alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Lottie Kotler, Respondent, v. Max Kotler, Appellant.

In a proceeding to compel support under article 4 (§ 411 *et seq.)*of the Family Court Act, by a wife against her husband, for her support and for the support of their two children, the husband appeals from two orders of the Family Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. The first order, made December 12, 1963 after a hearing, directed the husband: (1) to pay $85 a week for the support of petitioner and the children; (2) to make all mortgage payments on the home owned by the parties jointly; and (3) to relinquish to the wife certain United States Government bonds. The second order, made January 16, 1964 upon the husband’s motion to reduce the said payments, continued the $85 payments but directed the wife to sign the papers necessary to refinance the mortgage in order to reduce the monthly payments thereon from $146.90 to about $106. Order of December 12, 1963 and order of January 16, 1964 modified, on the facts, by changing from $85 to $90 the amount of the weekly payments which the husband is directed to pay; and by striking out from the first order the provisions directing the husband to make the mortgage payments and to relinquish the government bonds to the wife. As so modified, said orders are affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the amounts which the husband was directed to pay under the orders, in part to the wife and in part as payments on the mortgage (plus the turning over of the bonds to the wife), were excessive to the extent that in the aggregate they were more than $90 a week. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### 1332.802 Conditions.

The designee authorized to receive the written notice of assignment is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### Mae Shepetin, Respondent, v. Moe Shepetin, Appellant.

In an action by a wife for a separation on the ground of nonsupport, in which the husband counterclaimed for like relief on the ground of abandonment, and in which the wife, as a defense to the counterclaim, alleged cruel and inhuman treatment by the husband, in that he failed to have sexual intercourse with her during the time they lived together, the husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 29, 1959 upon the decision of the court after a non jury trial which dismissed his counterclaim and granted a separation and alimony in favor of the wife. Judgment modified on the law and on the facts: (1) by striking out the first and third decretal paragraphs granting the wife a separation and alimony; and (2) by substituting therefor a decretal paragraph dismissing her complaint on the merits. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact, insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith, are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. It was not disputed that defendant husband supported the plaintiff wife while they lived together; that, during such period, the marriage was not consummated; and that plaintiff left the defendant allegedly because of his impoteney. The record also indicates that two prior actions for annulment, instituted by the wife against the husband, based upon his alleged impoteney, were dismissed; the first for failure of proof and the second upon the ground of *res judicata.*In our opinion, under the pleadings and the proof adduced at the trial, the plaintiff wife in effect was granted a separation on the ground of the husband’s impoteney. Aside from the fact that a separation may not be obtained on such ground (cf. *Averett*v. *Averett,*189 App. Div. 250, 252, affd. 232 N. Y. 519; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1161), we find that plaintiff did not establish that the husband’s failure to have sexual intercourse was due to his impoteney. We also find that in any event the absence of sexual intercourse was not due to such willful or intentional conduct on the husband’s part as would warrant affirmative relief to the wife either on the ground of abandonment or cruelty. It is our opinion that, on the record presented, neither party established the right to a decree and that they should both be left as they were (cf. *Russ*v. *Russ,*3 A D 2d 888, affd. 4 N Y 2d 743). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### Frances Barnes et al., Appellants, v. Utility Lines, Inc., Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order dated February 10, 1960, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to section 181 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for plaintiffs’ failure diligently to prosecute this action. Issue was joined about 11 and one-half months prior to the making .of the motion. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted only the affidavit of their attorney. Plaintiffs themselves failed to submit affidavits to explain their delay in prosecuting the action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to plaintiffs, if so advised, to move at Special Term to vacate the said order on proper affidavits by plaintiffs showing the merits of the action. While ordinarily the discretion of the learned Justice at ‘Special Term on a motion of this character would not be disturbed, it is our opinion that the combination of circumstances here, namely: (a) the illness of the plaintiffs’ attorney *(cf. Parker*v. *Stiriz,*7 A D 2d 647; *Sutera*v. *Inwood Motors,*7 A D 2d 753) ; (b) his inability during the period of his illness, to contact the female plaintiff for submission to examination before *525trial as required by the Statement of Readiness Rule; and (e) the lack of resultant prejudice to the defendant (cf. *Brown*v. *City of New York,*1 A D 2d 905), warrant a conditional denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss (see *Zeiger*v. *Kew Towers,*8 A D 2d 827), provided that the subsequent motion be supported by a sufficient showing of merits by plaintiffs personally. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
ENERGY CORPORATION OF AMERICA COMMENCES TENDER OFFER AND
   CONSENT  SOLICITATION  FOR  9 1/2 SENIOR  SUBORDINATED  NOTES  DUE  2007


     Denver,  Colorado,  November 9, 2000 -- Energy Corporation of America today
announced  that  it  has  commenced  a tender offer  for all of Its  outstanding
9 1/2 Senior  Subordinated  Notes  (the  "Securities").

