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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1875 

ANGELA AYRES, d/b/a S & A Development Group,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALPHONSO JACKSON, Secretary of HUD; JAMES

KELLY, Director, Department of Housing and

Urban Development; JACKIE FANTUZO, Public

Information Officer; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.

(1:06-cv-00340-CCB)

Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 2, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Ayres, Appellant Pro Se. David M. Cohen, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Angela Ayers appeals the district court’s orders denying

relief on her civil complaint and her motion for reconsideration.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Ayres v. Jackson, No. 1:06-cv-00340-CCB (D. Md. July 21,

2006). We deny the parties’ motions to amend the caption. 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                         PATINA OIL & GAS CORPORATION
                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
             FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, 1996 AND 1997
                     (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                  1995          1996       1997
                                                 ------        ------     ------
<S>                                              <C>           <C>        <C>
BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:
 
Net income (loss)                                $(2,094)      $ 3,562    $(16,903)
Dividends on preferred stock                           -        (2,129)    (3,346)
                                                 -------       -------    --------
 
  Net income (loss) available to common          $(2,094)      $ 1,433    $(20,249)
 
Weighted average shares outstanding               14,000        17,796      18,324
 
 
  Net income (loss) available to common          $ (0.15)      $  0.08    $  (1.11)
                                                 =======       =======    ========
 
DILUTED NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:
 
Net income (loss)                                $(2,094)      $ 3,562    $(16,903)
Dividends on preferred stock (see note)                -             -      (3,346)
                                                 -------       -------    --------
 
  Net income (loss) available to common          $(2,094)      $ 3,562    $(20,249)
 
Weigthed average shares outstanding (see note)    14,000        17,796      18,324
 
  Net income (loss) available to common          $ (0.15)      $  0.08    $  (1.11)
                                                 =======       =======    ========
</TABLE> 
Note: The common stock options, common stock grants, $12.50 common stock
warrants, 7.125% convertible preferred stock and 8.50% convertible preferred
stock were anti-dilutive for all periods presented.
Editorial Note on Part 147
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 147 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59782, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 147.67 Halocarbon fire extinguishing systems. ( a ) Each halocarbon cylinder forming part of a clean agent fixed fire extinguishing system must be: ( 1 ) Retested at least once every 12 years and before recharging if it has been discharged and more than five years have elapsed since the last test; or
( 2 ) As an alternative, a cylinder conforming to the requirements of 49 CFR 180.209(g) may be given the complete external visual inspection in lieu of hydrostatic testing provided for by that section.
( b ) A halocarbon cylinder must be removed from service if it: ( 1 ) Leaks;
( 2 ) Is dented, bulging, severely corroded, or otherwise weakened;
( 3 ) Has lost more than 5 percent of its tare weight; or
( 4 ) Has been involved in a fire.
( c ) Flexible connections between cylinders and discharge piping for halocarbon fire extinguishing systems must be renewed or retested in accordance with section 7.3 of NFPA 2001 (incorporated by reference, see § 147.7).
[USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33886, June 7, 2012]
#### Conway v. Williams.

*Consideration—promissory note presumptive evidence of sufficient.*

A note was given in settlement of an account. The account was presented at the trial and marked for identification. *Held,*that the failure by defendant to offer the account in evidence furnished no presumption of a want of consideration for the note. The note, itself, was presumptive evidence of a sufficient consideration.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought in Suffolk county by Thomas Conway against Jonathan G-. Horton upon a promissory note under seal. Pending the action defendant died, and Hannah Gr. Williams, the executrix under his last will, was substituted as defendant.

*Wm. Wickham,*for appellant.

*G. H. Gleason,*for respondent.

Talcott, J.

The only point passed upon in the opinion is fully stated in the head-note.

*Judgment affirmed.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 153

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 153.252 Special requirement for an independent cargo tank.

When Table 1 refers to this section, the cargo tank must be an independent tank that meets §§ 38.05-2(d) and 38.05-4(g) of this chapter. (See also § 153.256(b)).

[CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21208, May 17, 1982]
§ 115.710 Inspection and testing prior to hot work. ( a ) An inspection for flammable or combustible gases must be conducted by a certified marine chemist or other person authorized by the cognizant OCMI in accordance with the provisions of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 306, “Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels,” before alterations, repairs, or other operations involving riveting, welding, burning, or other fire producing actions may be made aboard a vessel: ( 1 ) Within or on the boundaries of fuel tanks; or
( 2 ) To pipelines, heating coils, pumps, fittings, or other appurtenances connected to fuel tanks.
( b ) An inspection required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted as required by this paragraph. ( 1 ) In ports or places in the United States or its territories and possessions, the inspection must be conducted by a marine chemist certificated by the NFPA. However, if the services of a certified marine chemist are not reasonably available, the cognizant OCMI, upon the recommendation of the vessel owner or managing operator, may authorize another person to inspect the vessel. If the inspection indicates that the operations can be undertaken safely, a certificate setting forth this fact in writing must be issued by the certified marine chemist or the authorized person before the work is started. The certificate must include any requirements necessary to reasonably maintain safe conditions in the spaces certified throughout the operation, including any precautions necessary to eliminate or minimize hazards that may be present from protective coatings or residues from cargoes.
( 2 ) When not in a port or place in the United States or its territories and possessions, and when a marine chemist or person authorized by the cognizant OCMI is not reasonably available, the master shall conduct the inspection and enter the results of the inspection in the vessel's logbook.
( c ) The owner, managing operator, or master shall obtain a copy of certificates issued by the certified marine chemist or the other person authorized by the cognizant OCMI, and shall ensure that all conditions on the certificates are observed and that the vessel is maintained in a safe condition. The owner, managing operator, or master shall maintain a safe condition on the vessel by requiring full observance, by persons under his or her control, of all requirements listed in the certificate.
Exhibit 32.2



PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICERS

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of First Place Financial Corp. (First Place) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peggy R. DeBartolo, Principal
Accounting Officer of First Place, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                 |  |                             
|---------------- |  | ----------------------------
|February 8, 2005 |  | /s/ Peggy R. DeBartolo      
|                 |  | Peggy R. DeBartolo          
|                 |  | Principal Accounting Officer
#### Benjamin S. Clifford *v.*Joseph C. Plumer.

In trespass *quare clausum,*against two defendants, one Raving died, his administrator appeared and joined in the defence, and judgment was rendered against them; — in a suit against the receipter of goods attached as the property of the surviving defendant, in the original suit, *held*that the receipter could not set up as a defence an irregularity, if any existed, in allowing the administrator to become a party; but that the regularity of that judgment could be enquired into only by proceedings instituted directly for that purpose.

Trover, for 100 cords of wood. Plea — the general issue.

By agreement of parties, the case was tried by the court, and the following facts were found. The action is brought by a deputy sheriff against a receipter of property attached. The receipt was given Nov. 6, 1857, and is for one hundred cords of wood valued at §300, attached by plaintiff in the suit, *Samuel Plumer, Jr.*v. *John H. Prescott & Samziel Prescott,*which was an action of trespass *quare clausum,*writ dated Nov. 5, 1857, returnable April, 1858. Judgment was rendered April 26,1862 for plaintiff for

$18.00 — damages,

154.82 — costs,

172.82

.17 — ex’on.

No question was made by defendant in this case as to the issuing and delivery of the execution, and demand'upon him.

Samuel Prescott died in Jan. 1858 ; his administrator came in and defended, in the action *Plumer*v. *Prescott & al.,*Jan. Term, 1861, and thereafter the action was referred to an auditor to assess damages.

The execution was against John H. Prescott, and the goods in the hands of the administrator of Samuel Prescott. The wood attached by plaintiff and receipted for by defendant, was the property of John H. Prescott. The defendant never had possession of the wood, and by his consent it was disposed of by John H. Prescott.

The defendant claimed that the *action,Plumer*v. *Prescott & a.,*did not survive against Samuel Prescott or his administrator, and that consequently this action could not be maintained.

*C. H. Bell,*for plaintiff.

*Wood,*for defendant.

Bellows, J.

We are of the opinion, that the judgment in this case could not be impeached by the defendant in this proceeding, even if the administrator of Samuel Prescott was erroneously admitted to defend; but the error should have been taken advantage of by proceedings directly instituted for that purpose — either by the summary proceedings of a bill of exceptions, or by writ of error — the latter, however, not being applicable where resort might be had to the former. *Nichols*v. *Smith,**27026 N. H. 298; *Peebles*v. Rand, 43 N. H. 337; *Flanders*v. *Bank,*43 N. H. 383.

Therefore, as the judgment must be taken to be valid, as the case now stands, there must be

*Judgment for the plaintiff .*
# C_2011311EN.01002701.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 26 August 2011 — Novartis AG v Actavis UK Ltd

(Case C-442/11)

2011/C 311/44

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novartis AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Actavis UK Ltd

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Where a supplementary protection certificate has been granted for a product as defined by Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) for an active ingredient, are the rights conferred by that certificate pursuant to Article 5 of the Regulation in respect of the subject matter as defined in Article 4 of the Regulation infringed:

1

| (i) | by a medicinal product that contains that active ingredient (in this case valsartan) in combination with one or more other active ingredients (in this case hydrochlorothiazide); or |
| --- | --- |

(i)

by a medicinal product that contains that active ingredient (in this case valsartan) in combination with one or more other active ingredients (in this case hydrochlorothiazide); or

| (ii) | only by a medicinal product that contains that active ingredient (in this case valsartan) as the sole active ingredient? |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

only by a medicinal product that contains that active ingredient (in this case valsartan) as the sole active ingredient?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products

1

OJ L 152, p. 1

---
#### Watson v. Weed Sewing Machine Company.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought by William Gr. Watson and another to recover for goods sold and delivered.

