alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION and Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 85-1596, 85-1651.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 21, 1986.

Marc Richman, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civ. Div. (Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert N. Miller, U.S. Atty., for the Dist. of Colo., and Robert S. Greenspan, Atty., Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., with him on briefs), Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.

C. Michael Montgomery, of Montgomery, Green & Jarvis (James K. Green, H. Keith Jarvis and John T. Van Voorhis, of Montgomery, Green & Jarvis, and Dennis H. Markusson, Robert Batson and Helen Marsh, of Johns-Manville Corp., of counsel, with him on brief), Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs-appellees.

*373Before McKAY and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Wesley E. Brown, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a venue determination by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 601 F.Supp. 170 (1985). We consider only the single question that the district court certified for our review: Whether the plaintiffs can bring suit against the United States in Colorado as residents of that state under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(e), 1402(b) (1982). The plaintiffs’ principal place of business is in Colorado, but they are incorporated respectively in New York and Delaware.

After reviewing the briefs and hearing oral argument, we join the view of other circuits and hold that the residence of a plaintiff corporation under those statutes is limited to the state of incorporation; it does not include other states where it may do business or have its principal place of business. *See Rosenfeld v. S.F.C. Corp.,*702 F.2d 282, 283 (1st Cir.1983); *Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. v. FTC,*580 F.2d 264, 269-70 (7th Cir.1978); *Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc.,*557 F.2d 1280, 1289 (9th Cir.1977); *American Cyanamid Co. v. Hammond Lead Products, Inc.,*495 F.2d 1183, 1184-87 (3d Cir.1974); *Manchester Modes, Inc. v. Schuman,*426 F.2d 629 (2d Cir.1970); *Carter-Beveridge Drilling Co. v. Hughes,*323 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1963); *Robert E. Lee & Co. v. Veatch,*301 F.2d 434, 435-38 (4th Cir.1961), *cert. denied,*371 U.S. 813, 83 S.Ct. 23, 9 L.Ed.2d 55 (1962). Moreover, we hold that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (1982) does not affect this determination because that subsection applies only to corporate defendants, not to corporate plaintiffs. *See, e.g., Rosenfeld,*702 F.2d at 283.

Accordingly, the district court’s contrary decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
427 A.2d 244

#### Commonwealth v. Mosley, Appellant.

Submitted March 21, 1980.

James P. Gregor, for appellant;

James F. Marsh, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before PRICE, CAVANAUGH and WATKINS, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       4,757,700
<SECURITIES>                                   415,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,750,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,887,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,996,000
<PP&E>                                       9,350,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,320,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,316,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,618,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,320,000
<SALES>                                     13,963,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,963,000
<CGS>                                       12,772,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,772,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,846,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             216,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (801,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (254,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (546,000)        
<DISCONTINUED>                                 147,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (400,000) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
<FN>
<F1><Period Start> and <Period End> reflect only the quarter ended 9/30/96 since
comparable balance sheets are included for 9/30/96 and 6/30/96, while the
Statement of Operations compares disparate quarters for the current and prior
year.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 225
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 225 appear at 69 FR 77618, Dec. 28, 2004.

