alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fierce Palmore, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed June 9, 1913.

1. Assignments of error not argued may be treated as abandoned.

2. A motion for a new trial is not a part of tbe record proper, but must be embodied in the bill of exceptions, together with the ruling thereon and the exception to such ruling, in order to present to the appellate court for consideration an assignment of error based upon the denial of such motion.

3. Assignments of error based upon the exclusion of proffered testimony, in order to be available, must be so presented to an appellate court as to make it appear that such excluded testimony was relevant and material, or otherwise proper to be admitted.

Writ of error to the Criminal Court of Record of Walton County.

Judgment affirmed.

*H. L.*Grace, for Plaintiff in Error.

*540
      *T.' F. West,*Attorney General, and O. O. *Andrews,*for the State.

Shackleford, C. J.

Fierce Palmore seeks relief here from a conviction of the crime of assault with intent to commit manslaughter. Six errors are assigned, the first of which is based upon the order overruling the motion for a new trial, but, as this assignment is not argued here, it must be treated as abandoned. Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 South. Rep. 656. We would further call attention to the fact that this assignment could not be considered by us for the reason that such motion, with the ruling thereon and the exception to such ruling, are not evidenced to us by the bill of exceptions, but appear only in the record proper. See Johnson v. State, 53 Fla. 42, 43 South. Rep. 430, and Bell v. Niles, 61 Fla. 114, 55 South. Rep. 392. The five remaining assignments are grouped together and are argued in the most general way. They are all based upon the refusal of the trial court to permit the defendant to show a previous difficulty between him and the person upon whom the assault was made some four or five months pxdor thereto. We have repeatedly held that assignments based upon the exclusion of testimony to be available must be so presented to an appellate court as to make it appear that the excluded testimony was relevant and material, or otherwise proper to be admitted. Boykin v. State, 40 Fla. 484, 24 South. Rep. 141; Wright v. State, 42 Fla. 239, 27 South. Rep. 863; McCall v. State, 55 Fla. 108, 46 South. Rep. 321; McKinnon v. Lewis, 60 Fla. 125, 53 South. Rep. 940; Covington v. Clemons, 61 Fla. 151, 55 South. Rep. 81. It is sufficient to say that the *541plaintiff in error has failed to comply with this requirement, as laid down in the cited cases.

Judgment affirmed.

Taylor, Cockrell, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10332]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-1796-000]


Roswell Energy, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

April 20, 2000.
    Roswell Energy, Inc. (Roswell) submitted for filing a rate schedule 
under which Roswell will engage in wholesale electric power and energy 
transactions as a marketer. Roswell also requested waiver of various 
Commission regulations. In particular, Roswell requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Roswell.
    On April 18, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Roswell should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Roswell is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Roswell's issuances of securities or assumptions 
of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is May 18, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, 
DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10332 Filed 4-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### ALPHA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. F-319.

Decided October 20, 1930]

*Mr. F. Carroll Taylor*for the plaintiff. *Mr. Louis H. Porter*was on the briefs.

*529
      *Mr. Ralph, G.*Williamson, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J.*Galloway, for the defendant. *Mr. Ottamar Hamele*was on the brief.

*533LittletoN, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of the court:

The Catskill Cement Company was affiliated with plaintiff and a consolidated profits tax return for 1917 was filed for this and other affiliated corporations.

The facts establish that the gas engine plant, including the building in which it was housed, was installed and constructed in 1914 at a cost to the Catskill Company of $454,696.78. It was abandoned and its use discarded early in 1917 before the sale and transfer by the Catskill Company of its entire business and assets to the plaintiff on March 10, 1917. The building, which was included in the aforementioned cost, had a fair market value of $24,850.60 at the time the gas power plant was abandoned and the gas engines and equipment had a salvage value at the time of the abandonment of $15,000. Therefore, upon the abandonment of the gas power plant the Catskill Company sustained a loss of the difference between the original cost, less depreciation of 5 per cent for two years on the gas engines and equipment, and the salvage value, or $369,376.51. This loss was in no sense intercompany and was therefore a proper deduction in determining the consolidated net income of the group for excess-profits tax purposes.

The fact that the power plant was erected and installed by the plaintiff which owned all the stock of the Catskill Company did not change the situation since, at that time, the corporations were separate entities and the amount expended in construction and installation of the power plant was an expenditure by the Catskill Company. The fact that it borrowed the money from the plaintiff does not change the situation. Legal ownership of all of the assets of the Catskill Company was in that company until the sale and .transfer on March 10, 1917. The fact that the deeds recite that the transfer was effective as of January 1, 1917, is of no significance in connection with the question involved. The Catskill Company was not dissolved until November, 1918.

The above deduction, which we hold was allowable from the consolidated net income for excess-profits tax purposes, results in no excess-profits tax liability. The plaintiff is, *534therefore, entitled to recover and judgment in its favor for $20,028.90, with interest, will be entered. It is so ordered.

Williams, *Judge;*Gkeen, *Judge;*and Booth, *Ohief Justice,*concur.

Whaley, Judge, did not hear and took no part in the decision of this case.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 80]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ080.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 734]]

Public Law 110-80
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and 
 Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, to strike a requirement 
   relating to forage producers. <<NOTE: Aug. 13, 2007 -  [S. 1716]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONTRACT WAIVER.

    The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28; 121 Stat. 
112) <<NOTE: Ante, p. 218.>> is amended by striking section 9012.

    Approved August 13, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1716:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            July 25, considered and passed Senate.
            July 30, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10379]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 22, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Maria Villanueva, 
Consumer Regulation Group), 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105-1579:
    1. PBOC Holdings, Los Angeles, California; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of People's Bank 
of California, Los Angeles, California, upon its conversion from a 
savings association to a bank.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 21, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-10379 Filed 4-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                   Quipp, Inc.


