alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eugene A. Kleila, Respondent, v. Eugene T. Kleila et al., Appellants.

In an action seeking, in substance, a decree that plaintiff is the owner of one half of the fee of certain premises, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 17, 1963 and entered in Queens County on April 19, 1963, which denied their motion: (a) to dismiss the amended complaint upon the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; or (b), in the alternative, to strike out certain paragraphs of said amended complaint upon the ground that the allegations are irrelevant and prejudicial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (cf. *Muller*v. *Sobol,*277 App. Div. 884, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 301 N. Y. 815; *Pagano*v. *Pagano,*2 A D 2d 756, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 2 3ST Y 2d 708; *Zirn*v. *Bradley,*269 App, Div. 961). Defendant’s time to answer the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00045-CR

Christopher Bradley Young, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 71001, THE HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant Christopher Bradley Young guilty

of evading detention with a vehicle, see Tex. Penal Code § 38.04, and, pursuant to the repeat

offender provision of the Penal Code, assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice for five years, see id. § 12.42(a).

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of

Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there

are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);

Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

81–82 (1988).
Appellant’s counsel has represented to this Court that she sent copies of the motion

and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro

se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State,

436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant

requested access to the appellate record, and pursuant to this Court’s order the clerk of the trial court

provided written verification to this Court that the record was provided to appellant. See Kelly,

436 S.W.3d at 321. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response or requested an extension of

time to file a response.

We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no reversible error. 

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious

grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The

judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: September 17, 2014

Do Not Publish

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7432

FRANKLIN CHARLES SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

KENNETH STOLLE, Virginia Beach Sheriff,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:13-cv-00479-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: December 21, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin Charles Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Charles Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Smith’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel is 

denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 
4

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          69,501
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,758
<INVENTORY>                                    145,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,370
<PP&E>                                         232,017
<DEPRECIATION>                                 151,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,268,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          231,017
<BONDS>                                        275,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,873
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,531)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,268,300
<SALES>                                        208,171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,171
<CGS>                                           89,608
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               172,691
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (73,522)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,787)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (71,735)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 10,659
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,394)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### BRIGHTSON, Respondent, v. H. B. CLAFLIN CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 22, 1903.)

Action by George E. Brightson against the H. B. Claflin .Company.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted.
### §450b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 450b was editorially reclassified as section 2279i of this title.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 450b, Pub. L. 89–106, §2, Aug. 4, 1965, 79 Stat. 431, which related to research grants, duration, records, and audit, was transferred to section 450i of this title, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as section 3157 of this title.
IN IT I AL REVI E W ENG I NEERI NG R EPORT P MN : 15 - 0559 Focus R eady Draft 7/20/20 1 5

c u shi o n s , Iso exib l e foams for a u to seat ing MW/5 = 1700 ( r epresentati ve , as d r awn w i th i s a compone n t o f f l exib l e f oam f or a ircra f t a prepo l yme r f o r adhesives , coat ings , cast 5 t ermi ni) . Anal seat ing . Anal og elastomers , an t h anes . OTHER U S ES : Analog i s a n adhesive component for r ubbe r t o metal og P s a hot and a co l d c ure adh es i ve . A n a l og i s a b e used i n t h e react i o n i nject i on mo l ding r the manu factu re o f po l yureth ane exter i o r a u tomo t ive pane l s .Consumer Us e : No SAT (concern s) ( 0 7 / 1 3/ 2 0 1 5) : Re l ated A

n a l ogs : Migrat i PBT ra ti ng : P 3 B 1 T l P l Bl T l ( PMN) ; P3 B 1 T l (Hyd Pd t ) H

ea l t h : 1 - 2 Dermal , I n h a l a t ion Eco : 1 No releases to wate rOCCU PAT I ONAL EXPOSURE RAT I NG : l A NOTES & KEY ASSUMPT I ONS :

POLLUTION PREVENT I ON CONS I D ERAT I ONS : No Po l lut i o n Prevent i o n i nformation p r ov i ded by t he s ubmitter . EXPOSURE -B AS E D REVIEW: NoIN IT I AL REVI E W ENG I NEERI NG REPORT PMN : 15 - 0559 Use : Po l yure t ha n e Foam f or Automot i ve Seating Numbe r o f Si t e s/ Location : 1 Fr imo , Inc Wixton M I 48393 Days/y r : 250

ENV I RONMENTAL R ELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

OCCUPAT I ONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot . # o f wo r ke r s exposed via a ss e ss ed rou t es : 8 Bas i s : The s ubmi ssion est i ma te s up to 8 workers po t entiall y exposed .I n ha l a ti on : n eg li gib l e expec t ed f rom

Dermal : Expos ure to Li q u id at 18 . 00% concentrati on H

igh End : r m i s t ge n erat i o n no t

> Po t en t ia l Dose Ra t e : 4. 0E + 2 mg/day ove r 250 days/yr > Lifetime Ave r age Da il y Dose : 2 . 3 E+ O mg/day over 250 days/yr >Ave r age Dai l y Dose : 4 . 0E+O mg/day over 250 days/yr > Acu t e Pote n t i al Dose : 5 . 8 E+ O mg/day over 250 days/y r N

u mbe r o f wo r ke r s (a ll s i tes) with de r ma l expos ure : 8
-82 -80 -78 -76

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.50 N 76.81 W Meters AGL
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 15.5

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-111310
and File No. 333-10570) of our report dated March 1, 2004, on the consolidated
financial statements of A.M.T. Advanced Metal Technologies Ltd. appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. for the year
ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.
Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
June 21, 2004
###### Editorial Note on Part 842

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

#### § 842.123 Scope of this subpart.

This subpart tells how to make an advance payment before a claim is filed or finalized under the Military Claims, Foreign Claims and National Guard Claims Acts.

