alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ed Willis v. The State.

*No. 378.*

*Decided February 3.*

Arson — Prisoner Setting Fire to Jail or Calaboose, —A prisoner setting fire to a jail or calaboose in which he is confined, in order to secure his . escape therefrom, is guilty of arson. Following Smith v. The State, 23 Texas Or. App., 357.

Appeal from the District Court of Cherokee. Tried below before Hon. James T. Polley.

Appellant was indicted for burning the Jacksonville calaboose, and at his trial was convicted, his punishment being assessed at a term of seven years in the penitentiary.

The evidence shows, that defendant was a prisoner, being in custody of an officer who was taking him from Palestine to Rusk. They had to lay over for the night at Jacksonville, waiting for a train, and the officer placed the defendant, for safe keeping during the night, in the calaboose. There were no other prisoners in the calaboose. A hole was burnt in the floor of the room in which defendant had been placed, sufficiently large for a man to crawl through, and showed signs as though a person had *535crawled through and under the building. Defendant escaped from the calaboose, and was not rearrested for three or four months afterwards.

*L. D.*Quinn, for appellant.

*JR. L.*Henry, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This conviction was for arson. Appellant was confined in the calaboose at Jacksonville. During the night, the building was set on fire, in the room in which he was confined, by which means he secured his escape.

The contention below was, that if defendant did the burning in order to secure his escape, such burning would not constitute the crime of arson.

Such seems to have been the view entertained by the Supreme Court in Delaney’s case, 41 Texas, 601; but that case was expressly overruled by the Court of Appeals, in Smith’s case, 23 Texas Criminal Appeals, 357; and we are of opinion that the latter'case enunciates the correct doctrine.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
#### § 92.15-1 Application.

The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of § 92.15-90, shall apply to all vessels contracted for on or after November 19, 1952. Vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952, shall meet the requirements of § 92.15-90.
#### Rand *v.*The Merchants’ Dispatch Trans. Co.

Common carriers may, by express contract, limit their common-law liability.

Assumpsit, against the defendants, as common carriers of merchandise. Facts found by a referee.

The plaintiff delivered the property in question to the defendants, to be transported from Nashua to Cresco, Iowa, and received a bill of lading which contained the contract between the parties, and in which the defendants excepted from their liability the dangers of fire. The merchandise was destroyed by fire while on the way, without fault of the defendants.

Bolfe, for the plaintiff.

*Stevens 8f*Parker, for the defendants.

Stanley, J.

Common carriers may, by express contract, limit their common-law liability. *Moses*v. *B.*& *M. R. R.,*24 N. H. 71, 90; *York Co.*v. *Central R. R.,*3 Wall. 107; *Pemberton Co.*v. *N. Y. C. R. R.,*104 Mass. 144; *Grace*v. *Adams,*100 Mass. 505; Scho. Bailm. 454, and notes. The referee has found that by the contract of the parties the defendant was not to be liable for damage caused by fire, and that the defendant was without fault.

*Judgment for the defendant.*

Foster and Allen, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending September 15, 2007

|Filer                                   | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                                  
|--------------------------------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|BOSTON PRIVATE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC. | 4c8            | Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts to acquire an additional 19.5% interest in Coldstream Holdings, Inc., Bellevue, Washington pursuant to section 4(c)(8) of the BHC Act and section 225.23 of Regulation Y. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                              | Not applicable
|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
98-2193.

#### State ex rel. DeJute v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Prohibition. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION,
Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC,

Intervenors

______________________

2024

- 1613

______________________
Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337

- TA

- 1318

.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App.

P. 42 (b). Case: 24-1613 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 07/01/2024R EALTEK S EMICONDUCTOR C ORPORATION V

. ITC 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

July 1, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 1, 2024 Case: 24-1613 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 07/01/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         777,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,898
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               805,693
<PP&E>                                       3,593,748
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,699,898
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,737,630
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,564
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,647,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,737,630
<SALES>                                        372,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               379,337
<CGS>                                          190,879
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  190,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,920
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125,538
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,538
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    13.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    13.65
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.2**




***Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer***





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 DGSE Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Benson, Chief
      Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
      of
      my 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 results of operations of the
              Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/
                John BensonJohn
                Benson, Chief Financial Officer





Dated:
      November 13, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to DGSE Companies, Inc. and will be retained by DGSE Companies, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
      separate disclosure document.
1 

### Bhesania, Amy

From: Vit, Wendy <wendy.vit@dnr.mo.gov>

Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 2:02 PM

To: Bhesania, Amy

Cc: Graf, Wayne; Reimer, Shelly

Subject: 6.020 Ambient Air definition

Categories: Record Saved - Shared

Amy, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Air Pollution Control Program has interpreted the state definition

of “ambient air” in 10 CSR 10

‐ 6.020 as equivalent to the federal definition and, in addition, has put this interpretation

into practice as demonstrated through the use of the term in the 2008 Pb attainment plans submitted to EPA in April

2013, as well as in permitting and ambient air monitoring activities. Revising the definition of “ambient air” in 6.020 as

proposed (published in the Aug. 15, 2013 Missouri Register) is intended make the definition consistent with the

program’s interpretation and application of this term. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional

information. Thanks.

