alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

 ___________

 No. 96-1478

 ___________

Jewell Miller, Opal Miller, *

*

Plaintiffs/Appellees, *

*

Jewell Miller Trust, Trustees, *

Betty Ann Wooten and Carrie *

Simmons, *

*

Intervenor/Plaintiffs,*

*

v. *

*

Betty Ann Wooten, Carrie *

Simmons, *

*

Defendants/Appellants,*

*

William Johnson, *

*

Defendant. *

 ___________ Appeals from the United States

 District Court for the

 No. 96-1805 Western District of Arkansas.

 ___________ [UNPUBLISHED]

Jewell Miller, Opal Miller, *

*

Plaintiffs/Appellants,*

*

Jewell Miller Trust, Trustees, *

Betty Ann Wooten and Carrie *

Simmons, *

*

Intervenor/Plaintiffs,*

*

v. *

*

Betty Ann Wooten, Carrie *

Simmons, William Johnson, *

*

Defendants/Appellees. *

___________
 The HONORABLE JOHN R. TUNHEIM, United States District Judge 1

for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge 2

for the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-

 Submitted: December 12, 1996

 Filed: March 18, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District 1

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with a thorough, comprehensive memorandum opinion, the

district court entered a judgment setting aside a trust into which the

2

substantial assets belonging to the appellees, two elderly sisters, had

been placed and ordering the appellants, distant cousins of the appellees,

to return the property to the appellees. The judgment also awarded

compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, as well as

appointing a receiver/commissioner to collect and preserve the assets. In

addition, the judgment dismissed the appellees’ claim based upon the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961. It

is from this portion of the judgment that the appellees have filed a crossappeal.

Although the appeal and cross-appeal present some interesting issues,

we conclude that because of the fact-bound nature of the case an extended

opinion would have no precedential value. Suffice it to say that we find

no clearly erroneous findings of fact nor any error of law in the district

court’s decision, and thus we affirm the judgment on the basis of the

district court’s memorandum 
-3-

opinion. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
RE: Requested Materials - Capacity Factor Information 

 RobertJ Wayland 

 to: Higgins, Cortney 

 11/22/2011 05:14 PM 

 Cc: Bill Maxwell 

 

Cortney - 

Here is the information we provided at proposal. Please not we have not 

revisited this issue since that time, so this materials does not 

represent any new information/input. 

thanx! 

bob 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

 

Phone: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

********************************************************* 

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

********************************************************* 

Baseline_Emissions_Estimates_EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-2986[1].xlsx 

Response_to_03_04_2011_Interagency_comments_EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3003[1].doc 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 11/22/2011 03:43 PM 

Subject: RE: Requested Materials - Capacity Factor Information 
Hi Bob, 

Thanks. I've looked through my files and can't find the area source 

list/sheet -- can you resend? 

Thanks, 

Cortney 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov 

[mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 3:48 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Requested Materials - Capacity Factor Information 

Cortney - 

This is the first of five emails providing some of the information you 

requested last week. To try and reduce confusion, I am not resubmitting 

the area source information because nothing has changed on this issue 

since the two files we provided at proposal. If you can't find that 

information, just let me know and I'll resubmit that information to you 

as well. Call either Bill or me if you have any questions. 

thanx! 

bob 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs 

Division Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711 

Phone: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

********************************************************* 

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

********************************************************* 

(See attached file: Oil Boilers_cap factor_102811.xlsx) 

(See attached file: Coal_Boilers_cap factor_111711.xlsx)
Exhibit 11.1

CYANOTECH CORPORATIONCOMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE  Fiscal years ended March 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000

2002

2001

2000BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARENet loss

$
(2,589,000
)
$
(1,067,000
)
$
(4,485,000
)Undeclared Preferred Stock dividends








(237,000
)Net loss attributable to Common stockholders

$
(2,589,000
)
$
(1,067,000
)
$
(4,722,000
)Weighted average Common Shares outstanding


17,033,000


15,997,000


13,775,000Net loss per Common Share

$
(0.15
)
$
(0.07
)
$
(0.34
)


For
the years ended March 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, warrants and options to purchase Common Stock shares of the Company were outstanding, but were not included in the 2002, 2001
and 2000
computation of diluted net loss per common share because the inclusion of these securities would have had an antidilutive effect on the net loss per common share.

