alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
161 So. 4

#### Succession of JONES.

No. 33140.

April 1, 1935.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1935.

Charles J. Larkin, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellant.

James J. Cullinane, of New Orleans, for appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The tax collector has appealed from a judgment fixing the amount of the inheritance tax on the succession of Rose Thorne Jones, widow of Paúl Jones.

It appears that, when the court fixed the amount of the inheritance tax on the succession of Paul Jones, in January, 1930, a deduction of $17,195.51 was allowed for the debts which his succession owed. On the trial of the rule which was brought by the testamentary executrix of the will of the widow, Rose Thorne Jones, against the tax collector, to determine the amount of the inheritance tax on her succession, in July, 1934, it developed that she had settled the debts of her husband’s succession for approximately $6,660; that is to say, for $1,610 cash, $1,050 worth of building and loan association stock, and land worth $4,000. Thereupon, the attorney for the tax collector filed a rule upon the executrix, in the succession of Rose Thorne Jones, to compel her to pay an additional inheritance tax on $10,535.55, being the difference between the amount of the deduction allowed for the debts of the succession of Paul Jones, $17,195.51, and the $6,660 for which the debts were settled; the basis for this additional claim of the tax collector being that Rose Thorne Jones was the universal legatee of her husband. The district judge rejected the tax collector’s claim; and that is one of his complaiñts on appeal. The ruling was correct. There was no fraud practiced in the listing of the debts at $17,195.51 and afterwards settling them for $6,660, as they were settled nearly three years afterwards. The creditors of Paul Jones were his relations, residing in Ohio, and they made a liberal concession in settling with his widow, as a matter of generosity to her. The tax collector, therefore, is not warranted in attempting to go back and change the amount of the debts which were deducted to the amount for which the widow settled the debts.

The only remaining complaint of the tax collector is that the judge fixed the value of the estate of Rose Thorne Jones below what *13the tax collector thinks it is worth. It would serve no useful purpose to give a résumé of the evidence on that subject. The appraisements were made by men whose knowledge of the values, and competency, is shown by the record. It is true that the appraisements were, in some instances, far below the appraisements which were made in the succession of Paul Jones, four years before; but the decline in the values is well explained. The record does not warrant our altering the estimates made by the appraisers and approved by the district judge.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### 209.170-1 Definitions.

As used in this section—

*Confucius Institute* means a cultural institute directly or indirectly funded by the government of the People's Republic of China.

*Institution of higher education* has the meaning given in 20 U.S.C. 1002.

[88 FR 67609, Sept. 29, 2023]
#### The People of the State of New York v. Meyer Kaminsky, Also Known as Michael Kamen.

Motion for consolidation and for other relief denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.3

                    OMITTED STOCK SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENTS

     The following Stock Subscription Agreements were omitted on the basis
that, except for as noted below, they are, in all material respects similar to
the Stock Subscription Agreement between Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc.
and Maurice J. and Marianne J. Bales as Trustees of the Maurice J. and
Marianne J. Bales Trust dated April 18, 2000 reflected as Exhibit 10.2 above.


1)     The Stock Subscription Agreement between Computerized Thermal Imaging,
Inc. (the "Company")  and Southeastern Neuroscience Institute Profit Sharing
Plan for the Benefit of Jacob Green, M.D. ("Southeastern") dated April 18,
2000 which provides for the issuance of 56,774 shares of common stock of the
Company at a bid price of $7.75 per share (total value of $440,000) to
Southeastern upon Southeastern  tender of 16 shares of outstanding common
stock of Bales Scientific, Inc.

2)     The Stock Subscription Agreement between Computerized Thermal Imaging,
Inc. (the "Company")  and Jacob Green, M.D. ("Green") dated April 18, 2000
which provides for the issuance of 14,194 shares of common stock of the
Company at a bid price of $7.75 per share (total value of $110,000) to Green
upon Green's tender of 4 shares of outstanding common stock of Bales
Scientific, Inc.