[81 FR 83701, Nov. 22, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          63,008
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,138
<PP&E>                                         222,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 411,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          311,739
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        73,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   411,046
<SALES>                                        402,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               441,384
<CGS>                                          428,316
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  651,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (210,598)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (210,598)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.86)
        

</TABLE>
#### Chevis Terry, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 809]

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from (1) a decision of the Court of Claims (Scuccimarra, J.), dated October 26, 2005, made after a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated November 18, 2005, which, upon the decision, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

Where, as here, a case is tried without a jury, this Court’s power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the trial court, “taking into account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” *(Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492,. 499 [1983] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; *see Letterese v State of New York,*33 AD3d 593 [2006]). The trial court’s determination in this case rests in large measure upon its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, and we find no reason to disturb it *(see Tornheim v Kohn,*31 AD3d 748 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         315,376
<SECURITIES>                                 1,662,334
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,142
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,034,420
<PP&E>                                         675,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                 601,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,658,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          283,293
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        94,483
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,268,001
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,658,665
<SALES>                                        142,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               734,747
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               234,376
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                500,371
<INCOME-TAX>                                   172,106
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            328,265
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   328,265
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Marion Asch, as Trustee of Trusts Created under the Will of Sarah R. Mednick, Deceased, Appellant, v. Hortense W. Gabel, *775as Administrator of the New York City Rent and Rehabilitation Administration, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, with costs to appellant, determination of the respondent, City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator, in the matter of the fixing of the maximum rents for the subject premises, annulled, the Administrator directed to recompute and adjust rent increases on the basis of depreciation allowances of 2% of the valuation of the building, and the matter remanded to the Administrator for such purpose. The Administrator concedes that the decision in this case should accord with the court’s ruling in *Matter of Klorfein*v. *Gabel*(21 A D 2d 773). See memorandum decision therein. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Staley, JJ.
) . 0"" . \ 

'" ~· ,·"' e- I 

~~ .. ~) '""i'\ .A ;.:/ ·3:P IJ.t•·tl ,,
#### Pan-Chin Chou, Appellant v Tommy Sha-Sen Chou, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*for divorce, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 23, 1978, as, upon her motion, *inter alia,*for temporary alimony, (1) awarded her only $75 per week as temporary alimony and child support, (2) directed that payment thereof begin on the date of the order, rather than the date of her motion, (3) denied her an interim counsel fee, and (4) failed to give her an opportunity for disclosure of the defendant husband’s finances. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. A review of the record on appeal indicates no abuse of discretion by the limited award made and in the denial of a counsel fee. Plaintiff’s remedy lies in a speedy trial (see *Schwartz v Schwartz,*59 AD2d 905). Regarding disclosure, it appears that at this juncture plaintiff should have obtained whatever disclosure she thought necessary. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### Jane Ruth SEYMOUR et al., Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY as represented by Dr. T. Marshall Hahn, President, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 70-C-52-R.

United States District Court, W. D. Virginia, Roanoke Division.

May 14, 1970.

*555Robert P. Dwoskin, Roanoke, Va., for plaintiffs.

Walter Ryland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmand, Va., for defendant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT

DALTON, Chief Judge.

The simple question is whether over 100 students at V.P.I. can by sheer force take over and occupy a college building. The answer in the Western District of Virginia is an emphatic No, and this should be the answer in every nook and corner of America where a college is located. If students, in the name of dissent, can take over one building, they can take over and close the institution.

This court desires to fully preserve the right of peaceful and orderly dissent, but at the same time it will not overturn the decisions of the college administration in suspending from school those who seek by force to thwart not only the operation of the institution, but also their own education and that of their fellow students.

It pains this court to see students suspended from school thus impairing their education. In many instances the cost of attending college has been met by the sacrifices of parents and relatives. Further, the citizens and taxpayers of Virginia have borne a heavy burden to provide expensive and modern facilities for the training of our youth, and this court is not going to permit this stake and effort of the taxpayers to be jeopardized by a minority allegedly acting under the cloak of dissent.

The court is hopeful that some means may be devised whereby the suspended students may apologize to the V.P.I. Administration for their ill-considered conduct and express a wish to abide by the rules and regulations of the institute, and thus seek reinstatement.

It is adjudged and ordered that a temporary restraining order be denied, and the court doth fix a hearing for Thursday, May 22, 1970 at 10:00 a. m. at the United States District Courtroom for a further hearing.

The clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this opinion and judgment to Robert P. Dwoskin, Esquire and to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University as represented by Dr. T. Marshall Hahn, President.
### Lithostratigraphy of the Silurian rocks exposed on the west side of the Cincinnati Arch in Kentucky

By: Warren Lee Peterson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1151C

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.