     Under  the  terms  of  the offer, the Company will purchase the outstanding
Securities  at  a  purchase  price  of  $750  per  $1000 principal amount of the
Securities,  plus  accrued  and  unpaid  interest  to but excluding such date of
payment.

     In  connection  with  the  offer,  the  company is also seeking consents to
certain  proposed  amendments  to  the Indenture under which the Securities were
issued.  The  purpose  of  the  proposed  amendments  is  to  eliminate  certain
restrictive covenants contained in the Indentures, thereby affording the Company
additional  financial  and  operational  flexibility.  The  offer is conditioned
upon,  among  other  things, the receipt of the requisite consents to adopt such
proposed  amendments.

     The  offer  will  expire  at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on December 11,
2000, unless extended.  Payment for tendered Securities will be made in same day
funds  on  the  first business day following expiration of the offer, or as soon
thereafter  as  practicable.

     ING Barings will act as Dealer Manger for the offer.  The Information Agent
is  D.F.  King  &  Co.,  Inc.  and  the  Depositary  is  The  Bank  of New York.

     This press release is neither an offer to purchase nor a solicitation of an
offer  to  sell  the Securities.  The offer is made only by an Offer to Purchase
and  Consent  Solicitation  Statement  dated  November  9,  2000.  Persons  with
questions  regarding  the  offer  should  contact the Information Agent at (800)
628-8509  (Banks  and  Brokers  Call:  (212)  425-1685) or the Dealer Manager at
(877)  446-4930).
#### BRITT v. N.C. SHERIFFS’ EDUC. AND TRAINING STANDARDS COMM.

No. 600PA97

Case below: 128 N.C.App. 81

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 February 1998.
M A N D A T E

TO THE 24TH DISTRICT COURT of GOLIAD COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 29th day of

August, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

DELBERT ANDREW MILLS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00129-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 12-01-4634-CR)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

,      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 9th day of April, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
1409.403 Definitions. As used in this subpart: *Case Representative* refers to the individual who prepares and forwards the action referral memorandum to the Debarring and Suspending Official and provides additional assistance in the course of action resolution. Debarment and Suspension actions may be referred to the Debarring and Suspending Official for consideration from different sources, as appropriate. The HCA, or designee, may refer matters. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) may also refer actions.
*Conviction,* for the purposes of this subpart, means: ( a ) A judgment or any other determination of guilt of a criminal offense by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether entered upon a verdict or plea, including a plea of nolo contendere; or,
( b ) Any other resolution that is the functional equivalent of a judgment, including probation before judgment and deferred prosecution. A disposition without the participation of the court is the functional equivalent of a judgment only if it includes an admission of guilt.
*Debarring Official* refers to the Director, PAM. The Debarring Official is the official authorized to impose debarment or suspension. The Debarring Official also may settle a debarment or suspension action at any time if it is in the best interest of the Government.
*Suspending Official* refers to the Director, PAM.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00186-CR

RICHARD LEE PERCIVILL, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 48,443-B

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Lee Percivill, Jr., was indicted in two separate indictments for family violence 

assault. The two cases were tried together, and he entered a plea of guilty to both indictments and 

a plea of true to each indictment’s enhancement allegation of having a prior conviction for family 

violence assault. The trial court found him guilty and, after a hearing on punishment, sentenced 

him to five years in prison for each of the two offenses, with the sentences to run concurrently.

In this appeal from his second conviction for family violence assault, Percivill argues that 

he was improperly assessed $25.00 for a time payment fee.1

For the reasons stated in our opinion of this date in cause number 06-19-00185-CR, we 

find that ninety percent of the time payment fee is unconstitutional and modify the time payment 

fee to assess only $2.50. 

As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: March 19, 2020

Date Decided: April 9, 2020

Do Not Publish

1

The State does not oppose Percivill’s arguments on appeal.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.1.1

Eastern Division

Luella C Pehlke

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−00596

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

A.O. Smith Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, May 31, 2016:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Depending upon

Daubert Motion that is to be filed by 7/1/2016, Court schedules Daubert hearings for both

8/1/2016 and 8/2/2016. Mailed notice(lk, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 53 Filed: 05/31/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:633
Case: 1:12-cv-00172 Document #: 7  Filed: 02/15/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:14

Case: 1:12-cv-00172 Document #: 7  Filed: 02/15/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:15
#### § 935.62 Island Attorney.