3)     The Stock Subscription Agreement between Computerized Thermal Imaging,
Inc. (the "Company") and Constance Haber Stevenson ("Stevenson") dated April
18, 2000 which provides for the issuance of 32,258 shares of common stock of
the Company at a bid price of $7.75 per share (total value of $250,000) to
Stevenson upon Stevenson's execution of various documents, the release of
certain rights, and assignments made in connection with the Company
acquisition of Bales Scientific, Inc.
SERVED: OCTOBER 8, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AIRCAL, INC. 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-1324 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING 

' ' ,. "1 l 

.. :• c 

On September 5, 2015, Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin transferred to the 

Food and Drug Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge 

Goodwin to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. Any dates set for hearing or prehearing 

conference are suspended until further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect 

absent further order. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment-Service List 

Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Leonardo Concepcion, President 

Aircal, Inc., Respondent 

6411 West Imperial Highway 

Los Angeles, CA 90045 

FAX: 503-678-3374 

ONE COPY 

Kevin Sullivan, Respondent's Representative 

TEL: 714-844-2520 

MOBILE: 714-337-6912 

EMAIL: krs500@msn.com 

David F. Shayne, Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Judge J.E. Sullivan, US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1324 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
#### Jacques Isserles v. Gil-Ed Corporation.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Concur-— Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
16.202-2 Application. A firm-fixed-price contract is suitable for acquiring commercial products or commercial services (see parts 2 and 12) or for acquiring other supplies or services on the basis of reasonably definite functional or detailed specifications (see part 11) when the contracting officer can establish fair and reasonable prices at the outset, such as when— ( a ) There is adequate price competition;
( b ) There are reasonable price comparisons with prior purchases of the same or similar supplies or services made on a competitive basis or supported by valid certified cost or pricing data;
( c ) Available cost or pricing information permits realistic estimates of the probable costs of performance; or
( d ) Performance uncertainties can be identified and reasonable estimates of their cost impact can be made, and the contractor is willing to accept a firm fixed price representing assumption of the risks involved.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 48248, Sept. 18, 1995; 75 FR 53148, Aug. 30, 2010; 86 FR 61027, Nov. 4, 2021]
Case: 1:12-cv-03102 Document #: 86 Filed: 05/28/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2728
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00606

- CR

Priscilla Pena

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 211th District Court

o f Denton Count y (F

- 2010

- 2287

- C )

May 1, 2014

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is di smissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

July 7, 2020 

Honorable Sherri Ybarra 

Superintendent of Public Instruction 

Idaho Department of Education 

650 West State Street 

Boise, Idaho 83702 

sybarra@sde.idaho.gov 

Dear Superintendent Ybarra: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act 

for grant award H027A180088 and H173A180030. 

The Department received your June 8, 2020 request on behalf of the Idaho Department of

Education for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for obligation 

through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs State Lead, Dwight Thomas, at 

Dwight.Thomas@ed.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration.

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

cc: State Director 

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600 

www.ed.gov 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
<PAGE>
                                HCC INDUSTRIES INC.
                 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                   (in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                   FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                                        ---------------------------------------
                                                         MARCH 28,      MARCH 29,      MARCH 30,
                                                           1998           1997           1996
                                                         ---------      ---------      ---------
<S>                                                      <C>            <C>            <C>
Earnings:

  Earnings before taxes and extraordinary item           $  6,020       $   (821)      $  8,893

  Add:  Fixed charges(1)                                   10,327          2,946          1,924
                                                         --------       --------       --------
                                                         $ 16,347       $  2,125       $ 10,817
                                                         --------       --------       --------
                                                         --------       --------       --------
 Fixed Charges:(1)

  Interest expense                                       $ 10,327       $  2,946       $  1,924
                                                         --------       --------       --------
                                                         --------       --------       --------
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                            1.6          --(2)            5.6
                                                         --------       --------       --------
                                                         --------       --------       --------
 
</TABLE>


(1) The ratios of earnings to fixed charges were computed by adding earnings 
    before income taxes and extraordinary item to fixed charges and dividing by
    fixed charges.  Fixed charges consist of interest expense and amortization
    of debt issuance costs.

(2) The Company's earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges for the 
    year ended March 29, 1997. The dollar amount of the deficiency was 
    $821,000.
204.802 Contract files. ( a ) Any document posted to the Electronic Data Access (EDA) system is part of the contract file and is accessible by multiple parties, including the contractor. Do not include in EDA contract documents that are classified, too sensitive for widespread distribution (*e.g.,* personally identifiable information and Privacy Act and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), or attachments that cannot be practicably converted to electronic format (*e.g.,* samples, drawings, and models). Inclusion of any document in EDA other than contracts, modifications, and orders is optional.
( f ) A photocopy, facsimile, electronic, mechanically-applied and printed signature, seal, and date are considered to be an original signature, seal, and date.
[80 FR 58631, Sept. 30, 2015, as amended at 84 FR 48510, Sept. 13, 2019]
From: Eck, Janet

To: Maxwell, Bill

Cc: Wayland, Robertj; Culligan, Kevin; Fruh, Steve; Thompson, Fred

Subject: FW: Sent to OMB - 5663, "Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) - New Source MACT Reconsideration"