During
the years ended March 31, 2002 and 2001 convertible debentures were outstanding, but were not included in the computation of diluted net loss per common share because the
inclusion of these instruments would have had an antidilutive effect on the net loss per common share.

During
the years ended March 31, 2001 and 2000, convertible preferred stock was outstanding, but was not included in the 2001 and 2000 computation of diluted net loss per common
share because the inclusion of these securities would have had an antidilutive effect on the net loss per common share.

---

QuickLinks
#### WRIGHT, Appellant, v. MAERKLE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 15, 1905.)

Action by George S. Wright against Balthasar -Maerlde and another.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

HOOKER, J., not voting.
# C_2008022EN.01000302.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-393/05) (1)

1

(Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 - Organic production of agricultural products - Private inspection bodies - Requirement of an establishment or permanent infrastructure in the Member State where the services are provided - Justifications - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Article 55 EC - Consumer protection)

(2008/C 22/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Requirement for inspection bodies in the field of organic production of agricultural products which are approved in another Member State to have a place of business or permanent infrastructure in Austria

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by requiring of private inspection bodies of organically-farmed products approved in another Member State that they maintain an establishment in Austria in order to be able to provide inspection services there, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by requiring of private inspection bodies of organically-farmed products approved in another Member State that they maintain an establishment in Austria in order to be able to provide inspection services there, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

1

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R I C HA R D B E RNA R D, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74526 A ge nc yN o. A 071- 781- 322 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R i char d B ernard, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I nd i a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of a B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ors us pe ns i on of

de port a t i on a s aba tt e r e d s pous e , a nd de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED MA R 25 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74526 2 un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence the agency’ s f ac tual d et erm i n at i o n s, H

erna ndez v . A s h c r o

ft , 345 F . 3d 824, 832 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , a nd f or abus e of di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, S i n g h v . I NS , 295 F . 3d 1037, 1 0 3 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S u b s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e B I A ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t B e rn a r df a ile dto e s tab lis h h e w a s b a tte r e do rs u b je c t to e x tr e m e c ru e ltyb yh is f o rm e rs p o u s e . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( r e p e a le d1 9 9 6 ) ; cf . H erna ndez , 3 4 5 F .3 da t 8 4 0 - 4 1 . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g B e rn a r d ’s m o tio n to re op en, because hi s new evi dence addres se d o nl y har dshi p res ul t i ng fr om re m ov al and d i d n otaddres s the di sposi t i ve fi nd i ng thatB ernard fai l ed t o sho w he had b ee n s u b j e c t e dt o e x tr e me c ru e l tyo rb a tt e ry , a n dh e th e r e f o r e c o u l dn o te s t ab l i s h p r i ma f a c ie e lig ib ilityf

o rs u s p e n s io n o f

d e p o rta tio n a s ab a tte r e ds p o u s e . Se e Si ngh , 295 F .3 da t 1 0 3 9 ( T h e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n s h a ll b e r e v e r s e dif it is

“ arbi trary , i rr at i on al , or contraryt o l aw . ”) . PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
1 

### Hunt, Jeff

From: CALKINS Larry <CALKINS.Larry@deq.state.or.us> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:01 AM To: Spenillo, Justin Subject: Revision to Klamath Falls Transportation Conformity in PM2.5 Attainment Plan SIP Attachments: KFalls Plan - transportation conformity final.docx

Justin, Thank you for helping us change the conform ity section to improve our Klamath Falls Attainment SIP submittal. Attached is the change to the Conformit y Section we would like replaced in the Plan. If th ere is anything further you need please let me know.

As we discussed; 1. Only the 2014 MVEB is applicable to the attainment plan, 2. Only the 24-hour budget will be used for conformity purposes, 3. The MVEB is based on attainment in 2014, and 4. AP-42 was used for road dust calculations and MOVES for road dust calculations was improperly cited in the plan.

