alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Office of Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Brown.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1.]

(No. 98-399

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided November 10, 1998.)

*2
      *Jonathan E. Coughlan,*Disciplinary Counsel, *Kevin L. Williams*and *Lori J. Brown,*Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

*James J. Chester,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings of the board and its conclusions that respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended- from the practice of law. A condition of respondent’s possible reinstatement will be evidence of compliance with his contract with OLAP. Costs are taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., would suspend respondent for two years with one year stayed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11


                     COMPUTER NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

       Statement Re: Computation of Net Income Per Basic and Diluted Share
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Weighted
                                                               Average Shares  Per Share
                                                   Net Income    Outstanding     Amount
                                                   -----------    ----------    --------
<S>                                                   <C>           <C>           <C>
Three Months Ended June 30,

1999:
    Basic                                             $1,786        23,062        $.08
    Dilutive effect of employee stock purchase
    awards and options(1)                               --           3,164        (.01)

                                                   -----------    ----------    --------
    Diluted                                           $1,786        26,226        $.07
                                                   ===========    ==========    ========


1998:
    Basic                                             $  870        22,107        $.04
    Dilutive effect of employee stock purchase
    awards and options(1)                               --             150         --

                                                   -----------    ----------    --------
    Diluted                                           $  870        22,257        $.04
                                                   ===========    ==========    ========



Six Months Ended June 30,

1999:
    Basic                                             $4,483        22,773        $.20
    Dilutive effect of employee stock purchase
    awards and options(1)                               --           2,876        (.03)

                                                   -----------    ----------    --------
    Diluted                                           $4,483        25,649        $.17
                                                   ===========    ==========    ========


1998:
    Basic                                             $1,239        22,080        $.06
    Dilutive effect of employee stock purchase
    awards and options(1)                               --             143         --

                                                   -----------    ----------    --------
    Diluted                                           $1,239        22,223        $.06
                                                   ===========    ==========    ========
</TABLE>

(1)  For the second quarter and first half of 1999 and 1998, potential dilutive
     securities primarily consisting of outstanding stock options and shares
     issuable under the employee stock purchase plan are included in the
     computation of net income per diluted share using the treasury stock
     method.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4611

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JAMIE PAUL TABIT, a/k/a Gonzo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-03-60) Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 14, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamie Paul Tabit, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jamie Paul Tabit seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of time to file of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). When the notice of appeal is filed more than thirty days after expiration of the appeal period, neither the district court nor this Court may grant an extension. United States v. Schuchardt , 685 F.2d 901, 902 (4th Cir. 1982). The appeal periods established by Rule 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). The district court entered its judgment on November 19, 2003, and its amended judgment on December 1, 2003. Tabit filed his notice of appeal on June 23, 2004. * Because the notice of appeal was filed beyond the excusable neglect period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately- 3 - presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 1333.5 Machine-Readable Access to Information Required for Demurrage Invoices

In addition to providing the minimum information on or with demurrage invoices, Class I carriers shall provide machine-readable access to the information listed in § 1333.4. For purposes of this part, `machine-readable' means data in an open format that can be easily processed by computer without human intervention while ensuring no semantic meaning is lost. An `open format' is a format that is not limited to a specific software program and not subject to restrictions on re-use.

[86 FR 17750, Apr. 6, 2021]
#### Henry Root and Noble W. Stockham, *Respondents, v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,406                  56,406
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        16,278                  16,278
<OTHER-SE>                                     (72,684)                (72,684)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,240                   1,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,240)                 (1,747)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.00)                  (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)                  (0.00)



</TABLE>
§ 76.17-25 Additional protection required. ( a ) In order that any residual fires above the floor plates may be extinguished when a foam system is installed for the protection of spaces other than tanks, at least 2 fire hydrants, in addition to those required for the machinery space by subpart 76.10, shall be installed outside of the machinery space entrances. Such hydrants shall be fitted with sufficient hose so that any part of the machinery space may be reached with at least 2 streams of water, and each hose shall be equipped with an approved combination nozzle, applicator, and self-cleaning strainer as described in § 76.10-10(j)(3).
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 35.40-25 Fire extinguishers—TB/ALL. Each fire extinguisher shall be marked with a number and the location where stowed shall be marked in corresponding numbers in at least 1 ⁄ 2 inch figures.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, May 16, 1995 (67), Para 67.30 Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation]
[Page 747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.67.30  harry s truman scholarship foundation