§ 225.193 Appraisal management company registration. Each State electing to register AMCs pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section must: ( a ) Establish and maintain within the State appraiser certifying and licensing agency a licensing program that is subject to the limitations set forth in § 225.194 and with the legal authority and mechanisms to: ( 1 ) Review and approve or deny an AMC's application for initial registration;
( 2 ) Review and renew or review and deny an AMC's registration periodically;
( 3 ) Examine the books and records of an AMC operating in the State and require the AMC to submit reports, information, and documents;
( 4 ) Verify that the appraisers on the AMC's appraiser panel hold valid State certifications or licenses, as applicable;
( 5 ) Conduct investigations of AMCs to assess potential violations of applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders;
( 6 ) Discipline, suspend, terminate, or deny renewal of the registration of an AMC that violates applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders; and
( 7 ) Report an AMC's violation of applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders, as well as disciplinary and enforcement actions and other relevant information about an AMC's operations, to the Appraisal Subcommittee.
( b ) Impose requirements on AMCs that are not owned and controlled by an insured depository institution and not regulated by a Federal financial institutions regulatory agency to: ( 1 ) Register with and be subject to supervision by the State appraiser certifying and licensing agency;
( 2 ) Engage only State-certified or State-licensed appraisers for Federally related transactions in conformity with any Federally related transaction regulations;
( 3 ) Establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC, in engaging an appraiser, selects an appraiser who is independent of the transaction and who has the requisite education, expertise, and experience necessary to competently complete the appraisal assignment for the particular market and property type;
( 4 ) Direct the appraiser to perform the assignment in accordance with USPAP; and
( 5 ) Establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC conducts its appraisal management services in accordance with the requirements of section 129E(a)-(i) of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1639e(a)-(i), and regulations thereunder.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,208,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,787,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,666,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   446,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,411,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,165,000
<PP&E>                                          54,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,334,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          729,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,552,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,334,000
<SALES>                                      2,002,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,002,000
<CGS>                                        1,242,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,242,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               795,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136486 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

SPECTRUM HEALTH, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136486 

 COA: 275341 

Ionia CC: 06-024796-NF 

TITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 8, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELISIO ATENIA LORENZO,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-70814

Agency No.

A038-467-916

ORDER

Filed January 17, 2019

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Raymond C. 

Fisher and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Order
2 ATENIA LORENZO V. SESSIONS

ORDER

The opinion filed August 29, 2018, and reported at 

902 F.3d 930, is WITHDRAWN. A substitute 

memorandum disposition is filed concurrently with this 

order.

The government’s petition for panel rehearing, filed 

November 14, 2018 (Dkt. 83), is DENIED.

The government’s motion for judicial notice, filed 

November 14, 2018 (Dkt. 84), is DENIED.

No further petitions for rehearing en banc may be filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,814<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                     3,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,844
<ALLOWANCES>                                       306
<INVENTORY>                                      5,571
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,864
<PP&E>                                          11,264
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,293
<BONDS>                                          1,163
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           153
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,203
<SALES>                                         23,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,180
<CGS>                                           11,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,914
<INCOME-TAX>                                       603
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,311
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,311
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
<FN>
<F1>CERTAIN INFORMATION IN THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE ABOVE HAS BEEN CONDENSED FOR
INTERIM FINANCIAL REPORTING PURSUANT TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit
4.9 


 
 

AMENDMENT 2001-1 TO THE
  PACIFIC CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
  STOCK OPTION PLAN OF 1994    
  



    In
accordance with Article13 of the Pacific Century Financial Corporation Stock Option Plan of 1994 (hereinafter "Plan"), and conditioned upon the approval of shareholders no later
than one year after the date of adoption by the Board of Directors of Pacific Century Financial Corporation, the Plan is hereby amended by this Amendment No.2001-1, effective as of the date of
adoption by the Board of Directors, as follows: 


    The
first sentence of Section4.1 of the Plan shall be amended to increase the total number of Shares reserved and available for grant under the Plan by revising such sentence to read
in its entirety as follows: 


    4.1  Number of Shares.  Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4.3 herein, the total number of
Shares available for grant under the Plan shall be 14,650,000. 







    To record the adoption of this amendment to the Plan, Pacific Century Financial Corporation has executed this document this 26th day of January, 2001. 



	 	 	PACIFIC CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
	

 	
 	
By:	
 	

/s/ RICHARD J. DAHL
Richard J. Dahl

Its President and Chief Operating Officer
 





	

 	
 	
By:	
 	

/s/ NEAL C. HOCKLANDER
Neal C. Hocklander

Its Executive Vice President
 











QuickLinks


AMENDMENT 2001-1 TO THE PACIFIC CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATION STOCK OPTION PLAN OF 1994
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the quarterly report of SETO Holdings, Inc. (the Company)
on form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Eugene J. Pian, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,, that to the knowledge of the
undersigned:  1.
    