Sincerely,

Larry Calkins 541-278-4612, 503-752-9374(c)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 July 10, 2015

t0706

Order 

Clerk

July 10, 2015

150181

KAEE JOHNSON, DAMON JOHNSON, JANET

MARIE KUNTZ, JANET MCCASLAND, and

TIM MOHAN,

Petitioners-Appellants,

v SC: 150181

COA: 320708

State Tenure Comm: 13-000003

PONTIAC SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2014 

order 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.

BERNSTEIN, J., would grant leave to appeal.
#### § 228.13 Disturbances on protected property.

Any conduct which impedes or threatens the security of protected property, or any buildings or persons thereon, or which disrupts the performance of official duties by Agency employees, or which interferes with ingress to or egress from protected property is prohibited. Also prohibited is any disorderly conduct, any failure to obey an order to depart the premises, any unwarranted loitering, any behavior which creates loud or unusual noise or nuisance, or any conduct which obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways or parking lots.
#### § 77.807 Installation of high-voltage transmission cables.

High-voltage transmission cables shall be installed or placed so as to afford protection against damage. They shall be placed to prevent contact with low-voltage or communication circuits.
#### § 274.9 Delegation of authority to the Secretary of the Treasury.

There is hereby delegated to the Secretary or Acting Secretary of the Treasury the authority, in the name of and title of the Secretary of the Treasury, to invite bids under this memorandum, to issue, modify and revoke public notices, notices, and announcements concerning such bids, to prescribe additional terms and conditions with respect thereto, consistent with this memorandum, to receive, return, open, reject, and accept bids, and to take such other actions as may be necessary and proper to execute this delegation of authority to implement this memorandum, excluding, however, the issuance of guaranties under § 274.4.
#### In the Matter of Michele J. Marzullo et al., against Stephen P. Kennedy, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al.

Motion for leave to appeal on the original record and upon typewritten petitioners’ points denied, with leave, however, to renew on a proper affidavit of merits. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                 OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE OF SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            JURISDICTION OF
ENTITY                                                                       INCORPORATION
------                                                                      ---------------
<S>                                                                         <C>
Serologicals Corporation                                                        Delaware
     -   Serologicals Finance Company                                           Delaware
         -   Serologicals License Company                                       Delaware
                 -   Serologicals Royalty Company                               Delaware
     -   Serologicals Proteins, Inc.                                            Delaware
     -   Serologicals Limited                                                   Scotland
     -   Serocor Incorporated                                                   Delaware
         -   Serologicals Biodiagnostics, Inc.                                  Massachusetts
         -   Intergen Biomanufacturing Corporation                              Delaware
                       -   Serologicals Biomanufacturing Corporation            Ontario, Canada
     -   Serologicals Lawrence, Inc.                                            Delaware
     -   Serologicals Research Products, Inc.                                   Delaware
                 -   Chemicon International, Inc.                               California
                       -   Chemicon Australia Pty.                              Australia
                 -   Chemicon Europe Ltd.                                       United Kingdom
                       -   Cymbus Biotech Ltd.                                  United Kingdom
</TABLE>
#### § 1698.8 Effect of advisory opinion.

The Selective Service System will not take action with respect to any person concerning whom the Director has issued an advisory opinion insonsistent with that advisory opinion.
§ 1656.4 Alternative Service Office: jurisdiction and authority. ( a ) Jurisdiction over the ASW will be transferred from the area office immediately after his classification in Class 1-W to the ASO that administers the Alternative Service Program in the area in which he is assigned to perform alternative service.
( b ) The ASO shall: ( 1 ) Evaluate and approve jobs and employers for Alternative Service;
( 2 ) Order the ASW to report for alternative service work;
( 3 ) Issue such orders as are required to schedule the ASW for job interviews;
( 4 ) Issue such orders as are required to schedule the ASW for job placement;
( 5 ) Monitor the ASW's job performance;
( 6 ) Issue a certificate of satisfactory completion of the ASW's Alternative Service obligation;
( 7 ) Return the ASW to the jurisdiction of the area office from which he was directed to perform Alternative Service; and
( 8 ) Perform such other actions the Director may authorize as necessary to administer the Alternative Service Program.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1253 

Reaffirming that the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute 

and does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. BIGGS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Reaffirming that the United States is not a party to the 

Rome Statute and does not recognize the jurisdiction 

of the International Criminal Court. 

