alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3050.11 Proposals to change an accepted analytical principle applied in the Postal Service's annual periodic reports to the Commission. ( a ) To improve the quality, accuracy, or completeness of the data or analysis of data contained in the Postal Service's annual periodic reports to the Commission, the Commission, acting on its own behalf, may issue a notice of proceeding to change an accepted analytical principle. In addition, any interested person, including the Postal Service or a public representative, may submit a petition to the Commission to initiate such a proceeding.
( b ) *Form and content of notice or petition.* The notice of proceeding or petition shall identify the accepted analytical principle proposed for review, explain its perceived deficiencies, and suggest how those deficiencies should be remedied. ( 1 ) If the notice of proceeding or petition proposes that a specific alternative analytical principle be followed, it should include the data, analysis, and documentation on which the proposal is based, and, where feasible, include an estimate of the impact of the proposed change on the relevant characteristics of affected postal products, including their attributable cost, avoided cost, average revenue, or service attainment.
( 2 ) If the petitioner requests access to data from the Postal Service to support the assertions or conclusions in its petition, and such data are not otherwise available, it shall accompany the petition with a request to gain access to such data. The petitioner's request should identify the data sought, and include the reasons for believing that the data will support its petition. To expedite its evaluation of the data request, the Commission may, after reasonable public notice, order that answers or objections be presented orally or in writing.
( c ) *Procedures for processing a notice or petition.* To better evaluate a notice or petition to change an accepted analytical principle, the Commission may order that it be made the subject of discovery. By request of any interested person, or on its own behalf, the Commission may order that the petitioner and/or the Postal Service provide experts on the subject matter of the proposal to participate in technical conferences, prepare statements clarifying or supplementing their views, or answer questions posed by the Commission or its representatives.
( d ) *Action on the notice or petition.* ( 1 ) After the conclusion of discovery procedures, if any, the Commission shall determine whether to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking based on the petition and the supporting material received. Such notice shall be evaluated by procedures that are consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553. Interested parties will be afforded an opportunity to present written comments and reply comments, and, if the Commission so orders, to present oral comments as well.
( 2 ) If accepted by the Commission, the change proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking shall be published in a final rule in the Federal Register and on the Commission's website.
[74 FR 20850, May 5, 2009, as amended at 85 FR 9660, Feb. 19, 2020]
#### Jadie S. ADAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17260.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 5, 1958.

M. Roland Nachman, Jr., Walter J. Knabe, Montgomery, Ala., Knabe & Nachman, Montgomery, Ala., of counsel, for appellant.

Hartwell Davis, U. S. Atty., Ralph M. Daughtry, Asst. U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., Paul L. Millirons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Camp Hill, Ala., for appellee.

Before RIVES, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM.

This action arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act.1 The District Court found the Government employee negligent in following the plaintiff’s automobile too closely, but the plaintiff also negligent in failing to signal her intention to make a right turn and in swerving to the left before making that turn. It further found that the negligent operation of the automobile by the plaintiff proximately contributed to the collision and resultant injuries and damages. After carefully studying the testimony and exhibits, we hold that such findings are not clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

The Government furnished to the plaintiff’s attorneys such statements of witnesses, photographs, and sketches as they requested, but the Court declined to permit plaintiff’s counsel to inspect the official investigation and report of the accident. In so ruling, the Court did not abuse its discretion. Hickman v. Taylor, 1947, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346, § 2671 et seq.
1 From: Brachtl, Megan

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 4:24 PM

To: Szabo, Aaron

Subject: EPA SSM SIP final action

‐‐ cost memo

Hi Aaron

– Please see attached. This is the cost memo referenced in the 4

‐ 30

‐ 15 version of the draft final action, pg. 163,

footnote #121.

