alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
161 So.2d 274

#### ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. Mrs. Dorothy DORSETT, the Widow of Joe W. BROWN.

No. 46895.

*Feb. 28,*1964.

*794Solomon S. Goldman, New Orleans, Edward M. Carmouche, John A. Bivins, Harry E. Barsh, Jr., Lake Charles, for defendant-applicant.

Samuel I. Rosenberg, New Orleans, for plaintiff-respondent.

McCALEB, Justice.

This is an expropriation suit in which the Orleans Parish School Board seeks to secure a 25-acre parcel of ground located in the Gentilly section of New Orleans for the purpose of erecting a high school. Defendant landowner resisted the demand on the ground that the expropriation of her property was unnecessary and that, in any event, all of the property sought to be taken was not needed.

After a trial on this issue in the district court it was found that 15 acres of the land would adequately serve the purposes for which it was to be taken. Later, judgment was rendered fixing the value of the 15 acres at $10,000 per acre and it was further decreed that defendant would suffer severance damages of $2,000 per acre to the remaining 26 acres of the tract from which the 15 acres were to be taken.

Conformably with this judgment, plaintiff deposited $202,000 in the Registry of the Court and secured a devolutive appeal to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. In that court, the judgment was amended by granting plaintiff’s demand for the 25 acres sought to be expropriated and by reducing the value of the land taken to $7,500 per acre and the severance damages to the remaining 16 acres of the tract to $1,000 per acre. Thus, the Court of Appeal rendered a ratal judgment of $203,500 ($187,500 for the land to be taken and $16,000 severance damages) and further ordered that defendant landowner pay the costs in both courts. See Orleans Parish School Board v. Brown, La.App., 154 So.2d 545.

From this adverse decision defendant applied here for certiorari and a writ was granted but limited to the question of assessment of costs against defendant.

There can be no doubt that the Court of Appeal incorrectly assessed court costs against defendant. Although R.S. 13:4521 relieves public boards from the payment of court costs, except stenographers’ costs for taking testimony, it is well settled that this provision is without application to costs expended by defendants in condemnation cases (see Westwego Canal & Term. Co. v. Louisiana Highway Comm., 200 La. *796990, 9 So.2d 389), unless tender of the true value of the property has heen made before proceeding to a forced expropriation. R.S. 19:12; State v. Barineau, 225 La. 341, 72 So.2d 869 and Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Polmer, 231 La. 452, 91 So.2d 600.

In this Court; counsel for plaintiff acknowledges, as he must, the force of the foregoing jurisprudence and has conceded that the Court of Appeal erred in casting the defendant for costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal, insofar as it condemned defendant to pay costs, is annulled and reversed and it is now ordered that all taxable costs incurred in these proceedings in all courts be paid by plaintiff.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

SERGIO RESENDIZ-OLGUIN, 

a/k/a Gerardo Rangel Torres, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 23-6072 

(D.C. No. 5:22-CR-00294-G-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Sergio Resendiz-Olguin has filed an appeal in this criminal case. The 

government moves to enforce the appeal waiver in his plea agreement. See United 

States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

Mr. Resendiz-Olguin has responded, through counsel, informing us that he does not 

object to the government’s motion. Based on the parties’ positions and our 

independent review of the record, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss this 

appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 21, 2023

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-6072 Document: 010110956365 Date Filed: 11/21/2023 Page: 1
§ 780.6 Appeal procedures available when a decision is appealable. ( a ) For covered programs administered by FSA for CCC, the following procedures are available: ( 1 ) Appeal to the county committee of decisions of county committee subordinates;
( 2 ) Reconsideration by the county committee;
( 3 ) Appeal to the State committee;
( 4 ) Reconsideration by the State committee;
( 5 ) Appeal to NAD;
( 6 ) Mediation under guidelines specified in § 780.9.
( b ) For decisions in agricultural credit programs administered by FSA, the following procedures are available: ( 1 ) Reconsideration under § 780.7;
( 2 ) Mediation under § 780.9;
( 3 ) Appeal to NAD.
( c ) For programs and regulatory requirements under Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, to the extent not covered by paragraph (a) of this section, the following procedures are available: ( 1 ) Appeal to the county committee;
( 2 ) Appeal to the State committee;
( 3 ) Mediation under § 780.9;
( 4 ) Appeal to NAD.
#### In the Matter of Legal Aid Society of the City of Albany, Inc., Petitioners.