There is an Island Attorney, appointed by the General Counsel as needed. The Island Attorney shall serve at the pleasure of the General Counsel. The Island Attorney represents the United States in the Wake Island Court and in the Wake Island Court of Appeals.
**Exhibit 23(a)**

**Consent of Independent Accountants**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-48781, 333-54504, 333-54504-01, 333-54504-02) of PPL Corporation and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-50031, 333-02003 and 333-95967) of PPL Corporation of our report dated February 4, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in PPL Corporation's Form 10-K.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaMarch 1, 2002
1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-3291

___________ Maureen McNeil, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Missouri Annual Conference of The * United Methodist Church; Heartland * [UNPUBLISHED] South District, United Methodist * Church; Robert Schnase; Sally * Haynes, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 4, 2011 Filed: March 11, 2011

___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Maureen McNeil appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her disability-discrimination suit removed from Missouri state court. After careful de novo review, see Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc. , 380 F.3d 316, 317 (8th Cir. 2004), this court affirms. The distri ct court correctly concluded that it lacked-2- subject matter jurisdiction because McNe il’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim fell within the “ministerial exception” this court recognized in Scharon v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Presbyterian Hosps. , 929 F.2d 360, 362 (8th Cir. 1991) (“[p]ersonnel decisions by church-affiliated institutions affecting clergy are per se religious matters and cannot be reviewed by civil courts”; doing so would implicate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause). See Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare, Inc. , 474 F.3d 223, 225 (6th Cir. 2007) (applying exception to ADA claim; exception bars employment-discrimination claim when employer is religious institution and employee was ministerial employee); see also Elvig v. Calv in Presbyterian Church , 375 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2004) (c hurch’s selection of its mi nisters is unfettered, and its true reasons – whatever they may be – are therefore unassailable).
Accordingly, this court affirms. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### 1371.120 Temporary services.

Insert clause 1352.271-89, *Temporary Services,* in all solicitations and contracts for ship repair.
### §3802. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter—

(1) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture;

(2) the term "garbage" means all waste material derived in whole or in part from the meat of any animal (including fish and poultry) or other animal material, and other refuse of any character whatsoever that has been associated with any such material, resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking, or consumption of food, except that such term shall not include waste from ordinary household operations which is fed directly to swine on the same premises where such household is located;

(3) the term "person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company or other legal entity; and

(4) the term "State" means the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the territories and possessions of the United States.

(Pub. L. 96–468, §3, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2229; Pub. L. 96–592, title V, §511, Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3451.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Par. (4). Pub. L. 96–592 added par. (4).
#### 1232.770-5 Limitations.

This policy does not apply to contract actions using funds that are not covered by the CR.
13.103 Use of standing price quotations. Authorized individuals do not have to obtain individual quotations for each purchase. Standing price quotations may be used if— ( a ) The pricing information is current; and
( b ) The Government obtains the benefit of maximum discounts before award.
EXHIBIT 11


             Statement re Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

9 Months Ended
(000's, except per share data, Unaudited)


                                                       November 24, 1995 November 25, 1994
<S>                                                    <C>               <C>

Income (loss) for primary & fully    
      diluted earnings per share                       $     222         $     (734)

Equivalent shares for primary 
      computation:

      Weighted average shares outstanding                  2,922              2,874 

      Common stock equivalents (shares issuable
            for employee stock purchase plan and
            upon exercise of stock options and
            stock warrants outstanding) based on
            average market price                               8                  0 

      Total equivalent shares for
            primary and fully diluted
            computation                                    2,930              2,874 

Per share amounts:

Primary:

      Net income (loss)                                $     .08         $     (.26)

Fully diluted:

      Net income (loss)                                $     .08         $     (.26)
<CAPTION>
<PAGE>
                       Statement re Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)


3 Months Ended
(000's, except per share data, Unaudited)


                                                       November 24, 1995 November 25, 1994

<S>                                                    <C>               <C>
Income (loss) for primary & fully    
      diluted earnings per share                       $     107         $       62

Equivalent shares for primary 
      computation:

      Weighted average shares outstanding                  2,922              2,874 

      Common stock equivalents (shares issuable
            for employee stock purchase plan and
            upon exercise of stock options and
            stock warrants outstanding) based on
            average market price                               8                 23 

      Total equivalent shares for
            primary and fully diluted
            computation                                    2,930              2,897 

Per share amounts:

Primary:

      Net income (loss)                                $     .04         $      .02

Fully diluted:

      Net income (loss)                                $     .04         $      .02
</TABLE>
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #16706 and #16707; LOUISIANA Disaster Number LA-00105]

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 2.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4570-DR), dated 10/16/2020. 

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Delta.                     

*Incident Period:*                         10/06/2020 through 10/10/2020.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 12/23/2020.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         12/15/2020.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/16/2021.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana, dated 10/16/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

*Primary Parishes (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*                     Allen, Iberia.                

*Contiguous Parishes (Economic Injury Loans Only):*                     None                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Cynthia Pitts,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2021-00228 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
#### Linda DellaCamera *v.*Louis DellaCamera

It appearing that the defendant in the above-entitled case has failed to prosecute his appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County with proper diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, *676ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed unless the defendant files his brief on or before February 3, 1975.

*Richard B. Cramer,*for the appellant (defendant).

No appearance for the appellee (plaintiff).

Argued December 3

decided December 3, 1974