log, core, analyses, and test criteria that BOEM will consider collectively: ( 1 ) A log showing sufficient porosity in the producible section.
( 2 ) Sidewall cores and core analyses that show that the section is capable of producing oil or gas.
( 3 ) Wireline formation test and/or mud-logging analyses that show that the section is capable of producing oil or gas.
( 4 ) A resistivity or induction electric log of the well showing a minimum of 15 feet (true vertical thickness except for horizontal wells) of producible sand in one section.
( c ) No section that you count as producible under paragraph (b)(4) of this section may include any interval that appears to be water saturated.
( d ) Each section you count as producible under paragraph (b)(4) of this section must exhibit: ( 1 ) A minimum true resistivity ratio of the producible section to the nearest clean or water-bearing sand of at least 5:1; and
( 2 ) One of the following: ( i ) Electrical spontaneous potential exceeding 20-negative millivolts beyond the shale baseline; or
( ii ) Gamma ray log deflection of at least 70 percent of the maximum gamma ray deflection in the nearest clean water-bearing sand—if mud conditions prevent a 20-negative millivolt reading beyond the shale baseline.
Appeal No. 76-260.

#### Randall Engineering Corp. *v.*East Bay Associates, Inc. *et al.*

*Abedon & Visconti Ltd., Thomas W. Heald,*for plaintiff.

*Keenan, Rice, Dolan, Rear-don <& Kiernan, John W. Kershaw,*for defendant American Employers Insurance Company.

The plaintiff’s motion to affirm the judgment below pursuant to Rule 16(g) is denied.

Bevilacqua, C. J., not participating.
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H.

David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2119

___________

Andrew Jackson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 2, 2003

Filed: December 10, 2003 

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Jackson appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing as time-barred

his complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed the record and

the parties’ submissions on appeal, we conclude that dismissal was proper, because
-2-

the complaint was filed more than sixty days after Jackson’s attorney received notice

of the Commissioner’s final decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bess v. Barnhart, 337

F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (limitations period under § 405(g) is

triggered by notice received by either claimant or claimant’s attorney, whichever

occurs first).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
## EPA R eg . N o . 57787

- 27

( formerly 51708

- 11 )
ACCEPTED

04-15-00358-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

10/20/2015 8:33:50 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/20/15 8:33:50 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
#### In re TRICE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 24, 1905.)

In the matter of the application of Mann Trice for admission to the bar. No opinion. Application granted.
#### A & B Home Improvement Corp., Respondent, v. Hyman Artz, Appellant.

Order, entered on March 28,1962, denying motion to cancel and discharge plaintiff’s judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Special Term denied defendant’s application upon the ground that the relief sought was precluded by the -determinations in the prior proceedings between the parties. The situation presented was entirely different from that which had appeared before and the earlier determinations do not govern or control the determination here. The question now presented is whether the after-acquired judgment can he set off *606against plaintiff’s judgment -against defendant. Ordinarily this could be done, but here there are intervening rights of persons claiming liens against the judgment. Before the matter can be determined, these parties — the attorney who represented the plaintiff and the Federal Government, which filed a lien for -taxes — would have a right to be heard. Decision here is without prejudice to further proceedings for the same relief in. which these persons are made parties. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Exhibit 4.63
    
 
 
   1.
    
    The Borrowers desire to establish Shanghai Decheng Information & Technology Co., Ltd.
(the Company) whose registered capital will be RMB100,000, and Borrower A and Borrower B
will respectively hold 55% and 45% of the equity interest in the Company.
 2.
    
    The Borrowers desire to borrow a loan (the Loan) from the Lender to invest in the
Company.
 3.
    
    The Lender agrees to provide the Loan to Borrowers.




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



#####
### 1 

## Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Meeting Documentation : 3M Company

Date Staff Contact Information (Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all
attendees names and emails if possible) Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.) Written
Comments
Provided? Did they also
submit to
Docket? Date sent to

EPA

- CCD

November 8 , 2011
and January 4, 2012 Kirsten Cappel (202) 343

- 9556 cappel.kirsten@epa.gov 3M Company : Kurt Werner, Mike Parent, and Larry

Ennett.

EPA Climate Change
Division and EPA

contractors : Debbie Ottinger, EPA and Kirsten Cappel, EPA; Deb Harris, ICF. Discussed technical issues related to fluorinated heat transfer fluids, including uses of surfactants. NA NA
### §47122. Administrative

(a) General.—The Secretary of Transportation may take action the Secretary considers necessary to carry out this subchapter, including conducting investigations and public hearings, prescribing regulations and procedures, and issuing orders.

(b) Conducting Investigations and Public Hearings.—In conducting an investigation or public hearing under this subchapter, the Secretary has the same authority the Secretary has under section 46104 of this title. An action of the Secretary in exercising that authority is governed by the procedures specified in section 46104 and shall be enforced as provided in section 46104.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1275.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 47122(a) | 49 App.:2218(a). | Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97–248, §519(a), 96 Stat. 694; Dec. 30, 1987, Pub. L. 100–223, §112(1), 101 Stat. 1504. |
| 47122(b) | 49 App.:1354(c) (related to Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, §313(c) (related to Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982), 72 Stat. 753; Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97–248, §524(a)(2), 96 Stat. 696. |

Section

Subsection (a) is substituted for 49 App.:2218(a) to eliminate unnecessary words.