alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ATLANTIC CITY RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL PACKMAN AND SAMUEL PACKMAN, TRADING AS PACKMAN BROTHERS, DEFENDANT-APPELLEES.

Decided November 4, 1929.

Before Justices Teenchaed, Kalisch and Lloyd.

Eor the appellant, *Thompson & Hanstein.*

Eor the appellees, *Endicoit & Endicott.*

Pbb Cueiam.

An action was brought by the Atlantic City Railroad Company, in the Atlantic City District Court, to recover from the defendants, the difference in freight charges on a certain shipment of canned goods on car No. 96757, on October 7th, 1925, from Goldsborough, Maryland, to Atlantic City, Now J ersey.

The conceded facts are, that it was an interstate shipment, and that the rules of the interstate commerce commission apply; that the appellant railroad company collected the freight at Atlantic City in the sum of $132.60, which was based on an inaccurate rate. It was further conceded that the rate which the company should have charged was forty and one-half cents per hundred on fifty-two thousand pounds, and according to that rate, would have amounted to $210.60.

The appellant company therefore claimed the difference of $78 in freight charges.

*946It is conceded that a counter-claim filed by the defendantsappellees for losses sustained by *them*on previous shipments, over plaintiff-appellant’s lines at the replacement value of the damaged items, in Atlantic City, is $21.21, and the replacement value in wholesale quantities is $16.74.

The trial judge nonsuited the appellant on its claim and gave judgment for the defendants on their counter-claim. It is conceded that a mistake was made by the railroad company in the statement of its freight charges. But even if that were not so, the material facts of this case are like unto those facts dealt with in *West Jersey and Seashore Railroad Co.*v. *Lake & Risley Co.,*7 *N. J. Adv. R.*517, decided by this court. The headnote reads: “Where it was ascertained, after consignees of freight accepted merchandise and paid full amount of transportation charges, then stated to be due, and signed delivery receipts, that amount paid was less than schedule of rates established and posted with interstate commerce commission, nonsuit of action by carrier to recover small balances due, based upon act congress February 4th, 1887 (49 *U. S. G. A.,*§ 1 *et seq.),*known as Interstate Commerce act and its amendments, held, error where shipment was interstate, the act prohibiting departure from tariff rates filed.” This case is controlling.

Judgment is reversed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the 
use of our report dated January 19, 1998, with respect to the 1997 and 1996 
financial statements and schedule of Able Telcom Holding Corp. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended October 31, 1998 which is
incorporated by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3, No. 
333-22105 and Form S-8, No. 333-04377 pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan
of Able Telcom Holding Corp.).

West Palm Beach, Florida                        Ernst & Young LLP
March 1, 1999
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the “Report”), as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ben T. Morris,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 complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

2.  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  BEN T. MORRIS |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Ben T. Morris           |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| May 12, 2003            |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained bySanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Promissory Note, Dated July 14, 2004



  
 Exhibit 10.4

  
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED: 
  
 The undersigned, Money To Lend of Louisiana, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation, promises
to pay Vance R. Martin, on June 28, 2008 the sum of Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($500,000.00) together with interest at a rate of Eight Percent (8%) per annum, payable monthly by the tenth (10th) of each month. 
  
 The indebtedness evidenced by this note may be prepaid by the undersigned Maker in whole or in part prior to maturity on any interest paying date, together with accrued
interest to the date of prepayment. The holder hereof shall be entitled to receive from the undersigned Maker thirty (30) days prior written notice of its intention to prepay this note at his last address as shown by the records of the undersigned.
In the event this note is not presented for prepayment on the dte called for in the written notice by the undersigned, interest shall nevertheless cease from and after such date. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Money To Lend of Louisiana, Inc. has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed by its President on the
14th day of July, 2004. 
  

			
	MONEY TO LEND OF LOUISIANA, INC.
		