                  Certification by the Chief Executive Officer
          Required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
                       of 1934 and 18 U.S.C Section 1350



         I, Michael S. Kady, Chief Executive Officer of Quipp, Inc., a Florida
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:

               (1)  The Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period
                    ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the
                    requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
                    of 1934, as amended; and

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


                                      * * *




/s/ MICHAEL S. KADY
----------------------------
Michael S. Kady
Chief Executive Officer


Date:    August 11, 2006
PUBLIC LAW 110–72—AUG. 9, 2007 121 STAT. 721 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2570 (S. 1732): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

July 16, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–72 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 301 Boardwalk 

Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado, as the ‘‘Dr. Karl E. Carson Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DR. KARL E. CARSON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 301 Boardwalk Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Dr. Karl E. Carson Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Dr. Karl E. Carson Post Office Building’’. 

Approved August 9, 2007. 

Aug. 9, 2007 

[H.R. 2570]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000796812
<NAME> VICTORIA CREATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,345
<INVENTORY>                                     16,663
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,551
<PP&E>                                           5,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,282
<BONDS>                                         34,810
<COMMON>                                            58
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,923
<SALES>                                         11,910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,910
<CGS>                                            6,233
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    805
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                799
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       799
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17

                                    EXHIBIT A

                                      NOTE

$73,131.00                                                   Alameda, California
                                                                   April 1, 2001


         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Leonard A. Berg ("Borrower") promises to pay to
Silicon Energy Corp., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), or order, the
principal sum of SEVENTY-THREE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE DOLLARS AND NO
CENTS ($73,131.00) together with interest on the unpaid principal hereof from
the date hereof at the rate of 4.8% per annum, compounded semiannually.

         All outstanding principal and accrued interest thereon shall be due and
payable on March 31, 2004; provided, however, that upon any recoupment of
Borrower's alternative minimum tax ("AMT") in a subsequent tax year (the
"Recoupment Amount"), Borrower shall, within 10 days after receipt of such
Recoupment Amount, pay to the Company such Recoupment Amount, which payment
shall first be applied to outstanding accrued interest and then to the
outstanding principal balance. Payment of principal and interest shall be made
in lawful money of the United States of America.

         The undersigned may at any time prepay all or any portion of the
principal or interest owing hereunder.

         The holder of this Note shall have full recourse against the
undersigned in the event of default.

         In the event the undersigned shall cease to be an employee, director or
consultant of the Company for any reason ("Termination"), this Note shall, at
the option of the Company, be accelerated, and the whole unpaid balance on this
Note of principal and accrued interest shall be due and payable on the date that
is nine (9) months following the date the Termination.

         Should any action be instituted for the collection of this Note, the
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees therein of the holder shall be paid by the
undersigned.

                                          /s/ Leonard A. Berg
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Leonard A. Berg
#### State of Florida ex rel. Louis A. Allen, as Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, *Paintiff in Error,*v. J. W. Carey et al., as Members of and Composing the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, *Defendants in Error.*

Decision Filed April 25, 1923.

A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court- for Dade County; H. Pierre Braining, Judge.

*452*Price & Price,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*McCaslcill & McCaslcill,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, there^ fore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the .Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

All concur.
DENY; and Opinion Filed May 20, 2019 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00578
- CV IN RE RODNEY JAMES R OHRICH, M.D. , Relator Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 17
- 15886 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Schenck In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate a May 2, 2019 show cause order and a March 4, 2019 order compelling production of data referenced in an April 2018 article written by relator. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clear ly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown an abuse of discretion. Furthe r, relator has not presented his arguments to the trial court regarding compliance with the order compelling production or regarding objections to the production. He is, therefore, not entitled to mandamus relief. In re Coppola , 535 S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding) (“Due to the extraordinary nature of the remedy, the right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for action by the respondent, and the respondent’s erroneous refusal to act”). Accordingly, we deny relator’s pe tition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
.– 2

–

P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

190578F.P05 /David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE
§ 604.435 Record of closed meetings or closed portion of a meeting. ( a ) The Farm Credit Administration shall maintain a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to record fully the proceedings of each closed meeting or closed portion of a meeting, except that in the case of a meeting or portion of a meeting closed to the public pursuant to § 604.420 (d), (h), (i)(1), or (j) of this part, the Farm Credit Administration shall maintain either such transcript, recording, or a set of minutes.
( b ) Any minutes so maintained shall fully and clearly describe all matters discussed and shall provide a full and accurate summary of any actions taken, and the reasons therefor, including a description of each of the views expressed on any item and the record of any roll call vote. All documents considered in connection with any action shall be identified in the minutes.
( c ) The Farm Credit Administration shall promptly make available to the public, in its offices, the transcript, electronic recording, or minutes, of the discussion of any item on the agenda of a closed meeting, or closed portion of a meeting, except for such item or items of discussion which the Farm Credit Administration determines to contain information which may be withheld under § 604.420 of this part. Copies of such transcript or minutes, or a transcription of such recording disclosing the identity of each speaker, shall be furnished to any person at the actual cost of duplication or transcription.
( d ) The Farm Credit Administration shall maintain a complete verbatim copy of the transcript, a complete copy of the minutes, or a complete electronic recording of each closed meeting or closed portion of a meeting for a period of 2 years after the date of such closed meeting or closed portion of a meeting.
( e ) All actions required or permitted by this section to be undertaken by the Farm Credit Administration shall be by or under the authority of the Secretary to the Board.
[42 FR 12161, Mar. 3, 1977. Redesignated and amended at 51 FR 41943, Nov. 20, 1986; 56 FR 2673, Jan. 24, 1991; 70 FR 69645, Nov. 17, 2005]