Wendy Vit

Air Quality Planning Section Chief

Air Pollution Control Program

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

(573) 526

‐ 3167

wendy.vit@dnr.mo.gov
# MDE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

1800 Washington Boulevard. Baltimore : MD 21230 410

- 537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101. www.mde.state.md.us M artin O ' Mall ey G o vernor Robert M . Summers , Ph . D . Sec ret ary Anthony G . Brown Li eutenant Governor

;. ' November 15 , 2012 Linda C. Janey, J . D ., Assistant Secretary Clearinghouse and Communications Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance Maryland Office of Planning 301 West Preston Street Baltirriore MD 21201 De ar Ms. Jane y : I am enclosing a copy of the introductory sections of the State of Maryland Ozone Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) . Section I I 

# o (a) of the federal Clean Air Act requires that each SIP provide for the implementation , maintenance , and enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS). This se c tion also requires th at within three years of the promulgati on of a NAAQS , a s tate must adopt and submit such a plan to U. S. Environment al Protection Agenc y . These " infrastructure SIPs " provide assurances of state resources and authorities, and where necessary , establish the basic state programs to implement , maintain and enforce new or revised standards. This document summarizes where the 

### § 11 O(a) (2) requirements for the 2 008 revised ozone NAAQS are addressed in Maryland ' s current SIP or pending SIP revisions. This document may be viewed here: http ://w w w.mde . state . md . us/ programs / Air

/ AirOualityPlanning/Pages/ programs/ airprograms / air planni ng/index.aspx . A public hearing, as required by federal law (42 U.S.C. 7410 (a) and 40 CFR 51 . 102) will be held on December 21,2012 at 10:00 a . m. in MDE ' s first-floor conference room. The official close of the comment period occurs at the end of business hours on December 2 1, 2012. If y ou have any comments on this submittal , please call me at ( 410) 537-3240 . Sincerely ,

- /



## ~~ z; 

# :;Z u:::f: Roger E. Thunell Chief, SIP Planning Division cc: Diane Franks, Manager Air Quality Planning Program Brian Hug, Deputy Air Quality Planning Program

~ Recyc led Paper www.mde.state.md . us T T Y Us er s 1 -80 0 -7 3 5 -22 5 8 V ia Mary l and Relay Service WWWi'* H
Presidential Documents

34159 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 118 

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of June 19, 2007 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the 

Risk of Nuclear Proliferation Created by the Accumulation 

of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material in the Territory of the 

Russian Federation 

On June 21, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13159 (the ‘‘order’’), 

blocking property and interests in property of the Government of the Russian 

Federation that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the 

United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control 

of United States persons that are directly related to the implementation 

of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America 

and the Government of the Russian Federation Concerning the Disposition 

of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, dated February 18, 1993, and related contracts and agreements (collectively, the ‘‘HEU 

Agreements’’). The HEU Agreements allow for the downblending of highly 

enriched uranium derived from nuclear weapons to low enriched uranium 

for peaceful commercial purposes. The order invoked the authority, inter 

alia, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 

et seq., and declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and 

extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United 

States posed by the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation 

of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of 

the Russian Federation. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
34160 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Presidential Documents 

The national emergency declared on June 21, 2000, must continue beyond 

June 21, 2007, to provide continued protection from attachment, judgment, 

decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process for the property 

and interests in property of the Government of the Russian Federation that 

are directly related to the implementation of the HEU Agreements and 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) 

of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 

1 year the national emergency with respect to weapons-usable fissile material 

in the territory of the Russian Federation. This notice shall be published 

in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

June 19, 2007. [FR Doc. 07–3063 

Filed 6–19–07; 11:04 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
§ 54.10-15 Pneumatic test (modifies UG-100). ( a ) Pneumatic testing of welded pressure vessels is permitted only for those units which are so designed and supported that they cannot be safely filled with water, or for those units which cannot be dried and are to be used in a service where traces of the testing medium cannot be tolerated.
( b ) Proposals to pneumatically test must be submitted to the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, for approval.
( c ) Except for enameled vessels, for which the pneumatic test pressure must be at least equal to, but need not exceed, the maximum allowable working pressure to be marked on the vessel, the pneumatic test pressure must be at least equal to one and one-tenth (1.10) times the maximum allowable working pressure to be stamped on the vessel multiplied by the lowest ratio (for the materials of which the vessel is constructed) of the stress value “S” for the test temperature of the vessel to the stress value “S” for the design temperature (see UG-21 of Section VIII of the ASME BPVC (incorporated by reference; see § 54.01-1)). In no case must the pneumatic test pressure exceed one and one-tenth (1.10) times the basis for calculated test pressure as defined in UA-60(e) of Section VIII of the ASME BPVC.
( d ) The pneumatic test of pressure vessels must be accomplished as follows: ( 1 ) The pressure on the vessel must be gradually increased to not more than half the test pressure.
( 2 ) The pressure will then be increased at steps of approximately one-tenth the test pressure until the test pressure has been reached.
( 3 ) The pressure will then be reduced to the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessel to permit examination.
( e ) Pressure vessels pneumatically tested must also be leak tested. The test must be capable of detecting leakage consistent with the design requirements of the pressure vessel. Details of the leak test shall be submitted to the Commandant for approval.
( f ) After satisfactory completion of the pneumatic pressure test, the vessel may be stamped in accordance with § 54.10-20. A marine inspector must observe the pressure vessel in a loaded condition at the first opportunity following the pneumatic test. The tank supports and saddles, connecting piping, and insulation if provided must be examined to determine if they are satisfactory and that no leaks are evident.
( g ) The pneumatic test is inherently more hazardous than a hydrostatic test, and suitable precautions must be taken to protect personnel and adjacent property.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18828, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65170, Oct. 31, 2008]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