	BY:	 	 /s/ Vance R. Martin

	Its:	 	President


  
 SEAL
# readme

# CT Community wells

# Domestic Use

# HUC10 70EIA

# HUC12 70EIA

# HUC10 CTEIA

# HUC12 CTEIA

# CT_Streamflow
# C_2013225EN.01005903.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/59

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2013 — Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV v European Commission

(Case C-585/12) (1)

1

2013/C 225/129

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

1

---
§ 34.20-90 Installations contracted for prior to January 1, 1970—T/ALL. ( a ) Installations contracted for prior to January 1, 1970, shall meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Existing arrangements, materials, and facilities previously approved shall be considered satisfactory so long as they meet the minimum requirements of this paragraph and they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alterations may be made to the same standards as the original installation.
( 2 ) For installations contracted for prior to November 19, 1952, see § 34.17-90(a)(5).
( 3 ) Installations contracted for on or after November 4, 1957, but prior to January 1, 1970, shall meet the requirements of §§ 34.20-5 through 34.20-20 insofar as is reasonable and practicable.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16694, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 69-72, 34 FR 17481, Oct. 29, 1969]
# C_2013377EN.01000401.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/4

---

Order of the Court of 12 September 2013 — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-616/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Appeal manifestly unfounded - Second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Time-limit for instituting proceedings)

2013/C 377/06

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH (represented by: K Chrysogonos and A. Kaidatzis, lawyers)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-466/11 Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and Hoern v Commission, in which the General Court declared an action for the annulment of Commission decision C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010, accepting the undertakings offered by Greece in exchange for measures required by the Commission in its decision C(2008) 3118 final of 2 July 2008, declaring aid granted by the Greek authorities to Ellinika Nafpigeia (Hellenic Shipyards, ‘HSY’), to be incompatible with the common market, in the context of amendments to the initial investment plan relating to the restructuring of that shipyard (State aid C 16/2004 (ex NN29/2004, CP 71/2002 et CP 133/2005)).

Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and Hoern

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

1

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending April 1, 2006

----

Bank Holding CompaniesMarshall & Ilsley Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin  -- commenter's request for reconsideration of the Board's approval of the applications to acquire Gold Banc Corporation, Inc., Leawood, Kansas, and Gold Bank, and Trustcorp Financial, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, and Missouri State Bank and Trust Company, Clayton.					-Denied, March 29, 2006 					New York Community Bancorp, Inc., Westbury, New York, and New York Community Newco, Inc.  -- to acquire Atlantic Bank of New York, New York.					-Approved, March 28, 2006 					

Discount RatesDiscount and Advance Rates  -- increase in the primary credit rate from 5-1/2 percent to 5-3/4 percent by the Federal Reserve Banks of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Dallas, and San Francisco.					-Approved, March 28, 2006 					Discount and Advance Rates  -- increase in the primary credit rate from 5-1/2 percent to 5-3/4 percent by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.					-Approved, March 30, 2006 					

FormsForms  -- final Board review to extend with revision the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income for Edge and Agreement Corporations (FR 2886b) and Quarterly Report of Assets and Liabilities of Large Foreign Offices of U.S. Banks (FR 2502q).					-Approved, March 30, 2006 					

Regulations And PoliciesBasel Capital Accord  -- notice of proposed rulemaking to implement the Basel II risk-based capital requirements in the United States for large, internationally active banking organizations.					-Approved, March 30, 2006 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: April 6, 2006
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending November 18, 2006

|Filer                              | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                 | End of Comment Period                                 
|---------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|1867 WESTERN FINANCIAL CORPORATION | * 3A3          | 1867 Western Financial Corporation, Stockton, California, to acquire up to 9.9 percent of Pacific Business Bancorp, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of Pacific Business Bank, both of Irvine, California. | Newspaper:12/15/2006Federal Register:12/15/2006       
|Newspaper:                         | 12/15/2006    
|Federal Register:                  | 12/15/2006    
|UNITED SECURITY BANK               | * 18C          | United Security Bank, Fresno, California, to merge with Legacy Bank, N.A., Campbell, California.                                                                                                                | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                         | Not available 
|Federal Register:                  | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
**EXHIBIT 99.7**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Cameco Corporation 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial position of Cameco Corporation as of December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015and the related consolidated statements of earnings, comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of Cameco Corporation’s management. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. 

We conducted our audits in accordance with thestandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An auditincludes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating theoverall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In our opinion, the consolidatedfinancial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Cameco Corporation as of December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, and its consolidated financial performance and itsconsolidated cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. 

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Cameco Corporation’s internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on the criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO),and our report dated February 8, 2017 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of Cameco Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Chartered Professional Accountants 

Saskatoon, Canada 

February 8, 2017
M A N D A T E

TO THE 197TH DISTRICT COURT of WILLACY COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 27th day of

August, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Antonio Arriaga and Inez Lara

Rosales,

Appellants,

v.