Application of Legal Aid Society of Albany, Inc., pursuant to sections 270-271 of the Penal Law for approval of a program to permit law *688students in the third-year class of the Albany Law School to engage in certain activities prohibited by the sections of the Penal Law referred to, under the supervision of attorneys at law employed by the society, and to make certain court appearances under stated conditions, granted in part, there being no objection to the application, as amended, upon the part of the Albany County Bar Association. Approval is subject to the following terms and conditions: Students shall be permitted to make court appearances, on behalf of persons financially unable .to pay for legal services, upon written authorization of such persons, in ex parte and uneontested matters, and in contested matters under immediate personal supervision in the courtroom of the attorneys at law employed by the society, in the following cases only: (a) Actions instituted in the City Court of the City of Albany; (b) Actions instituted in the Small Claims Court of the City of Albany; (c) Civil actions instituted in the County Court of Albany County. The following matters are excluded from the approved program : Contingent fee eases and libel and slander cases. The executive secretary of the society shall furnish the court with a copy of the society’s annual report and such other information as may, from time to time, be requested; and shall also periodically furnish to the Judges of the courts in which they have been authorized to appear a current list of the names of students engaged in this program. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.
#### § 930.61 Handler compensation.

Each handler handling cherries from a regulated district that is subject to volume regulations shall be compensated by the Board for inspection relating to the primary inventory reserve as the Board may deem to be appropriate. The Board, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish such rules and regulations as are necessary and incidental to the administration of this section.
#### § 714.43 Recommendation by county committee.

Immediately upon receipt of a claim, the date of receipt shall be recorded on the face thereof. The county committee shall determine, on the basis of all available information, if the data and representations on the claim are correct. The county committee shall recommend approval or disapproval of the claim, and attach a statement to the claim, signed by a member of the committee, giving the reasons for their action. After the recommendation of approval or disapproval is made by the county committee, the claim shall be promptly sent to the State committee.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2730

___________

Vickie Fischer, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Mary Jo Layton, Marion County *

Clerk; Roger Logan, Marion County * [UNPUBLISHED]

Chancery Judge, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

*

___________

 Submitted: January 6, 1998

 Filed: January 14, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vickie Fischer brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against a

Marion County, Arkansas, court clerk and Chancery Judge, seeking injunctive relief

and damages on the ground that she had been denied the right to file a petition to
The HONORABLE FRANKLIN H. WATERS, United States District Judge for 1

the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

HONORABLE BEVERLY R. STITES, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

-2-

enforce a child-support order. The district court dismissed Fischer’s claim against the 1

judge and her damages claim against the clerk, and later granted summary judgment on

her remaining claim for injunctive relief against the clerk. Fischer appeals those two

orders. 

After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we agree with the

district court that the judge and the clerk are entitled to absolute judicial and quasijudicial immunity from Fischer’s damages claims. We conclude that Fischer’s request

for injunctive relief is moot because she has now been allowed to file a child-support

petition in state court. The remaining issues Fischer raises in her brief are not properly

before us, or lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny

Fischer&s request for appointment of counsel as moot. We deny her Motion To Compel

Obedience to Order, mistakenly filed in the district court while this appeal was

pending, because neither this court nor the district court has authority to supervise or

control state court proceedings. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Regulatory Evaluation 

1-0\ Lt.._(t- o3CZ-- A-0 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

(lyoumake dutll,i!J!S tu tfte ru!ues i11 lite lahle hdmr. you II/US! ensure th<' wtals ltfldu!e on:orcliugly. (I 

1/iey do 110 /, dick ror l'uhJ illfo ulllllht!ll out 1!{1/ie clwuged cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircrafi, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Pans Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do not include on- (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection 0.1 $0 57 

Install doubler 4.0 $0 57 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $19,865 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) s 

On-Condition Costs: @ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Repair cracking 0.5 $0 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also he used to explain warranty costs): The necessary 

parts kit will be supplied by Quest Aircraft Design at no cost to the operator. 