Best regards,

Megan

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541

‐ 2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7183

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD LEE JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-97-51, CA-00-801-7)

Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Lee Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Lee Jones appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Jones, Nos. CR-97-51; CA-00-801-7

(W.D. Va. May 15, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
#### § 161.3 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart shall apply to each VTS User and may also apply to any vessel while underway or at anchor on the navigable waters of the United States within a VTS area, to the extent the VTS considers necessary.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51346

STEVE STOCKMAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROGER WILLIAMS; MARY ANN DAIGLE; JANICE EVANS;

BEVERLY KAUFMAN; J. R. PEREZ, 

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas, Austin

(06-CV-742)

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

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is, in all respects, 

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 26, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF SECURITY BIOMETRICS, INC. AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND FOR THE PERIOD
THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,262
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,674
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,125
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,537)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,262
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                51,016
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (51,016)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (51,016)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (51,016)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 6, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10398 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MANUEL D. LUJAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-47-10

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Manuel D. Lujan appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for an extension of time to file a late appeal from his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Lujan’s motion for leave to file an untimely notice of appeal was not filed within the 40-day period prescribed by F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(b)(4). Therefore, the district court was without authority to extend the appeal period, and Lujan had no right to relief by showing excusable neglect or good cause. See United States v.No. 04-10398 -2- Awalt , 728 F.2d 704, 705 (5th Cir. 1984); F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(b)(4). Accordingly, Lujan’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; his motions for the appointment of counsel and a copy of the transcript at government expense are DENIED.
#### § 762.23 General rules.

All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn by the Postal Service are payable without limitation of time. The Postal Service shall have the usual right of a drawee to examine Disbursement Postal Money Orders presented for payment and refuse payment of any Disbursement Postal Money Orders, and shall have a reasonable time to make such examination. Disbursement Postal Money Orders shall be deemed to be paid by the Postal Service only after first examination has been fully completed. If the Postal Service is on notice of a doubtful question of law or fact when a Disbursement Postal Money Order is presented for payment, payment will be deferred pending settlement by the Postal Service.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Credco's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 1997
and Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the nine months
ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,382
<SECURITIES>                                       218
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                       634
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,399
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,529
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   429
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 820
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    258
<INCOME-TAX>                                        90
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### GEORGE OPDYKE, Respondent, *v.*JOHN S. PROUTY, Appellant.

*Miidenee*— Counter-claim — *lease*— damage *because of want of repair of demised premises.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the v.erdict of a jury.

This action was brought to recover rent unpaid, and for damages sustained by the failure of the defendant to surrender the demised premises in the condition, in which the plaintiff was entitled to receive them at the expiration of the lease. The ease on the part of the plaintiff was satisfactorily proved, and no question was made as to the validity of the demand made by him. But the defendant insisted upon an allowance, by way of counter-claim, for damages sustained by injuries to his stock from water in the subbasement, and from a water pipe extending from the roof through the apartments occupied by him, to the street sewer. His claim *243was rejected as not the proper subject of a counter-claim, and his counsel excepted to the decision, by which that disposition of it was made.

The lease from the plaintiff to the defendant was in writing, subscribed by the parties, and it contained no agreement or covenant by which the risk of injury to the defendant’s goods from water, was imposed upon, or assumed by the plaintiff. The foundation of the counter-claim, as it was asserted in the answer, was that the plaintiff owned the building containing the demised premises, and that the leader and pipes extending from the roof to the sewer had been negligently constructed, improperly connected, and of a size wholly insufficient, in consequence of which the water overflowed from them and the pipes and sinks connected with them, into the defendant’s premises, causing great injury to his goods.

The General Term *held,*that as the defendant took the premises as they were when the lease was made, and agreed to pay the rent reserved for their use in that condition, if his goods were injured by such use, no obligation rested upon the plaintiff to recompense him for such injury. The loss was his own, and the risk of it had been assumed by him from the manner in which the premises had been taken. (Taylor’s Land, and Tenant [2d ed.], §§ 327-329, and cases referred to ; *Oleves*v. *Willoughby,*7 Hill, 83; *Jaffe*v. *Harteau,*56 N. Y., 398; *Lochrow*v. *Horga/n,,*58 id.,- 635.) That as the evidence failed to show any negligence or lack of proper care or precaution on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant was not entitled to recover. That, though it was not intended to be affirmed that the reason given by the court for the rejection of the counter-claim was in any respect erroneous, yet even if it were, the decision made was fully justified by the facts in the case, which were all before the court, and that a correct decision would not be reversed because it may have been founded upon a wrong reason. *(Monroe*v. *Potter,*22 How., 49.)

*Morris & Hillhouse,*for appellants. *Livingston K. Miller,*for respondent.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Brady, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 780.617 Adjunct livestock auction operations.

