alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas F. Creamer et al. *v.*The Monarch Fuel Company.

Maltbie, C. J., Beown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

Argued March 4

decided April 20, 1943.

*Herbert L. Emanuelson,*for the appellants (plaintiffs) .

*Martin E. Gormley,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

Oil being delivered by a hose from the defendant’s oil truck overflowed a storage tank in the cellar of the named plaintiff, caught fire and caused injury and damage to the plaintiffs. The finding supports the conclusion of the trial court that the defendant was not negligent. The only question is whether the finding must be corrected.

A detailed analysis of the evidence would serve no useful purpose. The capacity of the storage tank was fifty-seven gallons. On a Friday, the plaintiff Thomas Creamer found the burner out and the tank empty. He put in five gallons and ordered fifty more from the defendant. On Tuesday the defendant’s driver drove the truck to the house, set the meter at fifty gallons *97and handed the hose nozzle to the plaintiff Laura Creamer, who had volunteered to assist him by opening the cellar window and taking the nozzle from him. She inserted the nozzle into the tank and adjusted the trigger, and the driver started to pump oil. Before the pump stopped the tank overflowed and the oil caught fire. When the automatic shutoff stopped the flow of oil to the tank, the gauge indicated that 49.9 gallons of oil had been pumped, and that was the total amount delivered. The only defect in the automatic shutoff was that it stopped the flow of oil just before the full quantity for which it had been set had been delivered.

The finding is supported by the evidence and cannot be materially corrected. The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs had not sustained the burden of proving the essential allegations of their complaint and that the evidence did not explain the cause of the overflow. It concluded further that “The evidence of the plaintiffs was, in many respects, exaggerated and, evidently, induced by a desire to obtain a favorable result rather than desire to testify as to recollection of facts.” The ease presents nothing more than a simple question of fact and the conclusion of the trial court may not be disturbed. *Fiala*v. *Connecticut Electric Service Co.,*114 Conn. 172, 176, 158 Atl. 211.

There is no error.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of SomaneticsCorporation on Form S-3 (File No. 333-59376) and Form S-8 (File No. 33-93538, 33-41453, 33-48646,33-77080, 333-4620, 333-31753, 333-59547, 333-80071, 333-36836, 333-62574, 333-92368, 333-107875and 333-125392) of our reports dated January 26, 2006 relating to the financial statements ofSomanetics Corporation, and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Somanetics Corporation for theyear ended November 30, 2005./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPDetroit, Michigan
# C_2005229EN.01002002.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/20

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 June 2005

in Case T-299/03 Nuova fabbrica utensili diamantati Srl (Nuova Fa. U. Di) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

(2005/C 229/43)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-299/03: Nuova fabbrica utensili diamantati Srl (Nuova Fa. U. Di), established in Marcellina (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, with A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to a State aid scheme declared compatible with the common market by Commission decision of 12 July 2000 (SG (2000) D/105754 — State Aid N 715/99) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 28, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51333

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DARRELL P. VENDETTI,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 6:06-CR-92-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Darrell P. Vendetti pleaded guilty to count 1 of an

indictment charging him with possession of child pornography and

was sentenced under the advisory guidelines to a 120-month term

of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. 

He was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine. Vendetti gave timely notice

of his appeal. 

Vendetti contends that the district court should have

reduced his offense level because he accepted responsibility for

his criminal conduct, notwithstanding the district court’s
No. 06-51333

-2-

finding that the offense level should be increased because

Vendetti obstructed justice by destroying evidence. Vendetti has

not shown that the district court’s determination, that his case

does not present extraordinary circumstances making such an

adjustment appropriate, was without foundation. See U.S.S.G.