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CAMP, announced that pursuant to the 
provisions of section 5(a) of Public Law 93-642 (20 U.S. Code 2004(b)), 
the Speaker did appoint as members of the Board of Trustees of the Harry 
S Truman Scholarship Foundation the following Members of the House: 
Messrs. Emerson and Skelton.
  Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate of the foregoing 
appointments.
```
NO. 07-03-00390-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A OCTOBER 29, 2003

______________________________ IN THE MATTER OF LOREEN ANN MAYEUX AND DOUGLAS WAYNE MAYEUX

_________________________________ FROM THE 3 20TH DI STRICT COURT OF PO TTER CO UNTY; NO. 67,510-D; HONORABLE R ICHARD D AMBOLD, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION P roceeding pro se , app ell ant D oug las Wayne M aye ux file d a no tic e of a ppea l challengin g the trial court’s order of June 26, 2003. On September 24, 2003, the trial court clerkfiled a request for extension of time to file the clerk’s record indicating Mayeux ’s intent notto pay the r

emaining balance for

the record because he no longe r wishe d to prosecute this appeal. As a pr

ecaution , by letter dated September 24, theclerk was granted an extension and Mayeux

was dir ecte d to c ertif y to th is Cou rt by T uesd ay, October 14, 2003,2

whether he had complied w ith the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedu re, noting that failure to do so might result in dismissal. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Mayeux did not respond and the clerk’s

record has no t been filed. Acco rdin gly, the appeal is hereby dis missed for w ant of prosecution and failure to comply with this Court’s directive. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b) & (c). Don H. Reavis Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000702402
<NAME> DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1981-1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          94,890
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,744
<PP&E>                                      41,122,321
<DEPRECIATION>                              41,042,880
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 276,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,445
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   276,209
<SALES>                                        117,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,966
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  103,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,825
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,825
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,825
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
`[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, April 4, 1995 (55), Para 55.4 Approval of the Journal]
[Page 528]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.55.4  approval of the journal

  The SPEAKER announced he had examined and approved the Journal of the 
proceedings of April 3, 1995.
  Mr. EWING, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, objected to the Chair's 
approval of the Journal.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House agree to the Chair's approval of said Journal?
  The SPEAKER announced that the nayes had it.
  Mr. EWING objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not 
present and not voting.
  A quorum not being present,
  The roll was called under clause 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by 
electronic device.

Yeas

369

Nays

36

When there appeared

<3-line {>

Answered present

1`
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY p.t.c::o REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

## SEP 3 0 2014 The Honorable Leanne Walker-Grant, Chairperson Table Mountain Rancheria ofCalifornia P.O. Box 410 Friant, California 93626 Dear Chairperson Walker-Grant: Pursuantto Executive Order 13175 and the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, I would like to invite the Table Mountain Rancheria ofCaliforniato engage in government-togovernment consultation on action EPA is considering to reclassi1’ the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area from Moderate nonattainment to Serious nonattainment fortwo National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2

. 5 ). The San Joaquin Valley is currently classified Moderate nonattainmentfortwo PM 2

. 5 NAAQS established in 1997 and 2006. EPA is evaluating air quality and modeling analyses regarding the ability ofthe San Joaquin Valley to attain the 1997 and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS bythe applicable attainment dates for each standard. Consistent with these evaluations, EPA is also considering action to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley as Serious nonattainment forthe 1997 and 2006 PM 2

