alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-2873EA

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Gary Lee Smith, * [PUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: December 14, 1998

Filed: December 23, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, HEANEY, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Around midnight on April 28, 1997, a county police officer was dispatched to the site of a single car ac cident in rural Arkansas. When the officer arrived, Gary Lee Smith was standing beside his car, which was partially in a ditch and partially in th e roadway. To prepare the accident report, the off icer asked Smith for his identification, registration, and insurance pa pers. When Smith got into his car to retrieve the papers, th e officer saw a suede pouch on the floorboard next to Smith. Based on he r experience, the officer recognized i t was a gun pouch. Smith repeatedly tried to cover the gun pou ch with a notebook, but the notebook kept sliding off. Fearing for he r safety and believing Smith h ad committed the crime of carrying a gun in a vehicle, the-2-

officer tol d Smith to get out of his car. Smith complied. The officer searched the car and f ound an unloaded automatic pistol in the pouch along with shells for both th e pistol and a shotgun.
The Government charged Smith with being a felon in possession of a firearm

. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (1994). After the district court denied Smith’ s mot ion to suppress the gun, Smith pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal th e sup pression decision. Smith now appeals, asserting the search violated the Fourt h Amendment. Smith c ontends there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct to justify his detention and the search of his car.
The officer lawfully approached Smith’s vehicle to investigate the traffi c accident in the officer’s community caretaking capacity. See United States v. King , 990 F.2d 1552, 1560-61 (10th Cir. 1993); see also Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U. S. 433, 441 (1973). The officer’s observation of a gun pouch in Smith’s car and Smith’ s attempts t o conceal it gave the officer a reasonable suspicion that Smith was carrying a weapon in violation of Arkansas law. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73 -120 (Michie 1993) (unlawful to carry handgun in vehicl e). Given Smith’s furtive attempts to hide the gun pouch, the officer could rationally infer the pouch contained a gun and Smith wa s ca rrying it illegally. See id. § 5-73-120(c) (defenses to prosecution); see also King , 990 F.2d at 1563 n.5. The officer could then search the automobile without a warrant because the officer ha d probable cause to believe she would find evidence of criminal activity. See United States v. Patterson , 140 F.3d 767, 773 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 245 (1998).
We thus affirm the district court’s d enial of Smith’s motion to suppress the gun.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 185.910 Suspension and revocation.

An individual holding a merchant mariner credential, license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document who commits an act of misconduct, negligence, or incompetence, or who violates or fails to comply with this subchapter or any other law or regulation intending to promote marine safety, is subject to proceedings under the provisions of 46 U.S.C. 7703 and part 5 of this chapter with respect to suspension or revocation of a merchant mariner credential, license, certificate, or document.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11267, Mar. 16, 2009]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT EDWARD LEE,

Plaintiff, No. 14-11722

v. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

SAI LI, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

AMENDED ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Lee’s self-styled and rambling Motion to Show

Cause, Amended Supplemental Pleadings, and Request for Marshals to Serve CoDefendants [Doc. #39].

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I will liberally construe this motion as (1) a

request for Marshal’s service, and (2) a response to Defendant Sai Li’s motion for

judgment on the pleadings [Doc. #32]. There is no basis to issue an order to show cause

to anyone.

Defendant Eli Lilly Corporate Center has been dismissed. Sai Li is the only

remaining Defendant. He has been served, and has filed a dispositive motion. There are

no Defendants to be served; therefore, the motion for Marshal’s service [Doc. #39] is

DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion will nevertheless be considered in assessing Defendant’s motion

for judgment on the pleadings.

-1-

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 42 Filed 12/15/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 323
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: December 15, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on

December 15, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/C. Ciesla 

Case Manager 

-2-

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 42 Filed 12/15/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 324
Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 03/05/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 03/05/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 03/05/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 03/05/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 03/05/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 03/05/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 03/05/15 PageID.7 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 03/05/15 PageID.8 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 03/05/15 PageID.9 Page 9 of 9
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
              FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1997 AND 1998
                     (dollars in thousands, except ratio's)


                                        1996       1997      1998
                                        ----       ----      ----


Basic net income (loss) per share:

Net income (loss)                       $ 3,562   $(16,903)  $ (4,524)
Dividends on preferred stock             (2,129)    (3,346)    (6,335)
                                        -------   --------   --------
 
  Net income (loss) available common    $ 1,433   $(20,249)  $(10,859)
 
Weighted average shares outstanding      17,796     18,324     16,025
 
  Net income (loss) per share           $  0.08   $  (1.11)  $  (0.68)
                                        =======   ========   ========
 
Diluted net income (loss) per share:
 
Net income (loss)                       $ 3,562   $(16,903)  $ (4,524)
Dividends on preferred stock             (2,129)    (3,346)    (6,335)
                                        -------   --------   --------
 
  Net income (loss) available common    $ 1,433   $(20,249)  $(10,859)
 
Weighted average shares outstanding      17,796     18,324     16,025
 
  Net income (loss) per share           $  0.08   $  (1.11)  $  (0.68)
                                        =======   ========   ========

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.
#### § 167.65-50 Posting placards of lifesaving signals.

