alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A. B. FRANK CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 14564.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 5, 1954.

*498Scott P. Crampton, Washington, D. C., Reagan Houston, III, San Antonio, Tex., Carl K. Goodson, Washington, D. C., of counsel, for petitioner.

Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., Harry Marselli, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles W. Davis, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Int. Rev., Claude R. Marshal, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Int. Rev., Melva M. Graney, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before BORAH and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Tax Court1 affirmed the determination of the Commissioner that A. B. Frank Company, the taxpayer, was not entitled to relief under section 722 of the Internal Revenue Code 2 with respect to excess profits taxes for the years 1941 to 1945, which it sought to have refunded. The decision was “Reviewed by the Special Division", as provided by subsection (d) of section 732 of the Internal Revenue Code.3 Taxpayer’s motions for reconsideration and vacation of the decision- were denied.

Petitioning for review here, taxpayer urges that the Tax Court erred in: (1) failing to permit it to assign errors to be heard by the Special Division: (2) in failing to make certain findings of fact, and (3) in failing to grant the relief sought. Petitioner’s assertion that it is entitled to resubmit and argue the case to the Special Division is answered by the decision in Green Springs Dairy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 4 Cir., 208 F.2d 471. This authority, and the provisions of section 732(c) of the Internal Revenue Code,4 require the rejection of petitioner’s claims of errors.

*499Petitioner calls our attention to proposed legislation which it is said may-remove these barriers to the prosecution of its claim, apparently seeking a delay in our decision until such legislation is enacted. We adjudge the case in the light of existing law, and, of course, without prejudice to any future procedure or rights which the Congress may in its discretion grant to petitioner or others similarly situated.

The decision of the Tax Court is Affirmed.

1

. 19 T.C. 174.

2

. Former section 722, Title 26, U.S.C.A.

3

. Former section 732(d), Title 26, U.S. C.A.

4

. Former section 732(c), Title 26, U.S. C.A.: “If in *the*determination of the tax liability nnder this subchapter the determination of any question is necessary solely by reason of * * * section 722, tbe determination of sucli question shall not be reviewed or redetermined by any court or agency except the Board.” George Kemp Real Estate Co. v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 182 F.2d 847, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 852, 71 S.Ct. 80, 95 L. Ed. 624.
#### § 77.600 Trailing cables; short-circuit protection; disconnecting devices.

Short-circuit protection for trailing cables shall be provided by an automatic circuit breaker or other no less effective device, approved by the Secretary, of adequate current-interrupting capacity in each ungrounded conductor. Disconnecting devices used to disconnect power from trailing cables shall be plainly marked and identified and such devices shall be equipped or designed in such a manner that it can be determined by visual observation that the power is disconnected.
#### T. S. Arthur, appellee, v. The Salvation Army, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,907.

Assumpsit for. breach of contract of employment. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G- Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division *607of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 17, 1923.

Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for appellant; Hlrseh E. Soble and Walter H. Moses, of counsel. George L. Reker and Thomas W. Reilly, for appellee.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.•
#### § 874.15 Limited liability.

No State or Indian tribe shall be liable under any provision of Federal law for any costs or damages as a result of action taken or omitted in the course of carrying out an approved State or Indian tribe abandoned mine reclamation plan. This section shall not preclude liability for costs or damages as a result of gross negligence or intentional misconduct by the State or Indian tribe. For purposes of this section, reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct shall constitute gross negligence or intentional misconduct.

[59 FR 28172, May 31, 1994]
Appeal No. 76-415.

#### John A. Adams *et al. v.*United Developers, Inc. *et al.*

*Breslin, Sweeney & Gordon, David F. Sweeney,*for plaintiffs.

*Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Robert W. Lovegreen,*for United Developers, Inc., *Manning, West, Santaniello & Pari, Joseph T. Pari,*for Prestige Homes, Inc., for defendants.

The defendants’ motion for an extension of time for filing their brief is denied as moot.
Order entered July 8, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00248-CV

ESTATE OF SAMSON HADIS ALEMAYEHU, Appellant

V.

ROBERT D. HEMPHILL, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-1377-3

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s July 3, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. 

Appellant shall file a brief on or before August 7, 2013.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### § 736.17 Consolidation of procedures.