. 5 NAAQS. These reclassification actions would establish new attainment dates and outline new air qualityplanning requirements. These reclassifications would also lowerthe applicable “major source” thresholds forthe purposes ofthe nonattainment new source review program and the Title V operating permit program from its current level of 100 tons peryear (tpy) to 70 tpy, potentially subjecting more stationary sources to these requirements. The reclassifications may also lowerthe de minimis threshold forthe Clean Air Act’s General Conformity requirement from 100 tpy to 70 tpy. Underthe General Conformity requirement, Federal agencies bearthe responsibility ofdetermining conformity ofactions in nonattainment and maintenance areas thatrequire Federal permits, approvals, or funding. To ensure that the interests and concerns ofthe Table Mountain Rancheria ofCalifornia are considered, I would like to invite you or your designated consultation representative to engage in government-togovernment consultation with EPA. To request further information, orto initiate consultation, please have your staffcontact Mr. Kerry Drake, Associate Director. Air Division, at (415) 947-4157 orby electronic mail at drake.kerryepa.gov. Ifyou desire government-to-governmentconsultation with EPA, we respectfully requestthatyou notify us by October27, 2014. Thankyou and I lookforwardto receiving your input.

cc: Samuel Elizondo, Environmental Manager Si IV.

Director, Air

Printed on ReCycled Paper
#### § 1005.7 Weight as a measure of loss.

Where weight is used as a measure of loss in rail transit of scrap iron and steel and actual tare and gross weights are determined at origin and destination, the settlement of claims shall be based upon a comparison of net weights at origin and destination.

[41 FR 25908, June 23, 1976]
###### Editorial Note on Part 8

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 8 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49224, Sept. 25, 2009.

#### § 8.540 Enrollment in SIP.

Upon successful completion of the training and evaluation phase, the Coast Guard SIP Advisor will recommend to the OCMI that the company or vessel be enrolled in the SIP. If the OCMI concurs with the recommendation, he or she will issue an enrollment letter and endorse the vessel's COI. Subsequent inspections covered under this subpart will be conducted in accordance with the approved VAP.
COÖS.

#### Bolles *v.*Dalton.

A claimant of damages for a defective highway, who has not filed his-claim within the ten days prescribed by Gen. Laws, c. 75, *s.*7, may be allowed to file it under *s.*9, if his omission was caused by his ignorance of the law, without any neglect or fault on his part, and if “manifest injustice would otherwise be done.”

Petit ton, upon Gen. Laws, *c.*75, s. 9, for leave to file a claim against the defendants for damage caused by a defective highway. The plaintiff omitted to file her claim within ten days, because she-did not know that the law required a claim to be filed.

*Hay, Drew*Jordan, for the plaintiff.

*Ladd 8f Fleteher,*for the defendants.

Doe, C. J.

A traveller receiving an injury from a defect of a-highway, and unavoidably prevented from filing his claim for damages within ten days, may apply to the court within six months, and if the court are of opinion that manifest injustice would otherwise be done, they may allow his claim to be filed. G. L., *c.*75, *s.*9. Any person aggrieved by a decision of a judge of probate, who was prevented from appealing therefrom within sixty days, through mistake, accident, or misfortune, and not from his own neglect, may, on petition within two years, be allowed an appeal. G. L., *e.*207, *s.*7. If, through accident, mistake, or misfortune, a, party excepting fails to enter his bill of exceptions at the next law term, the court, on petition filed within one year, may allow the bill to be entered. G. L., *e.*208, *s.*15. A new trial may be granted when justice has not been done, through accident, mistake, or misfortune, and a further hearing would be equitable. G. L., *e.*284, 8. 1. In *Parker’s Appeal,*15 N. H. 24, the petitioner examined the statute, but overlooked the provision requiring a bond and notice. And it was held that the mistake may be either of fact or of law; that he could not be charged with neglect, for ho examined the *480statute for the purpose of informing himself; and that as he mistook the law by which he intended to regulate his course, he should be allowed to appeal.

If the plaintiff’s ignorance of the law was due to no neglect or iault of hers, and if manifest injustice would be done by denying this petition, she should be allowed to file her claim. There are •decisions in analogous cases tending to show on what grounds applications of this kind should be granted or denied. *Matthews*v. *Fogg,*35 N. H. 289; *Tilton*v. Tilton, 35 N. H. 430; *Moulton's*Petition, 50 N. H. 532; *Grout*v. *Cole,*57 N. H. 547; *Rice's Petition,*58 N. H. 200; *Holton*v. *Olcott,*58 N. H. 598; *Rigney*v. *Hutchins,*9 N. H. 257; *Emery*v. *Chesley,*18 N. H. 198; *Weld*v. *Sabin,*20 N. H. 533; *N. E. M. F. Ins. Co. v. L. M. Co.,*22 N. H. 170; *Chase*v. *Brown,*32 N. H. 130; *Coburn*v. *Rogers,*32 N. H. 372; *N. & L. R. R.*v. *Stimpson,*35 N. H. 286; *Handy*v. *Davis,*38 N. H. 411; *Heath*v. *Marshall,*46 N. H. 40; *Woodworth*v. *Wilson,*50 N. H. 220; *T. & G. Co.*v. *Portsmouth, ante,*33.

*Case discharged.*

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
#### Elizabeth Welsh, Appellant, v. John T. Wilson, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Gilbert, J.;

Dykman J., dissenting.
#### § 1016.302 Filing and service of documents.

Any application for an award or other pleading or document related to an application shall be filed and served on all parties to the proceeding in the same manner as other pleadings in the proceeding, except as provided in § 1016.202(b) for confidential financial information.