On all vessels to which this subpart applies there must be readily available to the deck officer of the watch a placard containing instructions for the use of the life saving signals set forth in regulation 16, chapter V, of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. These signals must be used by vessels or persons in distress when communicating with lifesaving stations and maritime rescue units.

[CGD 95-027, 61 FR 26010, May 23, 1996]
# C_2012258EN.01002002.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Chang Qing Qing (GUDDY)

(Case T-389/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark GUDDY - Earlier Community word mark GUCCI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark by reason of the public’s recognition of that mark - Evidence - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 258/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Chang Qing Qing (Florence)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2011 (Case R 143/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Guccio Gucci SpA and Mr Chang Qing Qing

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2011 (Case R 143/2010-1) so far as it concerns, first, the goods in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and, secondly, the precious stones and precious metals in Class 14 of that agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2011 (Case R 143/2010-1) so far as it concerns, first, the goods in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and, secondly, the precious stones and precious metals in Class 14 of that agreement;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
#### § 188.10-17 Combustible liquid.

This term includes any liquid whose flashpoint, as determined by an open cup tester, is above 80 °F.
#### MARGARET D. FITZGERALD, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN K. GORE ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND YELLOW CAB, INCORPORATED, DEFENDANT.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided October 21, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Kalisch and Campbell.

Eor the appellants, *Edward B. McGlynn.*

Eor the respondent, *James F. X. O’Brien*and *Joseph Couli.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff below was a passenger in a car of the defendant, Yellow Cab, Incorporated, which came into collision with a car of the defendants Gore and Cook, and plaintiff being injured brought suit against all three defendants.

The trial of the issue resulted in a nonsuit in favor of the Yellow Cab, Incorporated, and a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against the other defendants for $800.

We are asked to reverse this judgment upon two grounds.

Eirst, because it was error to nonsuit in favor of the defendant, Yelow Cab, Incorporated.

This does not present a ground of error for reversal. *Newman*v. Fowler, 37 *N. J. L.*89; *Public Service Railway Co.*v. *Matteucci,*6 *N. J. Adv. R.*1545.

Second, that it was error to refuse to direct a nonsuit in favor of the remaining defendants, the appellants here.

*911The proofs present facts and circumstances from which their negligence, causing the happening could be found, thus presenting a jury question. There was, therefore, no error in refusing to nonsuit as to them.

The judgment under review is therefore affirmed.
#### ELIZABETH SNYDER, Appellant, *v.*SYLVESTER SNYDER and Others, as Executors, etc., Respondents.

*Costs in an action against an executor*— when *the plaintiff is entitled to them, as a matter of right*— 3*B. 8.,*90, *sec.*41.

The refusal of an executor to refer a disputed claim presented against the estate entitles the claimant under section 41 (3 R. S., 90) to costs, as a matter of right, in case he recovers a judgment in an action brought thereon in the Supreme Court.

Appeal from so much of an order made at Special Term as denies costs to the plaintiff.

*325
      *S. D. Ifalliday,*for the appellant.

*Merritt King,*for the respondents.

Rtjmsey, J.:

The plaintiff having a claim against the defendants’ testator, presented it to the executors, who refused to allow it and refused to refer it under the statute. The plaintiff then brought suit in this court. The action was referred and the referee reported in favor of the plaintiff. ' She then moved at Special Term to confirm the report and for costs. The report was confirmed and judgment ordered on it, but without costs. From so much of the order as refuses costs plaintiff takes this appeal. The action having been commenced before the 1st day of September, 1880, the right to costs is controlled by the Revised Statutes. (Code Civil Pro., § 3347, sub. 11.) The section which bears on that subject provides that no costs shall be recovered in any suit at law against executors, unless it appear that the demand on which the suit was founded was presented, and “ that its payment was unreasonably resisted or neglected, or that the defendant refused to refer the same.” If either of these things appear, costs are a matter of right. In this case it is undisputed that the defendants refused to refer. Plaintiff should therefore have had costs awarded to her. *(Fort*v. *Gooding,*9 Barb., 388; *Stephenson*v. *Clark,*12 How. Pr., 282.)

So much of the order as is appealed from should .be reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements, and costs of the action to be taxed should be awarded to plaintiff.

Learned, P. J., and Osborn, J., concurred.