Date: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:24:22 PM

Attachments: EO12866_MATS_Reconsideration_2060-AR62_Final_20130305.docx

image001.png

From: Dougherty, Joseph-J 

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:03 PM

To: Eck, Janet

Cc: Henigin, Mary; Rush, Alan

Subject: FW: Sent to OMB - 5663, 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) - New Source MACT Reconsideration'

From: Cole, Amy 

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:54 PM

To: Cristofaro, Alexander; Kime, Robin; Owens, Nicole; Schaaff, Lesley; Singelis, Nikos; Cubeddu, Mariana; Pritchard, Eileen; Schillo, Bruce; Balserak,

Paul; Free, Laura; Thundiyil, Karen

Cc: Dougherty, Joseph-J; Rush, Alan; Henigin, Mary; farrar, wanda; morgan, ruthw; OAR Special Assistants; Eagles, Tom; Shaw, Betsy; Mcquilkin,

Wendy

Subject: Sent to OMB - 5663, 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) - New Source MACT Reconsideration'

Today, 3/5/2013, I uploaded to OMB OAR's 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) - New Source MACT Reconsideration' (SAN 5663).  This

package is a Tier 1 Final action.  This is a Expedited review.  ADP Tracker has been updated.

Thank you,

Amy Cole

Office of Policy

US Environmental Protection Agency

202.564.6535
#### 2033.211 Contract Claims—Contracting officer's decision.

The contracting officer shall alter the paragraph at FAR 33.211(a)(4)(v) to identify the Energy Board of Contract Appeals and include its address: U.S. Department of Energy, Board of Contract Appeals, HG-50, Building 950, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585, when preparing a written decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains restated summary financial information extracted from
the balance sheet, statement of income, statement of retained earnings and
statement of cash flows contained in Form 10-Q of Canal Electric Company for
the nine months ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000016906
<NAME> CANAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          275,614
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          3,421
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              24,633
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            26,671
<OTHER-ASSETS>                      12,692
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     343,031
<COMMON>                            38,080
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            8,321
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 51,980
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      98,381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                83,611
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  29,815
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>          350
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>         12,114
<LEASES-CURRENT>                       578
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     118,182
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      343,031
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          135,784
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 7,761
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         110,561
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         118,322
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             17,462
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                   2,577
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      20,039
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             7,532
<NET-INCOME>                        12,507
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>       12,507
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>            12,597
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            6,038
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              27,430
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
Case: 1:12-cv-02527 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 04/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:16

Case: 1:12-cv-02527 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 04/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:17
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51141 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LUIS LEMUS-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-1076-ALL-DB

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Lemus-Alvarez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lemus-Alvarez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Lemus-Alvarez maintains that heNo. 03-51141 -2- pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Lemus-Alvarez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Nottingham Realty Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Swan Cleaners Syracuse, Inc., Appellant.

Order of Onondaga County Court and judgment of City Court of Syracuse reversed insofar as they allow the sum of $197.57 because of water charges and a new trial granted in the City Court of Syracuse as to that item and otherwise order and judgment affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent. Memorandum: The record does not support the claim of an actual partial eviction. While there m.ay have been some interference with the use of a common sidewalk by customers of Swan Cleaners, the Trial Judge correctly decided, both as a matter of fact and law, that the interference did not reach the extent or magnitude of an actual eviction, total or partial, that would permit the tenant to remain in occupancy without paying any rent. That portion of the judgment which awards $750 in rent and $326.16 for outside services should be affirmed. The record as to the amount owed by the tenant for *waiter charges is so*incomplete and confused that a proper review cannot be had. For this reason that portion of the judgment which allows $197.57, the full amount of the water charges claimed to be due, should be reversed and the matter remitted to the City Court for a new trial on this point. All concur, except Bastow and Noonan, JJ., who concur except as to the item for rent and as to that item vote to reverse and dismiss the complaint, in the following memorandum: The evidence established an actual partial eviction because of the structure placed upon the sidewalk which is for the mutual benefit of all tenants in the shopping center and thus an appurtenance to the appellant’s leasehold. That portion of the judgment which represents rent should therefore be reversed and the complaint as to that item should be dismissed. (Appeal from an order of Onondaga County Court affirming the judgment of the City Court of Syracuse, N. Y., in favor of petitioner in a summary proceeding brought to evict for nonpayment of rent and a money judgment for rent claimed.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecehio, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Kathleen Duross et al., Appellants, v. State Rent Administrator et al., Respondents.

Order entered on April 13, 1960, dismissing an article 78 proceeding to annul the final order of the State Rent Administrator, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.