The Director may consolidate public notices, hearings, opportunity for public comment and decisions on the promulgation, revision or termination of a Federal program for a State under this part, with public notices, opportunity for public comment and hearings on the approval, disapproval or withdrawal of a State program under 30 CFR parts 732 through 733.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, Bernard Kravitz, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dionics, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.





Dated:    July 14, 2008

By:

/s/ Bernard Kravitz

Bernard Kravitz,

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
§ 77.1006 Highwalls; men working. ( a ) Men, other than those necessary to correct unsafe conditions, shall not work near or under dangerous highwalls or banks.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, men shall not work between equipment and the highwall or spoil bank where the equipment may hinder escape from falls or slides.
( c ) Special safety precautions shall be taken when men are required to perform repair work between immobilized equipment and the highwall or spoil bank and such equipment may hinder escape from falls or slides.
Editorial Note on Part 817
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 817 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 817.106 Backfilling and grading: Previously mined areas. ( a ) Remining operations on previously mined areas that contain a preexisting highwall shall comply with the requirements of §§ 817.102 through 817.107 of this chapter, except as provided in this section.
( b ) The requirements of § 817.102(a) (1) and (2) requiring that elimination of highwalls shall not apply to remining operations where the volume of all reasonably available spoil is demonstrated in writing to the regulatory authority to be insufficient to completely backfill the reaffected or enlarged highwall. The highwall shall be eliminated to the maximum extent technically practical in accordance with the following criteria: ( 1 ) All spoil generated by the remining operation and any other reasonably available spoil shall be used to backfill the area. Reasonably available spoil in the immediate vicinity of the remining operation shall be included within the permit area.
( 2 ) The backfill shall be graded to a slope which is compatible with the approved postmining land use and which provides adequate drainage and long-term stability.
( 3 ) Any highwall remnant shall be stable and not pose a hazard to the public health and safety or to the environment. The operator shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, that the highwall remnant is stable.
( 4 ) Spoil placed on the outslope during previous mining operations shall not be disturbed if such disturbances will cause instability of the remaining spoil or otherwise increase the hazard to the public health and safety or to the environment.
[48 FR 41735, Sept. 16, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 41737, Nov. 18, 1986; 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017]
# C_2023340EN.01002201.xml

| 27.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/22

---

Special report 23/2023:

‘Restructuring and planting vineyards in the EU – Unclear impact on competitiveness and limited environmental ambition’

(2023/C 340/08)

The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 23/2023: ‘Restructuring and planting vineyards in the EU – Unclear impact on competitiveness and limited environmental ambition’.

The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/sr-2023-23

---
#### Luigi Rodriguez, Appellant, v 1705 *&*1715 Caton Associates et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 242]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated September 19, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*618Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“To recover damages from an owner of real property for injuries caused by the acts of criminals on the premises, a plaintiff must produce evidence indicating that the owner knew or should have known of the probability of conduct on the part of third persons which was likely to endanger the safety of those lawfully on the premises” *(Farrell v Vega,*303 AD2d 716, 716-717 [2003]; *see Jacqueline S. v City of New York,*81 NY2d 288, 294-295 [1993]). The defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s conclusory allegations as to prior robberies were patently insufficient to raise triable issues of fact regarding foreseeability *(see Sweeney v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*242 AD2d 569 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Skelos, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9857 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9857

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 
  higher education, as a condition of participation in programs under 
title IV of such Act, to establish a policy to award posthumous degrees 
         to certain deceased students, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 2024

 Ms. Velazquez (for herself, Mr. Tonko, Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick, and 
Mr. Espaillat) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 
  higher education, as a condition of participation in programs under 
title IV of such Act, to establish a policy to award posthumous degrees 
         to certain deceased students, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Mel's Law''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO AWARD POSTHUMOUS DEGREES.

    (a) Posthumous Degrees.--Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(30) The institution certifies that the institution has 
        established a policy to award posthumous degrees to deceased 
        students who--
                    ``(A) had been enrolled in a degree program at the 
                institution;
                    ``(B) died prior to completing such program; and
                    ``(C) at the time of death, were in academic 
                standing consistent with the requirements for 
                graduation from such program, as determined by the 
                institution.''.
    (b) Accreditation Criteria.--Section 496(a) of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b(a)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (8) as 
        paragraphs (7) through (9), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
            ``(6) the standards for accreditation of the agency or 
        association do not take into consideration the number of 
        posthumous degrees awarded by the institution to deceased 
        students;''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
effect on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
July 11, 1977.

