alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Fred A. Tatra, Appellant, v. John F. McNeill, as Superintendent of Matteawan State Hospital, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the relator (who is a patient in the Matteawan State Hospital) appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated February 28, 1963 and entered March 7, 1963, as denied his application to direct the respondent Superintendent to release from the relator’s funds sufficient moneys to enable *846the relator to .pay an independent psychiatrist whom relator desired to retain to aid him in the prosecution of this proceeding. Appeal dismissed, without costs. This appeal is not from an order refusing to grant a writ or from a judgment made upon the return of a writ. The appeal is from an intermediate order made in the habeas corpus proceeding; the order, to the extent here pertinent, merely denied incidental relief. Such order is not embraced within the appeals authorized by statute in a habeas corpus proceeding ( CPLR, § 7011). In any event, the denial of that part of the motion seeking release of the funds in question was proper. In the habeas corpus proceeding the relator cannot seek a release of property. The sole purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is to inquire into the cause of imprisonment or restraint of the person; and the sole inquiry is whether the mandate, by'virtue of which the person is detained, is Void *(People ex rel. Hubert*v. *Kaiser,*150 App. Div. 541, affd. 206 1ST. Y. 46; *People ex rel. Rosen*v. *Warden of City Prison,*234 App. Div. 349). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Eugene Miller, an Infant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: This 10-year-old child has been found to be delinquent as habitually truant, taken from his mother, and placed in the care and custody of the County Welfare Commissioner. (Children’s Court Act, § 2, subd. 2-, par. [c].) The determination is based upon tardiness and absence from school. The record shows that all or most of the offenses occurred with the knowledge and aequiescense of his mother. His truancy record was not extreme, although it undoubtedly called for investigation. Nevertheless, under circumstances presented, there was no basis for a finding of delinquency against the child. Perhaps proof might be adduced that he is a *“*Neglected ” child *“*who is unlawfully kept out of school” (§ 2, subd. 4, par. [c]) but, if this is so, the offense is that of his parents, not his. *Reynolds*v. *Board of Educ.*(33 App. Div. 88, 97) holds that a child was not a truant who was absent from school with the permission and knowledge of his parent. We realize that proceedings in Children’s Court may be somewhat informal. *“*Full and complete records must be kept. (Children’s Court Act, § 45.) Some degree of informality is to be expected. *(People*v. *Fitzgerald,*244 N. Y. 307, 312.) It is, however, reasonable to require that some form or forms of juvenile delinquency be charged in the complaint, established by the evidence and found by the court before the child may be committed to a disciplinary institution, so that it may appear that it is the law which determines the commitment and not the ukase of the magistrate, however wise and judicious lie may be.” *(People*v. *Pikunas,*260 N. Y. 72, 73.) However, to support the order appealed from there must have been a case made out against the child and this was not accomplished. The order should be reversed and the petition dismissed. (Appeal from order of Wyoming Children’s Court adjudging Eugene Miller to have been delinquent and discharging him to the custody of the Commissioner of Public Welfare.). Present—-Williams, P'. J!, Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ,
CH1 8163063v.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NICK PEARSON, FRANCISCO PADILLA, 

CECILIA LINARES, AUGUSTINA BLANCO, 

ABEL GONZALEZ, and RICHARD 

JENNINGS, on Behalf of Themselves and All 

Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NBTY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and 

REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., a Florida 

corporation; TARGET CORPORATION, a 

Minnesota Corporation,

Defendants.

Case No.: 11 CV 07972

CLASS ACTION

Judge James B. Zagel

INDEX OF EXHIBITS 

TO RESPONSE TO OBJECTOR THEODORE FRANK’S MOTION TO UNSEAL

Ex. Description

A Aug. 27, 2013 Emails from Christopher Gaul to Objectors or Their Counsel

B Sept. 13, 2013 Letter from Kara McCall to Objector John Michael Buckley

C Sept. 4, 2013 Letters from Kara McCall to Objectors or Their Counsel

D Confidentiality Undertaking Executed by Objector Anthony Leardi

E Sept. 17, 2013 Letter from Kara McCall to Objector Anthony Leardi

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 135-1 Filed: 09/30/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2757
----

|  | 1. | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2013 (“accompanied report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The information contained in the accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 5, 2013 | By:    | /s/ Tracy L. Morris                    |
|----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                       |   | Tracy L. MorrisChief Financial Officer |

----
124 STAT. 1026 PUBLIC LAW 111–150—MAR. 26, 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4938: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Mar. 25, considered and passed House and Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–150 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To permit the use of previously appropriated funds to extend the Small Business 

Loan Guarantee Program, 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. EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM. 

(a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUNDS.—Up to $40,000,000 of the 

amount made available under the heading ‘‘Small Business 

Administration—Business Loans Program Account’’ in title V of 

division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public 

Law 111–117) also may be utilized for fee reductions and eliminations under section 501 of title V of division A of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) and 

for the cost of guaranteed loans under section 502 of such title. 

Such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be 

as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

(b) EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE.—Section 502(f) of title V of 

division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (Public Law 111–5) is amended by striking ‘‘March 28, 2010’’ 

and inserting ‘‘April 30, 2010’’. 

Approved March 26, 2010. 

123 Stat. 153. 

Mar. 26, 2010 

[H.R. 4938] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
#### Ida Watson, as Administratrix of the Estate of Bobby E. Watson, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. Socony Mobil Oil Company, Inc., et al., Appellants.

