alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 26, 1953

No. 57231.

Suit 4739.

#### United States *v.*International Expediters, Inc., for Winsor & Newton, Inc.

Reap. Dec. 8105 affirmed January 14, 1953. C. A. D. 511.
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 12 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 12 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB Document 12 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 3 of 3
# Bulletin No. 2016-05

# Additional Information
Case No. 13,123b.

#### SMITH v. WASHINGTON.

[2 Hayw. & H. 220.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May 23, 1856.2

Municipal Corporations — Grading Streets — Compensation por Injuries Resulting.

The corporation of the city of Washington has power to regrade the streets of the city under its charter, without making compensation for individual Injuries, unless in exercising the power given it acted corruptly or with a design to injure; the power is a continuing, power, to be exercised whenever deemed proper.

[This judgment was affirmed by the supreme court, where it was carried on writ of error. 20 How. (61 U. S.) 135.]

At law. This action was brought by the plaintiff [Ann C. Cushing, for the use of Caleb Cushing] for injury sustained by the grading of K street in front of her premises in Franklin Row, in doing which they cut down that street some five or six feet, injuring, as she alleged, the value and use of her house. From the evidence it appeared that the street had been graded under the direction of the corporation in 1830, and had remained at that grade until the summer of 1851, when the street was cut down by direction of the defendants some two feet, and then gravelled and left, and in the fall of the. same year they caused it to be again graded by cutting it down about three feet more. The grading destroyed the shade trees in front of plaintiff’s premises, and rendered a stonewall in front and other improvements necessary for the convenient use of her house. No compensation was made by the city for the injury sustained. The plaintiff sought to recover the expenses incurred and damages sustained by these gradings in 1851. The defendants insisted that the general public good required the alterations made in the grade. The case finally turned upon a question of law. The defendants contended that they had, under the act of congress, the right to regrade whenever, in their judgment, it was necessary and proper, and that they were not responsible in damages unless the plaintiff showed that they acted corruptly, or with the malicious design of injuring the plaintiff. On the other side it was insisted that when the corporation had established the grade of a street, they had no power so to change it as to injure private property' without making compensation to the owner, as had been done in three cases out of seven in the grading in front of Franklin Row. •

R. H. Gillette, for plaintiff.

J. H. Bradley, for defendant.

2

 [Affirmed in 20 How. (61 U. S.) 135.]

THE COURT

instructed the jury that the corporation had the power to regrade the streets of the city of Washington, under their charter, without making the compensation for individual injuries, unless the plaintiff showed that they had acted corruptly or with the design to injure; and that the jury must presume that they acted legally until one of these things was proved. They held that the power to grade was a continuing power, to be exercised whenever they deemed it proper to do so.

The jury under these instructions rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants.
<PAGE>




                                   EXHIBIT 11
                          Flagstar Capital Corporation
                  Computation of Net Earnings per Common Share
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


In order to calculate net earnings per share of common  stock,  the Company must
first  subtract the dividend  requirements  of the Series A Preferred  Shares to
arrive at net earnings  available to the common  stockholders.  Net earnings per
share are calculated by dividing net earnings  available to common  stockholders
by the average number of common shares outstanding during the period.




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               For the           For the         For the six        For the six
                                               quarter           quarter            months             months
                                                ended             ended             ended               ended
                                                June              June               June               June
                                                 30                30,                30                 30,
                                                2002              2001               2002               2001
                                               ------            ------             ------             ------
<S>                                            <C>               <C>                <C>                <C>
Net Earnings                                   $2,567            $1,791             $5,819             $3,683
                                               ------            ------             ------             ------

Less: preferred stock dividends                 1,222             1,222              2,444              2,444
                                               ------            ------             ------             ------
Net income available to
common stockholders                            $1,345            $  569             $3,375             $1,239
                                               ======            ======             ======             ======
Average common
shares outstanding                              1,000             1,000              1,000              1,000
Net earnings per common share                  $ 1.35            $ 0.57             $ 3.38             $ 1.24
</TABLE>


                                       13
Filed 4/26/21 P. v. Reed CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b ). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DARRELL ANDRE REED,

Defendant and Appellant. B308660

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA079066)

APPEAL from a j udgment of the Superior Court of

Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard , Judge

. Affirmed

. Richard B. Lennon, under appointme nt by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________2 Darrell Andre Reed ple a d ed no contest to willful infliction

of corporal injury on an intimate partner and admitted he had

suffered a prior se rious felony conviction within the meaning of

the three strikes law. The trial court sentenced Reed to

four years in state prison. No arguable issues have been

identified following review of the record by Reed’s appointed

appellate counsel or our own ind ependent review. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Reed was charged by information with one count of willful

infliction of corporal injury on a current or former intimate

partner (Pen. Code, § 2 73.5 , subd. (a) )

. On June 24, 2020 Reed

pleaded n o contest to the charge and admitted he had previously

been convicted of participatin g in a criminal street gang (Pen.

Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)), a serious felony within the meaning of

the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (b)

- (j), 1170.12).

On August 19, 2020 t he trial court sentenced Reed as a second

strike offender to the low term of two years, doubled to four

years

. Reed filed a timely notice of appeal , noting that his appeal

concerned only sentencing or other matters occurring after the

pl ea that did not affect the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of

Court, rule 8.304(b).)

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Reed on appeal. After

reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues.

Appointed counsel advised Reed on Ma rch 9, 202 1 that he could

personally submit any contentions or issue he wishes the court to

consider. We have received no response.

We have examined the record and are satisfied appellate

counsel for Reed has complied with counsel ’ s responsibilities and3

t here are no arguable issues. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S.

259, 277

- 284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,

118

- 119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441

- 442.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.
AFS-17-113036-E

February 13, 2017

 Exemption No. 11719A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0098

Mr. Kevin Mcloughlin

Director of Production/Air Tanker Operations

Aero Air, LLC

2050 NE 25th Avenue

Hillsboro, OR 97124

Dear Mr. Mcloughlin:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 

11719. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and 

limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated December 16, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Aero Air, LLC (Aero Air) for an extension to Exemption No. 11719. 

That exemption from § 91.529(a)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

allows Aero Air to operate its Boeing Douglas DC-7 and DC-7B aircraft (registration Nos. 

N401US, N6353C, and N838D) without a flight engineer during flightcrew training, ferry 

operations, test flights, and firefighting operations conducted in accordance with 14 CFR Part 

137.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aero Air.
2

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11719, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the 

FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant Aero Air, LLC (Aero Air) an exemption from 

14 CFR § 91.529(a)(1) to operate its Boeing Douglas DC-7 and DC-7B aircraft (registration 

Nos. N401US, N6353C, and N838D) without a flight engineer during flightcrew training, 

ferry operations, test flights, and firefighting operations conducted in accordance with 14 CFR 

Part 137, subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. This exemption applies to the following DC-7 series aircraft operated by Aero Air: 

Registration Number N401US, N6353C, and N838D. A copy of this exemption must 

be carried on board these aircraft at all times.

2. This exemption is not valid for operations outside of the United States.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 11719, as amended, to May 31, 

2019, unless sooner superseded or rescinded

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
EXHIBIT 31.2
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Belk, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Brian T. Marley
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 1 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 2 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 3 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 4 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 5 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 6 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 7 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 8 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 9 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 10 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 11 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 12 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 13 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 14 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 15 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 16 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 17 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 18 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 19 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 20 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 21 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 22 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 23 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 24 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 25 of 26
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 77-2 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 26 of 26
Second Amendment to Employment Contract



 Exhibit 10.1 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT is made
and entered into this 14th day of September, 2007, by and between MOVIE GALLERY US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), and JOE MALUGEN (the “Employee”). 
 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Employee
entered into that certain Employment Contract, dated June 9, 1994, providing for the employment of Employee as Chief Executive Officer, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Employment Contract dated April 3, 2000 (the
“Agreement”); 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as
follows: 
 1. Paragraph 7.1 of the Agreement is hereby removed and deleted in its entirety, and a new Paragraph 7.1 is hereby added in its
place and stead as follows: 
 “In the event of a termination of employment due to illness, disability or other incapacity to the extent
that the Employee is unable to perform the duties of his employment, the Company shall pay Employee a cash payment equal to 90 days of Employee’s salary, payable in a lump sum within thirty (30) days following such termination of
employment.” 
 2. Paragraph 7.2 of the Agreement is hereby removed and deleted in its entirety. 
 3. This amendment shall be effective as of the date set forth above. 
 4. In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby ratified and affirmed. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Employment Contract on the day and year first above written. 
  

					
		 		 	Movie Gallery US, LLC
			
	/s/ Martha Compton	 		 	/s/ S. Page Todd
	Witness	 		 	S. Page Todd
		 		 	 Executive Vice President, General Counsel,
 Secretary & Chief Compliance Officer

			
	/s/ Martha Compton	 		 	/s/ Joe Malugen
	Witness	 		 	Joe Malugen
----

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts

(2006/C 180/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

NOTE:

More information about harmonised standards on the Internet at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds

----

(1)  ESO: European Standardisation Organisation:

(2)OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

(3)OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1424 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1424

  To apply the provisions of title 5, United States Code, related to 
 veterans' preference to the Federal Aviation Administration personnel 
               management system, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 2017

    Ms. Hirono (for herself, Mr. Moran, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Daines) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To apply the provisions of title 5, United States Code, related to 
 veterans' preference to the Federal Aviation Administration personnel 
               management system, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Aviation Administration 
Veterans' Preference Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF VETERANS' PREFERENCE TO FEDERAL AVIATION 
              ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

    Section 40122(g)(2)(B) of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``3304(f),'' before ``3308-3320''; and
            (2) by inserting ``3330a, 3330b, 3330c, and 3330d,'' before 
        ``relating''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                                            MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV
                                            MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.
                                              COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                         COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS (UNAUDITED)
                                                     (dollars in thousands)



                               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED           FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                     March 28, 2008                      March 30, 2007
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                           CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.  CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $  7,340           $  8,587        $  7,340          $   8,611
                               ========           ========        ========           ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                     7,120              7,340           7,120              7,340
                               --------           --------        --------           --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $  7,120           $  7,340           7,120           $  7,340
                               ========           ========        ========           ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17


</TABLE>
No. 63567.

protest 59/2150 (New York).

#### Abels Wasserberg Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*421Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60766.

#### S. P. Eisner *&*Co. *v.*United States,

protest 307062-K (New York).

*505Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal dime savings banks the same in all material respects as those the subject of *M. Pressner & Co.*v. *United States*(36 Oust. Ct. 262, C. D. 1784), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.