*Frank Reynolds*and *F. A. Ward,*for appellants.

*David Crawford,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

Only questions of fact are passed upon in the opinion.

*New trial granted.*
Exhibit 32.1

Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capitol City Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George G. Andrews, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ George G. AndrewsGeorge G. Andrews, Chief Executive Officer


May 15, 2006



20
#### The Board of Supervisors of Saratoga County, *Respondents, v.*Andrew Seabury and others, *Appellants*.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN GREINER, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-13979 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CHARTER COUNTY OF MACOMB, 

MICHIGAN, a/k/a MACOMB COUNTY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR 

RECONSIDERATION (ECF ## 118, 119, 121, and 122) 

On September 11, 2017, this Court entered an Opinion and Order (ECF #117) in 

which it granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Michigan Council 25 American 

Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and granted summary 

judgment in part to Defendant Charter County of Macomb. Plaintiff has now filed four 

motions for reconsideration (ECF ## 118, 119, 121, and 122). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions are DENIED because Plaintiff has 

failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled 

and/or that correcting any such defect, if one existed, would result in a different disposition 

of the summary judgment motions. See Local Rule 7.1(h). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 6, 2017 
2 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on October 6, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
OSWER/OSRTI 

Washington, DC 20460 

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL)

***Final Site*** March 2010 

GRATIOT COUNTY GOLF COURSE St. Louis, Michigan 

Gratiot County 

 Site Location: 

Gratiot County Golf Course site is located immediately east of the Hidden Oaks Golf Course on Monroe Road in St. 

Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan. 

 Site History: 

From 1956 through 1970, a nearby chemical corporation disposed of industrial wastes in the area. The waste liquids 

were destroyed weekly by burning in an open pit. The disposal area was proposed to the NPL in 1982. The owner 

excavated 68,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil. These activities led to the deletion from the NPL in 1983. In 

2006, additional soil and ground water contamination was found and EPA and the State of Michigan decided to 

propose this area to the NPL. 

In 1972, a golf course was constructed around the boundaries of the former burn area. The golf course is currently 

operating. 

 Site Contamination/Contaminants: 

Approximately 345,606 square feet of contaminated soil and two fly ash piles remain on the former disposal site. 

Elevated levels of benzene and 1,2-dichloroethane have been found in the soils and in the underlying ground water 

beneath the site. 

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: 

Private residential wells and municipal water wells are located within a 4 mile radius. The ground water supply of 

approximately 20,000 residents could potentially be affected. 

 Response Activities (to date): 

In 1983, the owner excavated 68,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil following the 1982 proposed listing of this site 

on the NPL. 

 Need for NPL Listing: 

The State of Michigan referred the site to EPA because the elevated volatile organics found in the soil and in the 

underlying ground water beneath the site may potentially affect private residential and municipal wells. Other federal 

and state programs have been evaluated, but none are viable at this time. EPA received a letter of support for placing 

this site on the NPL from the State. 

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change 

as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination.] 

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these 

substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet 

at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
#### § 141.315 Marking of survival craft and stowage locations.

Survival craft and stowage locations must be marked in accordance with the requirements of §§ 199.176 and 199.178 of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 150
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 150.160 Carrying a cargo as an exception to the compatibility chart. The Operator of a vessel having on board a cargo carried as an exception under § 150.150 but not listed in Appendix I, Exceptions to the Chart, shall make sure that: ( a ) The Commandant (CG-ENG-5) has authorized by letter or message the cargo pair as an exception to the compatibility chart; and
( b ) A copy of the letter or message is on the vessel.
[CGD 75-59, 45 FR 70263, Oct. 23, 1980, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4781, Feb. 3, 1983; CGD 83-047, 50 FR 33038, Aug. 16, 1985; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 19955; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50731, Sept. 27, 1996]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1743]



[[Page 17523]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S. Government-Owned 
Patent

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(I)(i), 
announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-
bearing, revocable license to U.S. provisional patent application filed 
January 15, 2007 entitled ``Identification of Small Molecule Inhibitors 
of Filovirus Replication,'' to Functional Genetics, with its principal 
place of business at 708 Quince Orchard Rd., Gaithersburg, MD 20878.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-ZA-J, 504 Scott Street, Fort 
Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, 
Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664. For patent 
issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, both at 
telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of 
this license can file written objections along with supporting 
evidence, if any, 15 days from the date of this publication. Written 
objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see 
ADDRESSES.)

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-1743 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### § 144.310 Lifting requirements for a new vessel.

Each new vessel equipped for lifting must meet the requirements of part 173, subpart B, of this chapter.
#### William H. Onderdonk, *as*Executor, *etc., Respondent, v.*Warren Ackerman, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Brady, J.