8 
Executive Order 12866: 

I!T1h 

Could the AD be considered a ''significant regulatory action''?~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? G 

*Explanation: 

Regulat01-y Flexibility Act: 

YES* 0 NO~ 

YES*0 NO ~ 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. 6 

YES O NO~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? G 

YES* 0 NO IXJ 

*Explanation: 

9
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Boris Teichman (Teishman), Appellant, v Brian Riordan, as Warden, Respondent.

Submitted September 4, 2007;

decided November 15, 2007

Reported below, 36 AD3d 504.

Motion for reargument denied *[see 8*NY3d 998 (2007)].
232.7003 Procedures.       (a)  DoD officials receiving payment requests in electronic form shall process the payment requests in electronic form.  The WAWF system provides the method to electronically process payment requests and receiving reports.          (1)  Documents necessary for payment, such as receiving reports, invoice approvals, contracts, contract modifications, and required certifications, shall also be processed in electronic form.          (2)  Scanned documents and other commonly used file formats are only acceptable for processing supporting documentation.          (b)  If one of the exceptions to submission in electronic form at                 232.7002             (a) applies, the contracting officer shall—          (1)  Consult the payment office and the contract administration office regarding the alternative method to be used for submission of payment requests or receiving reports (e.g., facsimile or conventional mail); and          (2)  Provide procedures for invoicing in the contract administration data section of the contract or task or delivery order (e.g., section G, an addendum to FAR 52.212-4, or applicable clause) for submission of invoices by nonelectronic means.  If submission of invoices by nonelectronic means is temporary, the procedures should specify the time period for which they apply.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 232.70 - ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AND PROCESSING OF PAYMENT REQUESTS AND RECEIVING REPORTS
# L_2014232EN.01000101.xml

| 5.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 232/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 843/2014

of 23 July 2014

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Upplandskubb (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Sweden's application to register the name ‘Upplandskubb’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Sweden's application to register the name ‘Upplandskubb’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Upplandskubb’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Upplandskubb’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Upplandskubb’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name referred to in the first paragraph identifies a product in Class 2.3. bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker's wares in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 July 2014.

For the Commission

On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 79, 18.3.2014, p. 7.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
Exhibit








EXHIBIT  10.13




0106-36-028285


Amendment




to the Committed Revolving Credit Facility in the amount of USD 50.000.000,-, between Norðurál Grundartangi ehf., reg. no: 570297-2609, as the Borrower and Landsbankinn hf., reg. no. 471008-0280, as the Bank, dated November 27th 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”). 


The Borrower and the Bank have agreed to make the following amendments to the Agreement:


1)Margin


Definition of “Margin” in Clause 1.1 of the Agreement shall hereafter be as follows:


“Margin


means 2,95% per annum.”




2)Termination date


Definition of “Termination Date” in Clause 1.1 of the Agreement shall hereafter be as follows:


“Termination Date


means November 27th, 2020”




5)   Other Provisions


For new extended Termination Date according to clause 3 of this amendment and in accordance with clause 14.5 of the Agreement, the Borrower shall pay the Bank extension fee amounting to 0,20% of the Facility Amount.


The Borrower accepts by signing this Amendment that the extension fee will be charged of the Borrower’s bank account no.  0186-38-100220.


Otherwise as not specifically stated in this Amendment, the Agreement shall be unaffected and shall be governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement.