STATE OF INDIANA, )

By Attorney General Greg Zoeller )

) Case No. 15-12309

PLAINTIFF )

)

v. )

)

American Furukawa, Inc.; Delphi )

Automotive LLP; Delphi Automotive )

Systems, LLC; Denso Corporation; Denso )

International America, Incorporated; )

Fujikura Ltd.; Furukawa Electric )

Company, Limited; G.S. Electech, Inc.; )

G.S. Wiring Systems Inc.; G.S.W. )

Manufacturing, Inc.; K&S Wiring Systems, )

Inc.; Kyungshin-Lear Sales and )

Engineering, LLC; Lear Corporation; )

Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc.; Leonische )

Holding Inc.; S-Y Systems Technologies )

America, LLC; Sumitomo Electric )

Industries, Limited; Sumitomo Electric )

Wintec America, Inc.; Sumitomo Electric )

Wiring Systems, Inc.; Sumitomo Wiring )

Systems (U.S.A.) Inc.; Sumitomo Wiring )

Systems, Ltd.; TRAM, Incorporation d/b/a )

Tokai Rika USA, Incorporated; Tokai Rika )

Company, Ltd.; Yazaki Corporation, )

Yazaki North America, Incorporated, )

)

DEFENDANTS. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

OF LEAR CORPORATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Case 2:15-cv-12309-SFC-RSW ECF No. 5, PageID.102 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismisses its claims against 

Defendant Lear Corporation, without prejudice, with each party to bear its own 

costs and fees.

_Kevin Abraham Rynbrandt_______

Kevin Abraham Rynbrandt (P46699)

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

1000 Front Avenue, N.W.

Grand Rapids, MI 49504

616-915-9266

kar@rynbrandt.com

Indiana Attorney General’s Office

Indiana Government Building South

302 West Washington Street, 5th Floor

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-232-6201

Dated: September 16, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-12309-SFC-RSW ECF No. 5, PageID.103 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 2
**Letter of Transmittal**

New York AdvisoryCommittee to theU.S. Commission on Civil Rights

**Members of theCommission**Mary Francis Berry, *Chairperson*Cruz Reynoso, *Vice Chairperson*Carl A. Anderson Christopher F. Edley, Jr. Yvonne Y. Lee Elsie M. MeeksRussell G. Redenbaugh

Ruby G. Moy, *StaffDirector*

As part of itsresponsibility to assist the Commission in its factfinding function, the NewYork Advisory Committee submits this report, Equal Housing Opportunities in NewYork: An Evaluation of Section 8 Housing Programs in Buffalo, Rochester, andSyracuse. This study is based on three factfinding meetings conducted inSyracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo in the fall of 1996, supplemented by followupinterviews and background research. Persons who provided information were givenan opportunity to review relevant sections of the report and, where appropriate,their comments and corrections were incorporated. The Advisory Committeeunanimously approved the report by a vote of 16 to 0. 

At each factfindingmeeting, the Committee heard from several panels, including representatives from(1) the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and local publichousing agencies, (2) fair housing advocacy organizations, and (3) communityrepresentatives, landlords, and Section 8 recipients. The panelists shared theirperspectives on problems, including complaints about residency preferences,waiting lists, poor public transportation, and discrimination, and also aboutnew tenant friendly programs that held promise for greater housing mobility. 

Among the conclusionsresulting from the factfinding meetings, the Advisory Committee noted thathousing agencies have not been proactive in promoting residential mobility asmandated by HUD. Many housing agencies are in effect promoting segregation byrefusing to share suburban landlord lists with inner-city Section 8 recipients.The Advisory Committee also concluded that mobility counseling centers hold thegreatest possibility to help move Section 8 recipients out of high povertyconcentration areas into suburban jurisdictions with more educational andeconomic opportunities. 

Although the report doesnot reflect an exhaustive analysis of the subject, the Advisory Committee hopesthe Commission will find it of value in its monitoring of fair housing issuesnationwide.

Sincerely,

M.D. (Lita) Taracido*Chairperson*New York Advisory Committee