Whereas the Constitution requires approval from two-thirds 

of the Senators present for ratification and confirmation 

of international treaties; 

Whereas President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute on 

December 31, 2000, but did not submit the treaty to the 

Senate for ratification; 

Whereas, on May 6, 2002, the Bush administration announced that the United States does not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International 

Criminal Court; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 1253 IH 

Whereas Article 125 of the Rome Statute states that it is 

‘‘subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval by signatory States’’; 

Whereas, on May 20, 2024, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, took unprecedented measures announcing arrest warrant applications 

for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant; 

Whereas the United States and Israel are not parties to the 

Rome Statute or members of the International Criminal 

Court; and 

Whereas the United States does not recognize the legitimacy 

or jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) reaffirms that the United States is not a 

3 party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize 

4 the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court; 

5 (2) condemns the International Criminal 

6 Court’s issuance of arrest warrant applications for 

7 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and 

8 Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant; and 

9 (3) reiterates its unwavering support for the 

10 State of Israel and its right to defend itself and its 

11 leaders from unwarranted international legal actions. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
##### 



EXHIBIT 12 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED
FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
(In thousands, except ratios)
(Unaudited)  (a)
    
    Computation of ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred
stock dividends (including CMO debt): Year Ended December 312003
    
    2002
    
    2001
    
    2000
    
    1999Fixed charges
    
    $
    62,859
    
    
    $
    169,148
    
    
    $
    362,327
    
    
    $
    540,605
    
    
    $
    502,933Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    20,273
    
    
    
    20,362
    
    
    
    20,446
    
    
    
    24,260
    
    
    
    22,556Combined fixed charges and
preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    83,132
    
    
    $
    189,510
    
    
    $
    382,773
    
    
    $
    564,865
    
    
    $
    525,489Fixed charges
    
    $
    62,859
    
    
    $
    169,148
    
    
    $
    362,327
    
    
    $
    540,605
    
    
    $
    502,933Net income (loss)
    
    
    60,659
    
    
    
    96,123
    
    
    
    106,276
    
    
    
    (51,486
    )
    
    
    57,909$
    123,518
    
    
    $
    265,271
    
    
    $
    468,603
    
    
    $
    489,119
    
    
    $
    560,842Ratio of earnings to combined
fixed charges and preferred
stock dividends
    
    
    1.49:1
    
    
    
    1.40:1
    
    
    
    1.22:1
    
    
    
    0.87:1
    
    
    
    1.07:1
  (b)
    
    Computation of ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred
stock dividends (excluding CMO debt): Year Ended December 312003
    
    2002
    
    2001
    
    2000
    
    1999Fixed charges
    
    $
    28,933
    
    
    $
    53,079
    
    
    $
    164,422
    
    
    $
    303,126
    
    
    $
    232,852Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    20,273
    
    
    
    20,362
    
    
    
    20,446
    
    
    
    24,260
    
    
    
    22,556Combined fixed charges and
preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    49,206
    
    
    $
    73,441
    
    
    $
    184,868
    
    
    $
    327,386
    
    
    $
    255,408Fixed charges
    
    $
    28,933
    
    
    $
    53,079
    
    
    $
    164,422
    
    
    $
    303,126
    
    
    $
    232,852Net income (loss)
    
    
    60,659
    
    
    
    96,123
    
    
    
    106,276
    
    
    
    (51,486
    )
    
    
    57,909$
    89,592
    
    
    $
    149,202
    
    
    $
    270,698
    
    
    $
    251,640
    
    
    $
    290,761Ratio of earnings to combined
fixed charges and preferred
stock dividends
    
    
    1.82:1
    
    
    
    2.03:1
    
    
    
    1.46:1
    
    
    
    0.77:1
    
    
    
    1.14:1