alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42247.

#### HODGE v. SAVANNAH OFFICE SUPPLY & BUSINESS MACHINE COMPANY.

Submitted September 13, 1966

Decided September 20, 1966.

*Walter W. Hinely,*for appellant.

*James Edward McAleer,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The gist of count 1 of the petition as amended is that the defendant held a bill of sale to secure debt on certain personal property from Lamar Freeman, *308that a part of this personalty made up some of the assets of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had purchased the personal property from Freeman, and that the defendant had foreclosed the bill of sale and levied “on all of the inventory, accounts receivable, contract rights, furniture, fixtures, equipment, tools, bank accounts and cash located on the premises known as 4701 Montgomery Street, Savannah, Chatham County, Georgia.” The petition then alleges the purpose of such levy was to coerce the plaintiff into surrendering its entire assets to the defendant to the detriment of its employees, creditors, officers and stockholders, and that the aforesaid was abuse for which the process used was not intended.

“Malicious abuse of legal process occurs when a plaintiff in a civil proceeding wilfully misapplies the process of a court in order to obtain an object which the process is not intended by law to effect. *Clement v. Orr, 4*Ga. App. 117 (60 SE 1017); *McElreath v. Gross,*23 Ga. App. 287 (98 SE 190); *Roberts v. Willys-Overland, Inc.,*27 Ga. App. 304 (108 SE 138); *Robinson v. Commercial Credit Co.,*37 Ga. App. 291 (139 SE 915). The test is whether the process has been used to accomplish some unlawful end, or to compel the defendant to do some collateral thing which he could not legally be compelled to do. 'Two elements are necessary to an action for the malicious abuse of legal process: first, the existence of an ulterior motive; and, second, an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding. Regular and legitimate use of process, though with a bad intention, is not a malicious abuse of process.’ *Davison-Paxon Co. v. Walker,*174 Ga. 532, 536 (163 SE 212).” *Whitehead v. Southern Discount Co.,*109 Ga. App. 126 (135 SE2d 496).

The allegations in count 1 of the petition in the case sub judice—that the defendant caused property not covered by the bill of sale to secure debt to be levied upon for the purpose of coercing the plaintiff into surrendering control of its business to the defendant—were sufficient to withstand the defendant’s general demurrer to such count of the petition as amended and the judgment of the trial court overruling such demurrer was not error for any reason assigned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 53024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; 
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Financial 
Responsibility for Licensed Launch Activities

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information 
collection. Information is used to determine if licensees have complied 
with financial responsibility requirements (including maximum probable 
loss determination) as set forth in FAA regulations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 24, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on (202) 385-4293, or by 
e-mail at: Carla.Scott@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0601.
    Title: Financial Responsibility for Licensed Launch Activities.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this 
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: This collection is applicable upon concurrence of 
requests for conducting commercial launch operations as prescribed in 
14 CFR, Parts 401, et al., Commercial Space Transportation Licensing 
Regulation. A commercial space launch services provider must complete 
the Launch Operators License, Launch-Specific License or Experimental 
Permit in order to gain authorization for conducting commercial launch 
operations.
    Respondents: 6 commercial space launch services providers.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 600 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla 
Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-300, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the 
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the 
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) 
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of 
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include 
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information 
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business 
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-21672 Filed 8-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### § 263.61 Opportunity for informal proceeding.

In the sole discretion of the Board's General Counsel, the General Counsel may, prior to the issuance by the Board of a notice of assessment of civil penalty, advise the affected person that the issuance of a notice of assessment of civil penalty is being considered and the reasons and authority for the proposed assessment. The General Counsel may provide the person an opportunity to present written materials or request a conference with members of the Board's staff to show that the penalty should not be assessed or, if assessed, should be reduced in amount.
# C_2017042EN.01000401.xml

| 9.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/4

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2017/C 42/04)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 21 November 2016 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 79767 |
| Decision No | : | 208/16/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title | : | Aid scheme for short sea shipping |
| Legal basis | : | The Norwegian Parliament decides on the scope of the aid scheme in its annual decisions on the state budget. |
| Type of measure | : | Scheme |
| Objective | : | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | : | Direct grants |
| Budget | : | NOK 60 million annually |
| Intensity | : | Up to 30 % of operational cost |
| Duration | : | First quarter of 2017 to the first quarter of 2022 (5 years) |
| Economic sectors | : | Transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | The Ministry of Transport and Communications/The Norwegian Coastal Administration |
| Other information | : | |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

21 November 2016

Case No

Case No

:

79767

Decision No

Decision No

:

208/16/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title

Title

:

Aid scheme for short sea shipping

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

The Norwegian Parliament decides on the scope of the aid scheme in its annual decisions on the state budget.

