alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TOWN OF DYESS *v.*Leonard WILLIAMS

5-5416

444 S. W. 2d 701

Opinion delivered September 22, 1969

*156
      *Bruce Ivy,*for appellant.

No brief for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In 1968 the town of Dyess adopted Ordinance No. 10, which required all places of business within the town to remain closed from midnight until 4:00 a.m. The appellee, Leonard Williams, operated an establishment called the Blue Eagle, at which he sold sandwiches, ice cream, candy, and soft drinks. Williams was arrested for a violation of the ordinance. In the municipal court he was found guilty, but on appeal the circuit court held the ordinance to be invalid. The correctness of that ruling is the issue here.

It is familiar law that municipalities have only those powers that have been delegated to them, expressly or by implication, and that any fair, reasonable, and substantial doubt about the existence of a power in a municipal corporation must be resolved against it. *City of Little Rock*v. *Raines,*241 Ark. 1071, 411 S. W. 2d 486 (1967); *Yancey*v. *City*of *Searcy,*213 Ark. 673, 212 S. W. 2d 546 (1948).

Here the town, to sustain its ordinance, relies upon general language in our comprehensive statute governing municipal corporations, Act 1 of 1875. Section 12 of that act empowers municipalities “to prevent injury or annoyance within the limits of the corporation, from anything dangerous, offensive or unhealthy, and ... to prevent any riots, noise, disturbance, or disorderly assemblages.” Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-2303 (Repl. 1968). Section 22 of the same act authorizes municipalities to .adopt ordinances “necessary to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity and improve the morals, order, comfort and convenience of such corporations and the inhabitants thereof.” § 19-2401.

On the record before us we agree with the circuit *157court’s conclusion that Ordinance No. 10 exceeds the town’s delegated authority. There is no proof that the measure is needed to accomplish the purposes enumerated in the statute. According to the testimony, teenagers and other youths from Dyess and from nearby communities patronize the Blue Eagle after midnight. There is some honking of horns there, but the town’s principal grievance is that the youngsters also sound their horns while driving noisily about the streets in cars not equipped with mufflers.

It is evident that the town’s purpose could readily be accomplished by the enactment of an ordinance directly prohibiting the objectionable conduct. There is no need for the town to attain its objective indirectly by closing all places engaged in lawful business after midnight. In a similar case the Mississippi Supreme Court held invalid an ordinance that would have required drug stores, doctors, lawyers, and all businessmen to close their offices by ten o’clock at night. *Goodin*v. *City of Philadelphia,*222 Miss. 77, 75 So. 2d 279 (1954). Here, too, the sweep of the ordinance goes too far beyond the necessities of the situation.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6679

OPHEILA AZRIEL DE’LONTA, a/k/a Michael A.

Stokes,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE; M. V. SMITH, Doctor; R.

HULBERT, Doctor; C. J. ANGLIKER, Doctor; DOCTOR WRAY; DOCTOR SWETTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 00-6680

OPHEILA AZRIEL DE’LONTA, a/k/a Michael A.

Stokes,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE; M. V. SMITH, Doctor; R.

HULBERT, Doctor; C. J. ANGLIKER, Doctor; DOCTOR WRAY; DOCTOR SWETTER,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-99-642-7)

Submitted: August 15, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

No. 00-6679 dismissed and No. 00-6680 affirmed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Opheila Azriel De’Lonta, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; George W. Wooten,

Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia; Heather

Marie Kofron, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Opheila Azriel De’Lonta appeals the denial of her motions for

appointment of counsel and preliminary injunctive relief. In appeal No. 00-6679, De’Lonta challenges the magistrate judge’s order

denying her motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss for lack

of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. §

1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, see

28 U.S.C.A. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th

Cir. 1987).

In appeal No. 00-6680, De’Lonta challenges the district

court’s order denying her amended motion for preliminary injunctive

relief. We find that the court did not abuse its discretion. See

Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Corp., 952 F.2d 802,

814-15 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See De’Lonta v. Angelone, No. CA-99-642-7

(W.D. Va. May 9, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

No. 00-6679 - DISMISSED

No. 00-6680 - AFFIRMED
RESPONDED ON DECEMBER 2, 200910:48 AM 

Marion C. Blakey, President & Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace 

Industries Association 

National Journal Blog: What should be the top five items on the agenda of 

the new federal advisory committee on the aviation industry? 