— In an action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering, for wrongful death, for personal injury, etc., against the owner and operator, respectively, of an oil truck which, by reason of such operator’s concurrent negligence, caused a United States Army truck to collide with an automobile operated by the intestate of the plaintiff administratrix, in which the plaintiff Kenna was a passenger, the said two defendants appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 18, 1960 *561after a jury trial, as is (a) in favor of the plaintiff administratrix on the first and second causes of action for the conscious pain and suffering and the wrongful death, of her intestate; and (b) in favor of the plaintiff Kenna on the fourth cause of action for personal injury. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. In our opinion a jury question as to the negligence of these defendants was squarely presented by the proof adduced, and the jury’s determination may not be said to be against the weight of the credible evidence. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF M. S. V., JR., 

MINOR CHILD,

 Appellant.

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

No. 08-20-00088-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2012DCM10912)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until December 2, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that Veronica Chavez Vara, Pro Se, prepare the Pro Se’s Brief and 

forward the same to this Court on or before December 2, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
§ 865.6 Reconsideration of applications. ( a ) The Board may reconsider an application if the applicant submits newly discovered relevant evidence that was not reasonably available when the application was previously considered. The Executive Director or Team Chiefs will screen each request for reconsideration to determine whether it contains new evidence. New arguments about, or analysis of, evidence already considered, and additional statements which are cumulative to those already in the record of proceedings will not be considered new evidence.
( b ) If the request contains new evidence, the Executive Director or his/her designee will refer it to a panel of the Board for a decision. The Board will decide the relevance and weight of any new evidence, whether it was reasonably available to the applicant when the application was previously considered, and whether it was submitted in a timely manner. The Board may deny reconsideration if the request does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. Otherwise the Board will reconsider the application and decide the case either on timeliness or merit as appropriate.
( c ) If the request does not contain new evidence, the Executive Director or his/her designee will return it to the applicant without referral to the Board.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Nick Pearson, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07972

Honorable James B. Zagel

Target Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, May 24, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel: Enter Preliminary Approval

Order. Mailed notice(ep, )

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: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 86 Filed: 05/24/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:670
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
-------------------
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS                                         FAX:  (303) 623-4258
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                        <C>                  <C>                             <C>    

600 SEVENTEENTH STREET          SUITE 900N      DENVER, COLORADO 80202          TELEPHONE (303) 623-9147
</TABLE>



                                                              December 27, 1996



Mr. Richard E. Staedtler
Chief Financial Officer
Castle Energy Corporation
One Radnor Corporate Center, Suite 250
Radnor, Pennsylvania  19087

Dear Rick,

         We hereby consent to the use of our name and the reference to our
reports dated November 5, 1996 in the Form 10-K of Castle Energy Corporation for
the year ended September 30, 1996.

                                                    Sincerely,



                                                    /s/ Ryder Scott Company
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    Authorized Signature




         12-27-96
-------------------------
Date
#### 2110.7000 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes mandatory specifications for performance under FEGLI Program contracts.
#### 2001.103 Applicability.

The FAR and NRCAR apply to all NRC acquisitions of supplies and services which obligate appropriated funds, unless exempted by Sections 31 and 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, and Section 205 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 as amended. For procurements made from nonappropriated funds, the Director, Division of Contracts and Property Management, shall determine the rules and procedures that apply.
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-01830 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/13/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14
<TABLE>
                                                            
                                                   
                                                           
                                                            
                                  Schedule of Terms of
                            Management Stockholder's Agreements
                                          and
                            Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements
                                      Executed by
                              Walter M. Grant, James J. Hagan
                                    and Laura Hayden

<CAPTION>

                  Purchase       Shares         Time      Performance
     Name           Date       Purchased       Options      Options
  ----------    -----------   -----------    -----------  ------------                                                  
<S>             <C>           <C>            <C>          <C>                                
                                     
Walter M. Grant    9/30/96        25,000 (1)     28,125       28,125
                                  
James J. Hagan     9/30/96        25,000 (1)     33,333.5     33,333.5
                                  
Laura Hayden       9/30/96        15,625 (2)     23,437.5     23,437.5
                              
<FN>
(1)  The purchase price for the shares acquired by Mr. Grant and
     Mr. Hagan was paid in cash.

(2)  Ms. Hayden paid one-half of the purchase price for the
     shares acquired by her in cash and obtained a loan from the
     Company in an amount equal to the balance of the purchase
     price.  The loan is secured by all of the shares purchased
     by Ms. Hayden.
</FN>
</TABLE>
**Exhibit (32)(b)**

 

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Empire District Electric Company(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Gregory A. Knapp, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| **By**                                                       | **/s/  Gregory A. Knapp** |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
| Name:  Gregory A. Knapp                                      |                      |
| Title:  Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer |                      |

 

Date:  August 7, 2008

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to The Empire District ElectricCompany and will be retained by The Empire District Electric Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-K
the year ended  December  31, 1996 for May  Drilling  Partnership  1983-1 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000711308
<NAME>                        May Drilling Partnership 1983-1
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         115
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  59
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               174
<PP&E>                                         7,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     391
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   413
<SALES>                                        333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               340
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  46
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                179
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            179
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   179
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  19.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  19.52
        


</TABLE>
#### 1511.011 Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses.
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:13
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:15
Case: 1:11-cr-00611 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/09/11 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:16