§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d

222, 227 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Chung, 261 F.3d 536,

540 (5th Cir. 2001). The judgment is AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: February 5, 2008
    /s/ Bruce J. BarrettBruce J. Barrett, President and ChiefExecutive OfficerDated: February 5, 2008
    /s/ William M. IaconaWilliam M. Iacona, Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer, Controller and Treasurer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCurrent Lewis Turbomachinery Research: Building on our Legacy of ExcellenceThis Wu Chang-Hua lecture is concerned with the development of analysis and computational capability for turbomachinery flows which is based on detailed flow field physics. A brief review of the work of Professor Wu is presented as well as a summary of the current NASA aeropropulsion programs. Two major areas of research are described in order to determine our predictive capabilities using modern day computational tools evolved from the work of Professor Wu. In one of these areas, namely transonic rotor flow, it is demonstrated that a high level of accuracy is obtainable provided sufficient geometric detail is simulated. In the second case, namely turbine heat transfer, our capability is lacking for rotating blade rows and experimental correlations will provide needed information in the near term. It is believed that continuing progress will allow us to realize the full computational potential and its impact on design time and cost.Document ID19970037773Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeReprint (Version printed in journal)AuthorsPovinelli, Louis A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1997Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107499E-10799NASA-TM-107499Meeting InformationMeeting: International Symposium on Air Breathing EnginesLocation: Chattanooga, TNCountry: United StatesStart Date: September 7, 1997End Date: September 12, 1997Sponsors:International Society on Air Breathing EnginesAccession Number97N31204Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 522-31-23Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970037773.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5



<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                               2,509
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        12,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                                  278
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       180,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                             3,471
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         180,309
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     7,889
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          661
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                             434
<EPS-BASIC>                                                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11. STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE INCOME (LOSS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               1995       1994         1993
                                            ---------- -----------  ----------
<S>                                         <C>        <C>          <C>
Income (loss) applicable to common stock... $  705,000 $(1,115,000) $  154,000
Weighted average number of common shares
 outstanding...............................  3,745,760   3,065,786   2,437,908
                                            ---------- -----------  ----------
Net income (loss) per common share and
 common share equivalents..................      $0.19      $(0.36)      $0.06
</TABLE>
--------
(1) The after tax interest expense related to the assumed reduction of
    outstanding debt and the number of shares issuable on conversion of
    mandatory stock purchase contracts and exercise of stock options
    classified as common share equivalents are excluded from the computations
    since their effect is either antidilutive or immaterial.
No. 99-8970.

#### Colliers *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NO. 07-04-0235-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	NOVEMBER 23, 2004

	______________________________

	BENNY JOE ALVAREZ, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 45,644-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Following his plea of not guilty, appellant Benny Joe Alvarez was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, enhanced, and punishment was assessed at 27 years confinement.  Both the clerk’s record and reporter’s record have been filed.  Attorney Gerald D. McDougal filed an Anders brief on July 16, 2004, and appellant filed a pro se response on November 18, 2004.1  The State did not favor us with a brief.  Upon suggestion of death of appellant’s attorney, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court.

	Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

	1.  whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; and

	2. whether appellant is indigent and entitled to new appointed counsel.

The trial court shall cause a hearing to be transcribed.  Should it be determined that appellant does want to continue the appeal and is indigent, then the trial court shall also take such measures as may be necessary to assure appellant effective assistance of counsel, which measures may include the appointment of new counsel.  If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in the order appointing new counsel.  The trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and such orders as the court may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, and cause its findings and conclusions to be included in a supplemental clerk's record.  A supplemental record of the hearing shall also be included in the appellate record.  Finally, the trial court shall file the supplemental clerk's record and supplemental reporter's record with the Clerk of this Court by Friday, January 14, 2005.

	Should new counsel be appointed, the Clerk of the Court is instructed to accept and file any brief or supplemental brief newly appointed counsel desires to file.  Absent a motion for extension of time, new counsel’s brief(s) shall be due within 30 days after filing of the supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records.  The State’s brief will be due within 60 days following filing of the supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records or within 30 days following the filing of new counsel’s brief(s), whichever is later.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a) & (b). 

	It is so ordered.

		Per Curiam

Do not publish.
# C_2006086EN.01002702.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/27

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2005 — Fintecna v Commission

(Case T-249/02) (1)

1

(European Social Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Action for annulment - Measure against which actions may be brought - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 86/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Fintecna — Finanziaria per i settori industriale e dei servizi SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, A. Franchi and R. de Lisa, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially L. Flynn and A. Aresu, subsequently E. de March and L. Flynn, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Application for

Annulment of the Commission's letter of 31 March 2000 in relation to various pieces of financial assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to a number of operational programmes under the Community scheme of support for the achievement of Objectives 1, 3 and 4 in Italy (centre-north and Mezzogiorno)

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.