The formation of a federal advisory committee is a timely initiative that has the potential 

to provide a much-needed forum to address important issues affecting the commercial 

aviation industry. It's especially important at a time when the industry is feeling the 

effects of the economic downturn and reporting huge losses. 

AIA representatives attending the Transportation Department forum were encouraged to 

hear both Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt assure the audience that this 

federal panel would be different than others before it. This suggests that not only will the 

panel's recommendations be acted upon but that, more importantly, the panel's yearlong deliberations will also not hinder or delay efforts such as NextGen acceleration and 

FAA reauthorization that will help the aviation industry recover. 

The overarching issue that the panel needs to address is "The Future Impact of 

Government Legislation, Regulation, Policy, Taxes and Fees on the Health and Growth of 

the U.S. Civil Aviation Industry." This encompasses a broad number of focus areas and 

should include, but not be limited to: 

• Domestic and international environmental laws and regulations; 

• FAA funding; 

• Acceleration of NextGen; 

• Competitiveness of the U.S. civil aviation industry in the global market place. 

I ! 
The panel provides an excellent opportunity to pull together a cross-section of the 

industry that have a stake in the issues affecting its future. This includes stakeholders 

from manufacturing companies; passenger and cargo mainline and regional airlines; 

labor unions; general and business aviation representatives; airports; passenger 

advocates and financial analysts. 

Commercial aviation helps drive $1.1 trillion in U.S. economic activity and more than 10 

million U.S. jobs. Taking steps to restore this sector's health, which has lost nearly $60 

billion since 2001, will be a boon not only to aviation, but to our entire economy.
#### Thomas Richard BEECH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-16986.

D.C. No. CV-00-01274-MHM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 13, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Thomas Richard Beech appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his action against the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), alleging improper tax collection, and seeking a refund, damages, and documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *Hughes v. United States,*953 F.2d 531, 535 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over Beech’s claim for a refund because Beech failed to first file a claim for a refund with the Secretary of the Treasury. *See*26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); *Quarty v. United States,*170 F.3d 961, 972 (9th Cir.1999). The district court also correctly concluded that the tax court had exclusive jurisdiction over Beech’s appeal from the adverse ruling in his collection proceedings. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6330. The district court properly declined to recast Beech’s due process claim as a *Bivens*action against officials of the IRS. *See Wages v. IRS,*915 F.2d 1230, 1235 (9th Cir.1990).

The district court properly found, based on IRS affidavits, that the agency conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents in existence and delivered copies of those documents to Beech. *See Zemansky v. EPA,*767 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1985). Consequently, Beech’s FOIA request is moot. *See Carter v. Veterans Admin.,*780 F.2d 1479, 1481 (9th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2395

VERA C. HARPER, on her behalf and as personal representative of the Estate of Wilson Clark Harper, Deceased; DAVID A. HARPER, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a/k/a USAA; STEVE LEE; J. LOUIS BLANCO; STEPHEN HORVATH; JANICE BUCHMAN; JUDGE ROUSCH, Circuit Court Judge; JUDGE KEITH, Circuit Court Judge; JUDGE WOLDRIDGE; THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA; DOES 1-50, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00478-LO-TRJ)

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vera C. Harper, David A. Harper, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vera C. Harper and David A. Harper appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice their civil complaint and allowing them to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the entry of the court’s order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). An order granting leave to amend is interlocutory as it leaves the case open for either amendment of the complaint or entry of final judgment. Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co. , 356 U.S. 335, 337 (1958) (quoting Missouri & Kansas Interurban Ry. Co. v. City of Olathe , 222 U.S. 185, 186 (1911)); see also Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers

Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (a dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We further deny Appellants’ motions to supplement the record on appeal and for oral argument. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
A. Ray Petty, Ed.D. 

P. O. Box 266 

Mercedita PR 00715-0266 

araypetty@msn.com 

I h~r~by petition .the Depa~ment of Transportation for.review of their order un.~~r t.~~ D~p!artment;s5 3 

AViation Economic Regulations, 14 CFR 385.50, to terminate the present Cape Alr'EA~~eM(e Po t~ 

Mercedita Airport in Ponce, Puerto Rico. 