The livestock auction operations referred to in section 13(b)(13) are those engaged in by the farmer “as an adjunct” to the raising of livestock. This phrase limits the relative extent to which the farmer may conduct livestock auctions and claim exemption under section 13(b)(13). To qualify under the exemption provision, the auction operations should be an established part of the farmer's raising of the livestock and subordinate to it. (*Hearnsberger* v. *Gillespie,* 435 F. 2d 926 (C.A. 8).) The auction operations should not be conducted on so large a scale as to predominate over the raising of livestock. The livestock auction should be adjunct to the farmer's raising of livestock not only when he engages in it on his own account, but also when he joins with other farmers to hold an auction.
(LOGO) FIRSTAR Home Mortgage

4801 Frederica Street
P.O. Box 20005
Owensboro, Kentucky 42304-0005


Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing


RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1999 fiscal year:

(A) I have reviewed the  activities and  performance of the Servicer  during the
    preceding  fiscal  year under the terms of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
    Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or Seller/Servicer Guide and
    to the best of these Officers' knowledge,  the Servicer has fulfilled all of
    its  duties,   responsibilities   or  obligations   under  these  Agreements
    throughout  such  year,  or if there has been a default  or  failure  of the
    servicer to perform any of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations,  a
    description of each default or failure and the nature and status thereof has
    been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(B) I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
    servicer in good standing;

(C) I have confirmed that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions  Insurance
    Policy  and any  other  bonds  required  under  the  terms of the  Servicing
    Agreement,   Trust  Agreement,   Pooling  and  Servicing   Agreement  and/or
    Seller/Servicer Guide
    are in full force and effect;

(D) All premiums for each Hazard  Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy (if
    applicable) and Primary  Mortgage  Insurance  Policy (if  applicable),  with
    respect  to each  Mortgaged  Property,  have  been  paid  and  that all such
    insurance policies are in full force and effect;

(E) All real  estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
    accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance  on
    any  Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid,  or if any such costs or expenses
    have not been paid with respect to any  Mortgaged  Property,  the reason for
    the non-payment has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(F) All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

(G) All annual  reports of  ForeClosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgage  Property
    required per section  6050H,  6050J and 6050P of the Internal  Revenue Code,
    respectively, have been prepared and filed.


Certified By:
Officer
Vice President
Title
7/11/00
Date
[Cite as State ex rel. Smith v. Richard , 2013-Ohio-4667.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : JUDGES: WILLIAM E. SMITH : : Petitioner : : Hon., Patricia A. Delaney P.J. : Hon., Sheila G. Farmer J. -vs- : Hon., John W. Wise J. : RHONDA RICHARD, Warden : CASE NO. 13CA46 : Respondent : : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

JUDGMENT: WRIT DISMISSED

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 18, 2013

APPEARANCES: For Petitioner – Pro se: For Appellee: WILLIAM E. SMITH No Appearance c/o N.C.I. 15708 St Rt 78 West Caldwell, OH 43724Richland County, Case No. 13CA46 1 Delaney, J., {¶1} Petitioner, William E. Smith, has filed a complaint for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent, Warden Rhonda Richard is warden of the reception center located in Pickaway County, Ohio. Pickaway is not in this Court’s jurisdiction. Petitioner has also filed a motion to transfer this cause to the Seventh District Court of Appeals because Petitioner has been moved to Noble County. Noble County is also not in this Court’s jurisdiction. {¶2} Under R.C. 2725.03 jurisdiction lies only with the court in whose jurisdiction the institution is located. Starks v. Johnson 2000 WL 652523, 2 (Ohio App. 7 Dist.). {¶3} Because Petitioner Smith is not located within this Court's territorial jurisdiction, the instant cause of action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. R.C.

2725.03 and Bridges v. McMackin (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 135, 541 N.E.2d 1035. A petition for habeas corpus must be filed where the person being detained is physically

located. Id. {¶4} For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed. By: Delaney, P.J. Farmer, J. and Wise, J. concur

______________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY

______________________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER

______________________________ HON. JOHN W. WISEIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : WILLIAM E. SMITH : : CASE NO. 13CA46 Petitioner : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : RHONDA RICHARD, Warden : : Respondent :

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, Petitioner’s Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby dismissed. Costs to

Petitioner.

____________________________ HON. PATRICIA. DELANEY

____________________________ HON. SHEILA G. FARMER

____________________________ HON. JOHN W. WISE