Order denying costs reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements, and costs granted.
§ 185.503 Voyage plan. ( a ) The master of the following vessels shall prepare a voyage plan: ( 1 ) A vessel making an oceans or coastwise voyage;
( 2 ) A vessel making a voyage of more than 300 miles on the Great Lakes, except from a Canadian to a United States port;
( 3 ) A vessel, with overnight accommodations for passengers, making an overnight voyage; and
( 4 ) A vessel arriving from a foreign port, except at a United States Great Lakes port from a Canadian Great Lakes port.
( b ) The voyage plan required by paragraph (a) of this section must be prepared prior to departing on a voyage and communicated verbally or in writing, ashore at the vessel's normal berthing location or with a representative of the owner or managing operator of the vessel. The voyage plan shall be available to the Coast Guard upon request.
### Regular Totals (Operators)

Airport = JFK Season = S Operator = 0001(Exclude) Status Date = 01/01/2010 (Current & Future) 12/21/2010 08:10:25



### Query Parameters:

### 12/21/2010 08:10:25

Carrier 

### Regular Totals (Operators) Excludes FAA Held Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded JFK Season = SUMMER PF7 Status Date = 01/01/2010 (Current & Future)

JFK

127 AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES 1 AAR ASIANA AIRLINES 2 AEA AIR EUROPA 2 AEW AEROSVIT AIRLINES 2 AFL AEROFLOT 7 AFR AIR FRANCE 7 AIC AIR INDIA 6 AJM AIR JAMAICA 6 AMX AEROMEXICO 2 ANA ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS 2 AUA AUSTRIAN 3 AVA AVIANCA 5 AVI L'AVION/OPENSKIES 6 AZA ALITALIA 15 BAW BRITISH AIRWAYS 5 BWA CARIBBEAN AIRLINES 2 CAY CAYMAN AIRWAYS 3 CCA AIR CHINA 1 CES CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES 4 CHQ CHAUTAUQUA 1 CMP COPA AIRLINES 1 COA CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 146 COM COMAIR AIRLINES 6 CPA CATHAY PACIFIC 4 CPZ COMPASS AIRLINES 248 DAL DELTA AIR LINES 4 DHL DHL 6 DLH DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA 61 EGF AMR EAGLE HOLDING COPR. (FORMERLY 6 EIN AER LINGUS 3 ELY EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES 2 ETD ETIHAD 3 FDX FED EX 2 FIN FINNAIR 4 IBE IBERIA AIRWAYS 2 ICE ICELANDAIR 2 JAI JET AIRWAYS 2 JAL JAPAN AIR LINES 363 JBU JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. 1 KAC KUWAIT AIRWAYS 3 KAL KOREAN AIR 4 KLM KLM ROYAL DUTCH 2 LNE LAN ECUADOR 4 LOT LOT - POLISH AIRLINES 2 MSR EGYPT AIR 7 MXA MEXICANA DE AVIACION 14 NWA NORTHWEST AIRLINES 2 QFA QANTAS AIRLINES 3 QTR QATAR AIRWAYS 2 RAM ROYAL AIR MAROC 3 RPA REPUBLIC AIRLINES

Page 2

### 12/21/2010 08:10:25

Carrier 

### Regular Totals (Operators) Excludes FAA Held Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded JFK Season = SUMMER PF7 Status Date = 01/01/2010 (Current & Future)

JFK

2 SAA SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS 4 SCX SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES, INC. 2 SIA SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED 6 SWR SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES (SWISSAIR 2 TAI TACA AIRLINES 3 TAM TAM BRAZILIAN AIRLINES 6 TCF SHUTTLE AMERICA 2 THY TURKISH AIRLINES, INC. 4 UAE EMIRATES 31 UAL UNITED AIRLINES 1 UPS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 9 USA US AIRWAYS 7 VIR VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIR 17 VRD VIRGIN AMERICA

Page 3
# C_2011238EN.01001901.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/19

---

Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Bopp v OHIM (Octagon with green sides)

(Case T-263/11)

2011/C 238/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by C. Russ, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2011 in Case R 605/2010-4. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2011 in Case R 605/2010-4.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of an octagon with green sides — application No 8 248 965.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for is distinctive on account of the identifiable, spatial representation.

Pleas in law:

---
MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 20, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT: June 20, 2014 Brief Remarks Regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants at the meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors 

held in Dallas

SUMMARY

Brief remarks were made by EPA at the meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors 

held in Dallas on the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was 

proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Large group setting 

EPA Participant: Ron Curry (Regional Administrator)
# Senate Floor Activity - Wednesday, June 18, 2014

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Wednesday, June 18)

H.R. 3230

H.R. 4660

S. 1237

 S.Amdt. 3288

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SARS Corporation., a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Christopher Wain, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, does  hereby certify, pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Chirstopher
Wain


By:
Christopher Wain


Its:
Chief Executive Officer





Date:
08/11/2008





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
SARS Corporation and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]