I am a resident of Ponce, Puerto Rico and utilize the Cape Air Flights from Ponce to San Juan on a regular 

basis. There are many reasons for my choosing this means of travel: 

1. Puerto Rico is unique in qualifying for Essential Air Service inclusion. Unlike the continental 

United States, the only form of travel from Puerto Rico to other points within the country is by 

airplane. It is impossible to leave Puerto Rico by car, train, passenger boat or bus. 

2. There is NO public transportation between Ponce and San Juan. 

3. The drive, during morning or evening rush hours, is more than 3 hours for the 75 mile trip. 

4. There are 2 Jet Blue flights from Ponce, but restrict direct travel to either Orlando of NYC, 

requiring additional transfers, ticketing and wait time. 

5. The Jet Blue flights require us to travel hours to a hub, when one is but 20 minutes away. As an 

example: to fly to neighboring St. Thomas we have to fly to Orlando - then San Juan - then St 

Thomas or worse yet via Philadelphia??? 

6. The Jet Blue flights require passengers to arise at an ungodly hour - 3 a.m. - to arrive at the 

Mercedita Airport at the designated time. 

7. Driving to the airport at this darkened hour restricts us senior citizens who suffer from night 

blindness, making our travel prohibited by a physical disability. 

8. Flying from Ponce restricts our airline selection to a travel monopoly - Jet Blue, while in San 

Juan we can choose from American, (my preferred airline where I am a 1,000,000 mile flyer) 

Continental, Delta and United, among others. 

By eliminating the Cape Air flights the DOT is in effect terminating EAS service to Ponce as the 

substitution of Jet Blue service does not meet the requirements of Public Law 100-223 including (e) 

"flights at reasonable times taking into account the needs of passengers with connecting flights." 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Cc: Pedro R. Pierluisi, Resident Commissioner
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, J. Randolph Potter, certify that:
 I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Summit Financial Corporation; Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: November 5, 2003
/s/ J. Randolph PotterJ. Randolph Potter, President and Chief Executive Officer
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4484 — Danske Bank/Sampo Bank)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 321/13)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

RAYMOND W. FARABAUGH,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 155 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

matter.
EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION OF
PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

Solely for the purposes of complying
with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, William D. Gehl, Chairman of the
Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth P. Hahn, Vice President of
Finance and Chief Financial Officer, of Gehl Company, certify, based on our knowledge,
that:

| | (1) | the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 27,           2004
(the Quarterly Report) to which this statement is an exhibit           fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
          Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material           respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Gehl Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:  May 10, 2004

| |                     
| | --------------------
| | /s/  William D. Gehl
| | William D. Gehl     
| | /s/  Kenneth P. Hahn
| | Kenneth P. Hahn
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 147 (Monday, August 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18323]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--PXI Systems Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 22, 2009, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, AIM GmbH, 
Freiburg, Germany; and Tundra Semiconductor Corporation, Fremont, CA 
have been added as parties to this venture. In addition, in the last 
filing of PXI Systems, the name ``DAQTron, Inc.'' was inadvertently 
misspelled ``DAWTron, Inc.'' Accordingly, DAQTron, Inc., Roswell, GA 
has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends 
to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 22, 
2009. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on April 10, 2009 (74 FR 24034).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-18323 Filed 7-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 38 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.38
                                                 Agreed to June 28, 1995

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
  the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

                          Concurrent Resolution

 

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association (hereinafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Association'') shall be permitted 
to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races, on the Capitol grounds 
on July 15, 1995, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly 
designate.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

    The event to be carried out under this resolution shall be free of 
admission charge to the public and arranged not to interfere with the 
needs of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board; except that the 
Association shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and 
liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

    For the purposes of this resolution, the Association is authorized 
to erect upon the Capitol grounds, subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, such stage, sound amplification devices, and 
other related structures and equipment as may be required for the event 
to be carried out under this resolution.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

    The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are 
authorized to make any such additional arrangements that may be 
required to carry out the event under this resolution.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                              Secretary of the Senate.
```