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Scheme

Objective

Objective

:

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Direct grants

Budget

Budget

:

NOK 60 million annually

Intensity

Intensity

:

Up to 30 % of operational cost

Duration

Duration

:

First quarter of 2017 to the first quarter of 2022 (5 years)

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

The Ministry of Transport and Communications/The Norwegian Coastal Administration

Other information

Other information

:

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000900392
<NAME>                        Discovery Zone, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    5-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      750
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,225
<PP&E>                                         113,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,179
<BONDS>                                         87,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,897
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   176,591
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,107
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (27,966)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (27,966)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (27,966)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (7.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (7.02)
        


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Laurence F. MulhernLaurence
F. MulhernChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
§ 271.15 Exemptions from disclosure. ( a ) *Types of records exempt from disclosure.* Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b), the following records of the Committee are exempt from disclosure under this part. ( 1 ) Any information that is specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and is in fact properly classified pursuant to the Executive order.
( 2 ) Any information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Committee.
( 3 ) Any information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute to the extent required by 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3).
( 4 ) Any matter that is a trade secret or that constitutes commercial or financial information obtained from a person and that is privileged or confidential.
( 5 ) Inter- or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the Committee, provided that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records that were created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested.
( 6 ) Any information contained in personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
( 7 ) Any records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7).
( 8 ) Any matter that is contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions, including a state financial institution supervisory agency.
( b ) *Release of exempt information.* ( 1 ) Except where disclosure is expressly prohibited by statute, regulation, or order, the Committee may release records that are exempt from mandatory disclosure whenever the Committee determines that such disclosure would be in the public interest.
( 2 ) The fact that the Committee has determined to release particular exempt information does not waive the Committee's ability to withhold similar exempt information in response to the same or a different request.
( c ) *Delayed release.* Except as required by law, publication in the Federal Register or availability to the public of certain information may be delayed if immediate disclosure would likely: ( 1 ) Interfere with accomplishing the objectives of the Committee in the discharge of its statutory functions;
( 2 ) Interfere with the orderly conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States;
( 3 ) Permit speculators or others to gain unfair profits or other unfair advantages by speculative trading in securities or otherwise;
( 4 ) Result in unnecessary or unwarranted disturbances in the securities markets;
( 5 ) Interfere with the orderly execution of the objectives or policies of other Government agencies; or
( 6 ) Impair the ability to negotiate any contract or otherwise harm the commercial or financial interest of the United States, the Committee, any Federal Reserve Bank, or any department or agency of the United States.
*The Hon. William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge

for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.

_____________

No. 94-2816SD

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * On Remand from the 

* Supreme Court of 

* the United States.

Richard Estrada, *

also known as Taco Estrada, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 4, 1996

 Filed: June 4, 1996

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, FAGG, Circuit Judge, and WILSON,*

District Judge.

___________

WILSON, District Judge.

Defendant/appellant Richard Estrada (“Estrada”) was convicted

in the United States District Court, District of South Dakota, of

conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, a violation of 21

U.S.C. § 846, and using or carrying a firearm in relation to drug

trafficking, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Defendant

appealed and this Court affirmed both the conspiracy conviction and

the firearm conviction. United States v. Estrada, 45 F.3d 1215

(8th Cir. 1995). After the decision was rendered in this case, the
-2-

United States Supreme Court decided Bailey v. United States, 516

U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). Estrada appealed

this Court’s decision and the United States Supreme Court granted

writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court vacated this Court’s

judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light

of its recent holding in Bailey, supra. Estrada v. United States,

____ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 664, 133 L.Ed.2d 516 (1995).

In Bailey, the Supreme Court held that to sustain a conviction

under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), the government must present “evidence

sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by the

defendant.” Bailey at 505. The Court further stated that the mere

storage of weapons in close proximity to drugs or drug proceeds is

insufficient to constitute “active employment.” Bailey at 508.

Additionally, the Court concluded that “[i]f the gun is not

disclosed or mentioned by the offender, it is not actively

employed, and it is not ‘used’.” Id. 

As this Court noted in its prior decision, a Mach 10 and a .22

caliber revolver were found in co-conspirator Dosset’s bedroom. A

partially loaded magazine for the Mach 10 was found within five to

seven feet from the bed in Dosset’s bedroom. There was no evidence

at trial suggesting that Estrada “actively employed” the firearms

as that phrase has been defined by Bailey, supra. Absent such

evidence, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) cannot be

sustained. 

In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bailey, Estrada’s

conviction for using or carrying a firearm in relation to drug

trafficking is reversed for lack of evidence and the case is

remanded to the district court for resentencing on the remaining

count. Estrada’s conspiracy conviction, however, is again affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT 
-3-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,601
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,893
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,817
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               717,528
<PP&E>                                         371,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,607
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 717,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           288
<OTHER-SE>                                     316,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   717,528
<SALES>                                        280,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               280,783
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  242,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,510
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,606
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,970
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,269
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,569
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,569
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33


</TABLE>
#### § 1402.27 Aggregating requests.

A requester may not file multiple requests at the same time, each seeking portions of a document or documents, solely in order to avoid payment of fees. When the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation reasonably believes that a requester, or a group of requesters acting in concert, is attempting to break a request down into a series of requests for the purpose of evading the assessment of fees, the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation may aggregate any such requests and charge accordingly. One element to be considered in determining whether a belief would be reasonable is the time period over which the requests have occurred.