Obdulia Martinez Arriaga, Antonio

Martinez Arriaga Jr., and Reyna Luisa

Martinez Arriaga

Appellees.

CAUSE NO. 13-15-00038-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 2014-CV-0100-A)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in

accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 16th day of November, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

STATE FARM BANK, F.S.B., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

LARRY LUKOVICH, 

 Defendant. 

 Case No. 15-10198 

 Hon. Robert H. Cleland 

CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DAMAGES 

 On September 21, 2015, upon stipulation of the parties, the Court entered a 

CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY ONLY AND EXTENSION OF 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION CUTOFF DATE (DN 12), leaving only the issue of 

damages for further disposition by the Court. The parties have now stipulated to a 

disposition of the remaining issue, and the Court is otherwise advised in the 

premises; 

 NOW, THEREFORE, 

 IT IS ORDERED that judgment be, and hereby is, granted in favor of 

Plaintiff STATE FARM BANK, F.S.B. and against Defendant LARRY 

LUKOVICH in the amount of $185,000.00, plus interest as provided by law. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

 ROBERT H. CLELAND 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:15-cv-10198-RHC-SDD Doc # 20 Filed 03/09/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 116
2 

Dated: March 9, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

and/or pro se parties on this date, March 9, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 S/Lisa Wagner 

 Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 

 (313) 234-5522 

2:15-cv-10198-RHC-SDD Doc # 20 Filed 03/09/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 117
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

STATE FARM BANK, F.S.B., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

LARRY LUKOVICH, 

 Defendant. 

 Case No. 15-10198 

 Hon. Robert H. Cleland 

STIPULATION TO 

ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DAMAGES 

 The parties, by counsel, stipulate to the entry of the proposed Consent 

Judgment as to Damages, a copy of which is attached. 

ABBOTT NICHOLSON P.C. 

By:/s/Daniel G. Kielczewski 

300 River Place, Suite 3000

Detroit, Michigan 48207-4225 

(313) 566-2500 

dgkielczewski@abbottnicholson.com 

Attorney No. P42875 

BEADLE SMITH, PLC 

By:/s/with consent of Thomas L. Beadle

Attorneys for Defendant 

445 S. Livernois Road, Suite 305 

Rochester Hills, MI 48307 

(248) 650-6094 

tbeadle@bbssplc.com 

Attorney No. P39203

4835-6263--8637, v. 1 

2:15-cv-10198-RHC-SDD Doc # 20 Filed 03/09/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 118
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      31,563,950
<SECURITIES>                                10,583,997
<RECEIVABLES>                                  812,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,804,978
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,967,187
<PP&E>                                       7,015,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                 942,308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              56,098,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,294,508
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,788
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,131,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                56,098,857
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,081,818
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,812,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               170,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (2,038,921)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (9,692,195)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (9,692,195)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (9,692,195)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)


</TABLE>
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR SIP REVISION

California State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation

Planning Area: All Nonattainment Areas

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V –

Criteria for Determining the Completeness

of Plan Submissions

Enclosed Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's 

Designee X

See letter addressed to 

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld from 

Mr. James N. Goldstene

2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption X

See ARB Executive Orders

R-11-009 and R-11-010

(See Attachments V and VI) and 

ARB Resolutions 10-44 and 10-45 

(See Attachments II and III)

2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation X

See Resolutions 10-44 and 10-45 

(See Attachments II and III)

2.1(d) Copy of :

a. Attainment Plan

b: Contingency Measures

Not applicable

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's 

Procedural Requirements X

See ARB Executive Orders 

R-11-009 and R-11-010

(See Attachments V and VI) and 

ARB Resolutions 10-44 and 10-45 

(See Attachments II and III)

2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 

40 CFR part 51.102 X

See 15-Day Comment Notice

(See Attachment IV)

2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in 

Accordance with Notice Not applicable

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and 

Responses

See Final Statement of Reasons

(See Attachment VII)

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant Not applicable

2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status Not applicable

2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on Emissions Not applicable

2.2(d) Demonstration that Plan 

Approval/Implementation Protects 

NAAQS 

Not applicable

2.2(e) Modeling Support Not applicable
2.2(f)- Compliance/Enforcement and 

2.2(i) Justification Not applicable

S:\SIP Submittals - Statewide Rules\TnB and Drayage Submittal Letter\CD for USEPA\10 - Checklist.doc