M. P. No. 76-2.

#### Plantations Industrial Supply of Rhode Island *v.*William O’Brien.

*Aram K. Berberian,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, for defendant.

The plaintiff’s motion to sustain its appeal *because*of failure of defendant to file a brief is denied, since 'defendant’s brief was filed on May 2, 1977.
5100

5300

5600

5000

6000

6100

6000

5200

5200

5800

5000

5300

5700

6300

6100

5900

5200

5000

5900

5100

5900

6100

5900

5600

6000

5100

5100

6200

6100

5700

6000

5400

5200

5100

5800

6300

5700

5300

5500

6000

5100

6200

5000

5100

6200

5400

5100

5600

Whitewater Creek

Whitewater Creek

Whitewater Creek

Whitewater Creek

Whitewater Creek

Dick

Bass Tank

Chavez Tank

Saddle Tank

Trap

Tank

Whitetail Tank Bass Tank

Prospector Tank

Manzanita

Tank

Boyles

Tank

McKinney Tank

Edwards Tank

Been Tank

Robertson

Tank

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

San

Luis

Mountains

San

Luis

Mountains

Been Draw

T Pendleton

Ranch

Nations

Hut

W E Bass

Ranch

R I Bass

Ranch

Lang

Canyon Whitewater

Creek

San

Luis

Pass Fitzpatricks Hilo

Peak

Whitewater

Mountains

34

69

62

34

000

40'

100

2 7

63

31°

000m

7

15'

40'

19

30"

34

72

7 22

17'

34

68

000 FEET

34

42'

66

30"

25

N

7 15'

22'30"

61

34

18

37' 7

65

34

16

108°

7

67

34

45'

34

7

68

17

42'

000

FEET

34

34

7

15

7

470

30"

34

2 7

30"

108°

000m

67

61

73

60

30"

31°

34

7

34

E 7 22

34

34

24

N

34

7

20'

25

63

108°

66

21

20 000m

31°

16 22'

73

34

64

440

62

34

34

000 FEET 7 7

72

17'

34

130

15

34

70

31°

34

7

45' E

108°

19 000m

60

30"

71

23

17

64

7

71

21

FEET

20'

70

65

30" 23 7

34

34

20

37'

34

7

7

34

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

NEW MEXICO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

WHITEWATER CREEK, NM-CHH

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

WHITEWATER CREEK QUADRANGLE

NEW MEXICO-CHIHUAHUA

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 12R

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: New Mexico Coordinate System of 1983

(west zone)

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, May 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2009

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2001

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 12 ́

21 MILS

9° 43 ́

173 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

12R

YV

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

d0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

140791(20) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140791 

 COA: 295257 

Oakland CC: 2009-225678-FH 

DANIEL SOUSA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 2, 2010 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
§ 77.1706 First aid training program; minimum requirements. ( a ) All first aid training programs required under the provisions of §§ 77.1703 and 77.1704 shall include 10 class hours of training in a course of instruction similar to that outlined in “First Aid, A Bureau of Mines Instruction Manual.”
( b ) Refresher first aid training programs required under the provisions of § 77.1705 shall include 5 class hours of refresher training in a course of instruction similar to that outlined in “First Aid, A Bureau of Mines Instruction Manual.”
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1911
LINWOOD E. MOORING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY; ROBBIE HUDSON, official capacity; EARNIE MARSHABURN, official capacity; JOE NORRIS, official capacity; WOODY BOLTON, official capacity; GLORIA SCHWARTZ, official capacity; PAULA HUTCHINSON, official capacity; ROGER NOBLES, official capacity; ARTHUR G. HOWELL, JR., official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-62-4-H(3)) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 19, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linwood E. Mooring, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oregon Lawton, III, Associate Attorney General, Celia Grasty Lata, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Linwood E. Mooring appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 (2000), his criminal conspiracy claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 (2000), and his Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1962 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mooring v. East Carolina Univ. , No. CA-02-62-4H(3) (E.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED