alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ERMEKEIL v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10571.

Decided January 27, 1930

Mr. Joseph 'Rubenstein, Esq., Cleveland, for Ermekeil.

Mr. Ben Levine, Esq., Cleveland, for State.

VICKERY, PJ.

The sole error complained of in this court is that the ordinance under which this conviction was had was unconstitu*122tional because it provided a penalty of a sum up to Five Hundred Dollars and imprisonment in the Workhouse for a period of six months, or both, and the basis of the claim is upon the fact that the Ohio statute relating to the speed law has a lesser penalty attached to it and that since the City of Cleveland by ordinance permitted an assessment of a greater penalty than the state law for the same offense, therefore such ordinance was unconstitutional.

We think that the whole contention in this case was taken care of recently by the Supreme Court in the case of In Re Brown, 121 Ohio State, page 216, where the Supreme Court reversed this court and the Court of Appeals in a similar case of the Seventh District where, sitting in Mahoning County that court held an ordinance to be invalid as did this court, and both cases having been heard together in the Supreme Court, the decisions of both courts of appeals were reversed in the 121 OS. supra.

Now 3628 GC authorizes municipalities to declare certain offenses to be misdemeanors and to assess a fine and imprisonment not to exceed five hundred dollars and not to exceed six months, or both, and in this case this was a misdemeanor and the penalty prescribed in the statute did not exceed that provided for in the General Code, and Judge Marshall in the decision passing- upon this in the 121 OS. remarks upon these various statutes.

We do not think that the city transcended its authority in massing this ordinance, inasmuch as it conforms to the powers given in the General Code of Ohio, and we do not think, therefore, that the ordinance is unconstitutioal; but that it is a valid exercise of the legislative powers of the government of the City of Cleveland in passing the ordinance.

There being no further errors urged in the case the judgment will be affirmed.

Levine, J., concurs. Sullivan, J.,- not participating.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit (23)



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Lindal Cedar Homes, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-64186 and 333-28509) on Form S-8 of Lindal Cedar Homes, Inc. of our report
dated February 26, 1998 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Lindal
Cedar Homes, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997 and
the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual
report on Form 10-K of Lindal Cedar Homes, Inc.



                                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Seattle, Washington
March 30, 1998


                                      -48-
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32077-32078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12838]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

[I.D. 032300B]


Marine Mammals; File No. 960-1528-00

AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS), Interior.

[[Page 32078]]


ACTION: Issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Museum of Natural History 
Collections, Department of Environmental Studies, University of 
California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 [Principal Investigator: Jeff Davis] 
has been issued a permit to take collect, import/export marine mammal 
specimens of the Orders Cetacea, Pinnipedia and Sirenia for purposes of 
scientific research and for deposit into a museum collection.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/
713-2289); and
    Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean 
Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 (562/980-4001)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Johnson, 301/713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 8, 1999, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (64 FR 54907) that a request for a scientific 
research permit to take marine mammal specimen had been submitted by 
the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued 
under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking 
and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the 
regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of 
endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur 
Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).
    Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a 
finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the 
subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and 
policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: May 16, 2000.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    Dated: May 11, 2000.
Kristen Nelson,
Chief, Branch of Permits, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 
the Interior.
[FR Doc. 00-12838 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001074416
<NAME>                        AFFORDABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                        46
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 43
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              563
<PP&E>                        1135
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                2207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         870
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      123
<OTHER-SE>                    516
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  2207
<SALES>                       380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              380
<CGS>                         190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              665
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            22
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (498)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (498)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.05)



</TABLE>
#### DUNN v STATE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22242.

Decided June 11, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-2425-000]

Take notice that on May 5, 2000, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee submitted the Fifty-Third Agreement Amending the New England Power Pool Agreement (Fifty-Fourth Agreement) which addresses affiliation and representation issues raised by end user applications for membership in NEPOOL.

A July 1, 2000 effective data has been requested.

The NEPOOL Participants Committee states that copies of these materials were sent to the New England state governors and regulatory commissions and the NEPOOL Participants.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing 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). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before May 26, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12714  Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Lulu M. Geer, Respondent, *v.*Union Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant. (Actions 1 and 2.)

Submitted May 17, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

Motion to amend the remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and when returned it will be amended as follows: Judgment modified by reducing the recovery to $118 with interest thereon from December 20, 1934, *570and with costs to plaintiff in the Municipal Court; otherwise, judgment affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division to the defendant-appellant. (See 273 N. Y. 261.)
### Geology and ground-water resources of McMullen Valley, Maricopa, Yavapai, and Yuma Counties, Arizona

By: William Kam

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1665

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### § 2570.86 Reduction of penalty by other penalty assessments.

The penalty assessed on a person pursuant to this section with respect to any transaction shall be reduced by the amount of any penalty or tax imposed on such person with respect to such transaction under ERISA section 502(i) and section 4975 of the Code. Prior to a reduction of penalty under this paragraph, the person being assessed must provide proof to the Department of the payment of the penalty or tax and the amount of that payment. Submissions of proof of other penalty or tax assessments will not toll the 60 day payment period, if previously initiated.
§ 2570.116 Scope of discovery. For 502(c)(6) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.14 of this title. ( a ) A party may file a motion to conduct discovery with the administrative law judge. The motion for discovery shall be granted by the administrative law judge only upon a showing of good cause. In order to establish “good cause” for the purposes of this section, a party must show that the discovery requested relates to a genuine issue as to a material fact that is relevant to the proceeding. The order of the administrative law judge shall expressly limit the scope and terms of discovery to that for which “good cause” has been shown, as provided in this paragraph.
( b ) A party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under paragraph (a) of this section and prepared in anticipation of or for the hearing by or for another party's representative (including his or her attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials or information in the preparation of his or her case and that he or she is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials or information by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the administrative law judge shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representatives of a party concerning the proceeding.
#### STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 43808]

[102 C. Cls. 770 ; 325 U. S. 870]

Government contract; surety on contractor’s performance 'bond has right to sue for excess costs where surety completes contract upon termination for failure to proceed.

Plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the ¡Supreme Court June 4, 1945.
§ 2700.22 Notice of contest of imminent danger withdrawal orders under section 107 of the Act. ( a ) *Time to file.* A notice of contest of a withdrawal order issued under section 107 of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 817, or any modification or termination of the order, shall be filed with the Commission by the contesting party within 30 days of receipt of the order or any modification or termination of the order.
( b ) *Contents of notice of contest.* ( 1 ) A notice of contest shall contain a short and plain statement of: ( i ) The contesting party's position on each issue of law and fact that the contesting party contends is pertinent; and
( ii ) The relief requested by the contesting party.
( 2 ) A legible copy of the contested order shall be attached to the notice of contest. If a legible copy is not available, the notice of contest shall set forth the text of the contested order.
( c ) *Answer.* Within 15 days after service of the notice of contest, the Secretary shall file an answer responding to each allegation of the notice of contest.
#### Kenneth RIMMER *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5644

472 S.W. 2d 939

Opinion delivered November 22, 1971

*L. K. Collier,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Attorney General, for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

On October 3, 1960, the appellant pleaded not guilty to two charges of forgery, and an attorney was appointed for him. One week later the appellant, with the advice of counsel, changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years upon each charge. The sentences have not yet been completely served, owing to a parole and to other convictions in Arkansas and Michigan.

This appeal is from an order denying postconviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. In his petition the appellant asserted as grounds for relief that the officers had arrested and searched him without a warrant or probable cause and that he was not informed of his right to counsel at the time of his arrest.

We find no merit in either contention. The plea of guilty, which is not shown to have been coerced, had the effect of waiving defenses that might otherwise have been interposed. *McMann*v. *Richardson,*397 U. S. 759 (1970); *Brady*v. *United States,*397 U. S. 742 (1970). The *445petitioner’s asserted right to be provided with counsel at the time of his arrest arises from the Supreme Court’s holdings in *Escobedo*v. *Illinois,*378 U. S. 478 (1964), and *Miranda*v. *Arizona,*384 U. S. 436 (1966), but the court has explicitly held that those two decisions are not to be applied retroactively. *Johnson*v. *New Jersey,*384 U. S. 719 (1966). Since the petitioner’s arrest occurred some years before either *Escobedo*or *Miranda*was decided, we find no violation of his constitutional rights in this case.

Affirmed.

Fogleman, J. not participating.
#### COX et v BOARD OF EDUCATION of CAMPBELL, OHIO

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided March 14, 1930

*327FARR, J.

First it is claimed that this action was taken by the Board for political reasons, which is prescribed by 486-17 GC., and that therefore it is violative of this section which provides that no one in civil service shall be dismissed from their employment for political or religious reasons. It was stated by counsel representing the School Board that there was not one syllable of testimony in this cause indicating the Board had been moved to take this action for political or religious reasons. An examination of the Record now before the court discloses that statement to be true. Therefore, the above section of the statute does not apply in this instance.

It was also urged by counsel for the School Board that the action taken by the Board does not and would not operate as a discharge of the above named persons, and that suggests itself as a proper observation, especially in view of the fact that it is disclosed that the resolution of the Board continues these persons in their employment at the sum of $175.00 per month, and they have the right to so employ under the provisions of Sec. 7880 of the General Code, to which further reference need not be made, save and except to say that it authorizes a Board of Education to employ superintendents, teachers, custodians or other employes. Then there is the presumption obtaining in behalf of this school board that they acted regularly in this instance.

Therefore, the conclusion is that no showing has been made entitling these plaintiffs to a temporary restraining order, and the same is refused. An entry may be taken accordingly..

Pollock and Roberts, JJ., concur.
§ 301.4 Jurisdiction. ( a ) *First Division.* The First Division will have jurisdiction over disputes involving train-and yard-service employees of carriers; that is, engineers, firemen, hostlers, and outside hostler helpers, conductors, trainmen, and yard-service employees.
( b ) *Second Division.* The Second Division will have jurisdiction over disputes involving machinists, boilermakers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers, electrical workers, car men, the helpers and apprentices of all the foregoing, coach cleaners, power-house employees, and railroad-shop laborers.
( c ) *Third Division.* The Third Division will have jurisdiction over disputes involving station tower, and telegraph employees, train dispatchers, maintenance-of-way men, clerical employees, freight handlers, express, station, and store employees, signal men, sleeping-car conductors, sleeping-car porters, and maids and dining-car employees.
( d ) *Fourth Division.* The Fourth Division will have jurisdiction over disputes involving employees of carriers directly or indirectly engaged in transportation of passengers or property by water, and all other employees of carriers over which jurisdiction is not given to the First, Second, and Third Divisions.
§ 2580.412-24 Conditions of exemption. ( a ) This exemption obtains only with respect to the requirement of section 13(a) of the Act that all bonds required thereunder shall have as surety thereon, a corporate surety company, which is an acceptable surety on Federal bonds under authority granted by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Act of July 30, 1947 (6 U.S.C. 6-13).
( b ) The exemption is granted upon the condition that if for any reason the authority of any such company to act as an acceptable reinsuring company is terminated, the administrator of a plan insured with such company, shall, upon knowledge of such fact, be responsible for securing a new bond with a company acceptable under the Act and the exemptions issued thereunder.
( c ) In obtaining or renewing a bond, the plan administrator shall ascertain that the surety is one which satisfies the requirements of the Act and the exemptions thereunder. If the bond is for a term of more than one year, the plan administrator, at the beginning of each reporting year, shall ascertain that the surety continues to do so.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00108-CV

J. R. and L. R., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. C2013-1122B, HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellants J.R. and L.R. filed their notices of appeal on February 12, 2015 and 

February 26, 2015, respectively. The appellate record was complete February 26, 2015, making 

appellants’ briefs due March 18, 2015. To date, appellants’ briefs have not been filed. 

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition 

of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) 

(providing 180 days for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule requires greater 

compliance with briefing deadlines. Therefore we order Paul A. Finley and Manuel C. 

Rodriguez to file appellants’ briefs no later than April 14, 2015. If the briefs are not filed by that 

date, counsel may be required to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on March 25, 2015.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland