alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 8,861.

#### McKIM et al. v. KELSEY et al.

[Taney, 502.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Maryland.

April Term, 1851.

Maritime Liens — Repairs — Note Given Therefor — Surrender—Jurisdiction—Consent.

1. A promissory note given for articles furnished towards the repair of a vessel, will not bar a suit in admiralty, on the original cause of action, where the libellant produces the note in court, and surrenders it

2. If the district court has not jurisdiction independently of the consent of the parties, that consent could not confer it

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Maryland.

[This was a libel in personam by William McKim and Haslett McKim against Henry Kelsey and Andrew Gray. The district court rendered a decree dismissing the libel, without costs. Libellants appeal.]

J. Mason Campbell, for libellants.

Wm. R. Preston, for respondents.

TANEY, Circuit Justice.

The libel filed in this case by the appellants, only states that, at the request of the appellees, who were agents and part owners of the schooner Greek, they found and provided a quantity of copper for the said vessel, which was useful and necessary to her safety and navigation on the high seas; that the appellees gave their promissory note for the amount ($616.-16), payable on the 23d of August 1848; and that the note had not been paid; and they pray process in personam against the appel-lees, and a decree for the payment of the money.

The appellees accordingly appeared and answered, admitting the facts stated in the libel, and consenting that a decree should be passed as prayed; and the libellants produced the note mentioned in the libel, and filed it in court and surrendered it. There was no testimony taken in the case; and at the hearing in the district court, upon these pleadings and proceedings, the learned judge dismissed the libel without costs.

It is evident, that this decree was founded upon the opinion that the district court had not jurisdiction; and certainly, if it had not jurisdiction, independently of the consent of the parties, that consent could not confer it. But the circuit court is of opinion that the *216district court had jurisdiction of the case, as presented in the libel, and admitted in the answer. The reasoning and authorities upon which this opinion rests, have been already stated in the case of Reppert v. Robinson [Case No. 11,703], in which the same questions arose; and it is unnecessary to repeat them here; but upon the grounds there stated, this court is of opinion that the decree of the district court in this case is erroneous, and must be reversed. Decree reversed with costs.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DONALD T. CARLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LABOR READY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5024FDB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why there has been no response to the

Court’s orders in this case and why this cause of action should not be dismissed. Plaintiff responds

that he is not able to pursue prosecution at this time, being under some sort of restraint that will not

be released until April 25, 2007, and he asks that we hold proceedings in abeyance pending his

release. The Court is not inclined to stay this case until spring of next year. ACCORDINGLY, 

IT IS ORDERED: This cause of action is DISMISSED. 

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05024-FDB Document 16 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00353-CR

Tung Thanh Nguyen

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1367269D)

October 23, 2014

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
# C_2017347EN.01001202.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 — SGI v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publics

(Case C-459/17)

(2017/C 347/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SGI

Appellant:

Respondent: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publics

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the provisions of Article 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive of 17 May 1977, (1) which have, in essence, been reproduced in Article 168 of Directive [2006/112/EC] of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax that he is liable to pay by reason of his own transactions, tax levied on invoices corresponding to goods or services that the tax authorities establish have not actually been supplied to the taxable person, it is necessary, in all cases, to examine whether it has been established that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, regardless of whether that fraud was committed on the initiative of the issuer of the invoice, its recipient or a third party?

1

2

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

2

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, November 9, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be held Thursday, November 9, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Rosalind Matherne. For more information, please contact Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda includes a committee discussion that may involve On-line Chat feature, On-hold Music, Identity Theft Prevention and Victim Assistance Measures, Dashboard Data for Where's My Refund, and The Right to Quality Service on the Phone Line.                

Dated: October 10, 2023.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2023-22729 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

KATRINA A. RANDOLPH, 

Petitioner,

v.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

__________________________ 

2013-3106

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC315H120325-I-1. 

__________________________ 

Before DYK, PROST and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

The court considers whether to dismiss Katrina A. 

Randolph’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

Randolph’s representative received the Merit Systems 

Protection Board’s decision in her case on February 22, 

2013. Her petition was initially received by the court on 

April 25, 2013. 

A petition for review of an MSPB decision must be 

filed “within 60 days after the Board issues notice” of its 

Case: 13-3106 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2013
KATRINA RANDOLPH V. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 2

decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). This filing period is 

“statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” Monzo v. 

Dep’t of Transp., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 

Here, Randolph was required to file her petition by 

April 23, 2013, two days before it was received. Her 

petition is therefore untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 

25(a)(2)(A) (“filing is not timely unless the clerk receives 

the papers within the time fixed for filing”). Accordingly, 

the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Randolph’s petition 

and must dismiss it.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The petition is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s23

Case: 13-3106 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2013
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) 05-439M

CHRISTOPHER JAMES WITHAM,

 Defendant.

)

)

) ORDER DENYING MOTION for RECONSIDERATION

Having reviewed and considered the Government’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting

Motion for Temporary Release from Detention, the affidavits of Ms. Otake and Mr. Williams (dkt

#16), the Emergency, Unopposed Motion for Temporary Release (dkt #15), the Order Granting

Temporary Release (dkt #16), as well as the Detention Order (dkt #9), and the entire case file, 

The government’s motion to reconsider is hereby DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this order to counsel of record.

Dated this 17th

A

 day of November, 2005

James P. Donohue

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-mj-00439-MAT Document 17 Filed 11/17/05 Page 1 of 1
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 202

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Council.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 30, 1998

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Council.

Whereas, in the cases of William L. Singer v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, No. 98–6002, and Office

of the Senate Sergeant at Arms v. Office of Senate Fair

Employment Practices, No. 98–6003, pending in the

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,

petitioners William L. Singer and the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms have sought review of a final decision of the Select Committee on Ethics, which had been

entered, pursuant to section 308 of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, 2 U.S.C. § 1208 (1994), in

the records of the Office of Senate Fair Employment

Practices;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(1) (1994), the Senate may direct its counsel
2

SRES 202 ATS

to defend committees of the Senate in civil actions relating to their official responsibilities; and

Whereas, pursuant to section 303(f) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, 2 U.S.C. § 1203(f) (1994), for

purposes of representation by the Senate Legal Counsel,

the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, the respondent in this proceeding, is deemed a committee within the meaning of sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a),

288c(a)(1) (1994): Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed

2 to represent the Office of Senate Fair Employment Prac3 tices in the cases of William L. Singer v. Office of Senate

4 Fair Employment Practices and Office of the Senate Ser5 geant at Arms v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Prac6 tices.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0024

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MATTHEW ANDREW SOTTO,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 13, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 5 2024

02/05/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0024
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SIDNEY CHARLES RANDALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. LARSON, 

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0798-JCC-MAT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE REPLY

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, has filed a motion for an extension

of time to file a reply to defendants’ opposition to his motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. #53).

Plaintiff did not note his motion for an extension of time for a particular date, as required by the

Local Rules, and defendants have not filed an opposition to the motion. Having reviewed

plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and the balance of the record, the Court does hereby

find and ORDER:

(1) Although he did not note the motion for an extension of time, plaintiff’s motion is

timely, as it was filed before the due date for a reply. Plaintiff is advised that in the future he

should note any motion for consideration by the Court on the appropriate date. See Local Rule

CR 7(d). This information was previously provided to plaintiff in the Court’s Order setting

discovery deadlines. (Dkt. #16).

Case 2:06-cv-00798-JCC Document 56 Filed 05/31/07 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY

PAGE -2

Plaintiff contends that due to the fact that he is incarcerated, it is impossible for him to

meet the five-day deadline for a reply that is set forth by Local Rule CR 7(d)(3). Accordingly,

plaintiff requests a two week extension, or until June 15, 2007, to file his reply. It appears that

defendants will not be prejudiced by a short extension. Therefore, the Court will accommodate

plaintiff’s request and his motion for an extension of time (Dkt. #53) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s

reply is due no later than June 15, 2007.

(2) The Clerk shall RENOTE plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #52) for

consideration by the Court on June 15, 2007. The Clerk is further directed to send copies of this

Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour.

DATED this 31st day of May, 2007.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00798-JCC Document 56 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 2
1 5 1 7 WE S T F R O N T S T R E E T S U I T E 3 5 4 TYL E R , TX 7 5 7 0 2 T E L : 9 0 3 - 5 9 3 - 8 4 7 1 FA X : 9 0 3 - 5 9 3 - 2 1 9 3 Serving Anderson, Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Smith , Trinity, Upshur, Van Zandt and Wood Counties www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us C HIEF J USTICE J AMES T. W ORTHEN J USTICES B RIAN H OYLE G REG N EELEY 

# T W E L F T H 

# C O U R T O F 

# A P P EA L S C LERK C ATHY S. L USK C HIEF S TAFF A TTORNEY M ARGARET H USSEY 

## May 19, 2015 Ms. Lois Rogers District Clerk, Smith County Courthouse, Suite 204 100 North Broadway Avenue Tyler, TX 75702-7201 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * RE: Case Number: 12-14-00179-CR Trial Court Case Number: 241-0488-14 Style: Earnest Mark Browning v. The State of Texas Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed herewith is the Mandate issued in the above cause. When the District or County Clerk has executed the Mandate in accordance with the opinion of this Court, the Clerk is requested to fill in the information below and to return the attached copy to this office. Very truly yours, CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK By:_____________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk C C : Mr. Aaron Rediker (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Austin R. Jackson (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mandate executed on __ 20TH _ day of _____MAY___________, 2015. Brief explanation of action taken: _____ SCANNED ______________________________________

________________LINDA RHYMES ________________________________District/County Clerk FILE COPY
No. P67/202.

#### Concord Watch. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 66/27148, etc. (New York).

Olivee, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of watch movements that were manufactured and repaired or corrected in substantially the same manner as and are similar in all material respects concerning adjustment to the watch movements which were the subject of *Benrus Watch Company et al*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 28, C.D. 2469), and therein held to be unadjusted and, accordingly, not subject to any additional duty for adjustments, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Employee Painters Trust Health & Welfare

Fund, et al,

 Plaintiff, SUPPLEMENTAL 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v. FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

Timothy E Jackson, et al.

 Defendant.

CASE NUMBER: C06-5145KLS

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has

rendered its verdict.

 / Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and

a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that attorney fees and costs in the amount of $25,084.17 be awarded to plaintiffs.

 May 23, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

_____ /s/__Traci Whiteley_________________________

By Traci Whiteley, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05145-KLS Document 53 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                                   AMENDMENT

                                    TO THE

                            HOB ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

                             AMENDED AND RESTATED

                            1993 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         HOB Entertainment, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of
  State of Delaware (the "Company"), hereby adopts this Amendment to the HOB
  Entertainment, Inc. Amended and Restated 1993 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan").

              WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the Plan which, among
         other things, contemplated the issuance of options to purchase up to an
         aggregate of 11,500,166 shares of Common Stock of the Company;

              WHEREAS, the Company's Board of Directors and stockholders have
         determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to authorize
         the issuance of additional shares to purchase Common Stock, at the
         discretion of the Committee (as defined in the Plan)and to make an
         appropriate amendment to the Plan to approve such issuances.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

              Amendment to Section 1.4. The second sentence of Section 1.4 is
              ------------------------
hereby deleted and replaced to read in its entirety as follows:

              The aggregate number of shares of Common Stock to be issued upon
              exercise of all options granted under the Plan shall not exceed
              30,500,166 shares, subject to adjustment as set forth in Section
                                                                       -------
              3.1 hereof.
              ---


                          (Signature Page Follows)
<PAGE>

          I hereby certify that the foregoing Plan Amendment was duly adopted by
 the Board of Directors of HOB Entertainment, Inc., effective as of January 19,
 1999.

          Executed on this ______ day of October, 1999.




                                          /s/ Joseph C. Kaczorowski
                                          -------------------------
                                                  Secretary

          I hereby certify that the foregoing Plan Amendment was duly approved
  by the stockholders of HOB Entertainment, Inc., effective as of September 10,
  1999.

          Executed on this ______ day of October, 1999.




                                          /s/ Joseph C. Kaczorowski
                                          -------------------------
                                                    Secretary