[Special signature page follows]



















The parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed in    Rekjavik  , on December  15, 2017.


This Amendment has been prepared and signed in two copies of equal legal force, one copy for the Bank, and one copy for the Borrower.
                
	
			
	On behalf of the Borrower
	 
	On behalf of Landsbankinn hf.



	/s/  Ragnar Guðmundsson
	 
	/s/ Lilja Björk Einarsdóttir

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	/s/ Árni Þór Þorbjörnsson
STUDENT DATA FORM US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FORM APPROVED

Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration OMB NO. 1218-0172

COURSE DATA

Course Number/Title:

Course Dates:

- 

Scheduled Offering ID (If available):

PERSONAL DATA

Last Name: First Name:

Email Address:

Phone Number: Job Specialization:

 

ORGANIZATION DATA

Organization Name:

Street Address:

City: State: Postal Code:

Country:

SUPERVISOR DATA

Name of Supervisor:

Supervisor Email: Supervisor Phone:

STUDENT GROUP

(complete this section by making a single selection from only ONE of the following group sections 1-4 below)

1. FEDERAL OSHA

National Office 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. STATE OSHA

Enforcement Consultation

3. OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY

Federal State Local International

4. PRIVATE SECTOR

Employer Representative Government Contract Employee Representative International
52.247-57 Transportation Transit Privilege

Credits.

As prescribed in 47.305-13(b)(4), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when

supplies are of such a nature, or when it is the custom of the trade, that offerors may have potential

transit credits available and the Government may reduce transportation costs through the use of

transit credits:

Transportation Transit Privilege Credits (Apr 1984)

(a) If the offeror has established with regulated common carriers transit privileges that can be

applied to the supplies when shipped from the original source, the offeror is invited to propose to

use these credits for shipping the supplies to the designated Government destinations. The offeror

will ship these supplies under commercial bills of lading, paying all remaining transportation

charges connected with the shipment, subject to reimbursement by the Government in an amount

equal to the remaining charges but not exceeding the amount quoted by the offeror.

(b) After loading on the carrier’s equipment and acceptance by the carrier, these shipments under

paid commercial bills of lading will move for the account of and at the risk of the Government

(unless, pursuant to the Changes clause, the office administering the contract directs use of

Government bills of lading).

(c) The amount quoted below by the offeror represents the transportation costs in cents per 100

pounds (freight rate) for full carload/truckload shipments of the supplies from offeror’s original

source, via offeror’s transit plant or point, to the Government destination(s) including the carrier’s

transit privilege charge, less the applicable transit credit (i.e., the amount (rate) initially paid to the

carrier for shipment from original source to offeror’s transit plant or point).

(d) The rate per CWT quoted will be used by the Government to evaluate the offered f.o.b. origin

price unless a lower rate is applicable on the date of bid opening (or closing date specified for

receipt of offers). To have the offer evaluated on this basis, the offeror must insert below the

remaining transportation charges that the offeror agrees to pay, including any transit charges,

subject to reimbursement by the Government, as explained in this clause, to destinations listed in

the Schedule as follows:

Rate Per CWT in Cents: ________________ To Destination: _______________________

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
402.101 Definitions.       *Acquisition official* means an individual who has been delegated authority to manage or to exercise acquisition functions and responsibilities.          *Agency head* or *Head of the Agency* means the Secretary of Agriculture, Deputy Secretary, or the Assistant Secretary for Administration.          *Head of the contracting activity* (HCA) means the official who has overall responsibility for managing the contracting activity (*i.e.,* Chief, Forest Service; Administrator, Agricultural Research Service; etc.), or the individual designated by such an official to carry out the functions of the HCA.          *Senior Procurement Executive* (SPE) means the agency official appointed as such by the head of the agency pursuant to Executive Order 12931. The Director, Office of Procurement and Property Management, has been designated as the USDA SPE.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 402.1 - Definitions
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 2-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 2-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 2-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 2-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 2-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 5 of 5