    The 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 Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. Dated: June 11, 2004/s/ Eugene J. PianEugene J. PianPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 This certification accompanies this quarterly report on form 10-QSB pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by
the Company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,572
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  142,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,251
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176,022
<PP&E>                                         429,387
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 942,438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,557
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           294
<OTHER-SE>                                     349,713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   942,438
<SALES>                                        523,093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               523,093
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  434,153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,628
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,665
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,312
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,858
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,454
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,454
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72


</TABLE>
427 A.2d 250

#### Commonwealth v. Jones, Appellant.

Argued March 17, 1980.

Thomas F. Reilly, for appellant;

Sarah Vandenbraak, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before HESTER, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
# C_2006305EN.01003301.xml

| 14.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/33

---

Values of thresholds in the field of public procurement

(2006/C 305/12)

The values of thresholds applicable pursuant to the Act referred to at point 2 (1) of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005) and the Act referred to at point 4 (2) of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005) are the following:

1

2

| Euro | Icelandic krónur | Swiss Franken
  (Liechtenstein) | Norwegian kroner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 80 000 | 6 812 745 | 123 725 | 660 000 |
| 137 000 | 11 666 826 | 211 880 | 1 130 250 |
| 211 000 | 17 968 616 | 326 326 | 1 740 750 |
| 422 000 | 35 937 233 | 652 652 | 3 481 500 |
| 1 000 000 | 85 159 320 | 1 546 570 | 8 250 000 |
| 5 278 000 | 449 470 890 | 8 162 796 | 43 543 500 |

Euro

Icelandic krónur

Swiss Franken

(Liechtenstein)

Norwegian kroner

80 000

6 812 745

123 725

660 000

137 000

11 666 826

211 880

1 130 250

211 000

17 968 616

326 326

1 740 750

422 000

35 937 233

652 652

3 481 500

1 000 000

85 159 320

1 546 570

8 250 000

5 278 000

449 470 890

8 162 796

43 543 500

---

(1)  As amended by Decisions of the EEA Joint Committee No 68/2006 and No 69/2006, both of 2 June 2006, amending Annex XVI (Procurement) to the EEA Agreement.

1

(2)  Idem.

2

---
#### Bruno O. Klein, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York for the plaintiff, after a trial by a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*769Henry A. Robinson (John T. Little, Jr., of counsel), for . appellant.

Davis & Loeser, for respondent.

Conlan, J.

The action was for an injury to the plaintiff, alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence. The testimony on both sides is in conflict as to how the injury was occasioned, the plaintiff asserting that while he had one foot on the ground and the other on the car-step the car started with a suddenness and a jerk that threw him to the ground. The contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff endeavored to alight while the car was in motion. The case was submitted to the jury, who settled the disputed questions in the plaintiff’s favor.

Courts of appeal, as it is well said, will not disturb the finding of a jury upon disputed questions of fact, unless it clearly appears that such finding was reached by undue influence, prejudice or some element which might tend to distort the mind of the jury. There is no pretense that anything of the kind existed in the. case at bar, nor do we think that remarks of counsel in the course of summing up in any way influenced the jury in arriving at their verdict, especially in view of the fact that proper instruction was given to the jury concerning remarks of counsel by the trial justice.

Entertaining these views upon the questions presented by the record, and not finding that any error was committed upon the trial which calls for an interference with the result reached, it follows that the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
x10e1-q12015






EXHIBIT 10(e)1


BASE SALARIES OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY


The following are the annual base salaries, effective March 1, 2015, unless otherwise noted, of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Mississippi Power Company and certain other executive officers of Mississippi Power Company who served during 2014.




	
		
	G. Edison Holland, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
	$678,480

	Moses Feagin
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
	$263,280

	John W. Atherton
Vice President
	$267,651

	Jeff G. Franklin
Vice President
	$265,125

	R. Allen Reaves, Jr.
Vice President 
	$223,465
427 A.2d 249

#### Commonwealth v. Hickey, Appellant.

*629Argued November 12, 1979.

Michael J. McCaney, Jr., for appellant;

Jay P. Kahle, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, ap-pellee.

Before SPAETH, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.