1

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Investing in Diversity and Inclusion at State

# 									Investing in Diversity and Inclusion at State							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

February 24, 2021

The State Department has the honor of representing the American people to the world. To do that well, we must recruit and retain a workforce that truly reflects America. Diversity and inclusion make us stronger, smarter, more creative, and more innovative. And our diversity gives us a significant competitive advantage on the world stage. This is something that the President, the Vice President, and I firmly believe.

For these reasons, I am committed to bringing the diversity and inclusion (D&I) work already underway at the State Department to the next level. To make that happen, I am pleased to announce the creation of a new Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer (CDIO) position at State. The CDIO will align and advance D&I policies across the department, bring transparency to these initiatives, and hold senior leadership accountable on progress. Our goal is to incorporate diversity and inclusion into the Department’s work at every level. And in a signal of my personal commitment to this work, the CDIO position will report directly to me.

Building a diverse and inclusive culture cannot only be a top-down effort. We need bureaus and teams across the department to join in this work and make it their own. So I am also asking each of our bureaus to designate an existing Deputy Assistant Secretary to support that bureau’s own D&I efforts and to serve on a newly created D&I Leadership Council, which will bring senior leaders together from across the State Department to achieve the goals laid out in our soon-to-be-released Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan.

Together, these changes launch a significant focus and investment in our D&I work at State. As I have often said, each one of us has the power and the opportunity to help create a stronger, fairer workplace, where everyone can contribute their talents and ideas and everyone is treated with dignity and respect. That’s what this work is all about, and why we’re making it an early priority. If we get this right — and I’m committed to see to it that we do — our efforts now will lay the foundation for a more diverse and inclusive State Department for years to come.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 167 (Monday, August 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 44841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20942]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1514-000]


New York Independent System Operator; Notice of FERC Staff 
Attendance

August 25, 2009.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives 
notice that on September 3, 2009 at 11 a.m. (EST) and/or Wednesday, 
September 9, 2009 at 2 p.m. (EST) members of its staff will participate 
in WebEx Training sessions to review the enhancements associated with 
the transactions aspect of the NYISO Energy Market, specifically, 
Trading Hubs. Information on the training sessions is available on the 
NYISO's Web site at https://nyiso.webex.com. Sponsored by the NYISO, 
the training sessions are open to all market participants, and staff's 
attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The 
training sessions may include discussions relating to matters at issue 
in the above captioned proceeding. For further information, contact 
Connie Caldwell at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2919d9c9c9b97dc91939e9685979e9eb294978091dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c5f5352525559125f5d50584b5950507c5a594e5f125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>; (202) 502-6489 or Jeffrey 
Honeycutt at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f8929d9e9e8a9d81d69097969d819b8d8c8cb89e9d8a9bd69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff959a99998d9a86d19790919a869c8a8b8bbf999a8d9cd1989089">[email protected]</span></a>; (202) 502-6505.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20942 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2006042EN.01002101.xml

| 18.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/21

---

Assignment of the new Judge to Chambers

(2006/C 42/07)

At its meeting on 17 January 2006, the Court of Justice of the European Communities decided to assign Mr Bay Larsen to the Second and Fifth Chambers.

Consequently, the composition of the Second and Fifth Chambers is as set out below.

Second Chamber

C.W.A. Timmermans, President of Chamber

J. Makarczyk, R. Schintgen, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, G. Arestis, J. Klučka and L.Bay Larsen, Judges

Fifth Chamber

J. Makarczyk, President of Chamber

R. Schintgen, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, G. Arestis, J. Klučka and L.Bay Larsen, Judges

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

#### § 422.586 Opportunity to submit evidence.

The MA organization must provide the parties to the reconsideration with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and allegations of fact or law, related to the issue in dispute, in person as well as in writing. In the case of an expedited reconsideration, the opportunity to present evidence is limited by the short timeframe for making a decision. Therefore, the MA organization must inform the parties of the conditions for submitting the evidence.