alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 9,712.

#### The MONONGAHELA.

[5 Biss. 131.] 1

District Court, N. D. Illinois.

June, 1870.

Seamen — 'Wages—Master—Maritime Lien — Advances for Board of Crew and Supplies.

1. The contract of the captain of a vessel for his services is a personal contract, and he has no maritime lien for his compensation as such.

2. His claims for advances for board of crew and purchase of supplies may, however, be allowed out of proceeds in the registry.-

In admiralty.

1

 [Reported by Josiah H. Bissell, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

BLODGETT, District Judge.

The hearing in this case came on for the purpose of determining what disposition should be made of a balance of proceeds remaining in the registry of the court The steamer has been sold, the claims of the libellants and some others paid in full, and there is a remnant of some five or six hundred dollars left in the registry.

The captain of the steamer filed a claim amounting to $1,379 for wages as captain, and some small expenditures. There are also claims filed by material and supply men to the amount of about $900. It is objected by the material and supply men that, their claims should be satisfied out of these proceeds before there is any satisfaction, of the captain’s claim. I am clear, on consulting1 the authorities, that such is the case: The objection to the payment of the captain, ei-’ ther pro rata, or as a first claim out of the proceeds of this steamer, I think is well' tak-' en.

The law clearly seems to contemplate the contract by the captain for his services as a personal contract with the owner of the vessel. He can file no libel; he has rio lien upon the vessel for his wages or his services, although he has a lien, perhaps, for -expenditures, or materials, or supplies, when' in • a foreign port, but for his wages as'captain he has no lien, cannot-libel the vessel,, and cannot enforce it in rem. If there should:be a sum left in the registry after payment of all liens, I am inclined to think that the captain, being a creditor of the owner, might- intervene to be paid out of this fund, not because of his lien, but because he is a creditor-and entitled by proper proceedings to his-payment out of any fuuds belonging to the owner, his debtor; but certainly he has no lien as against material and supply men, who have at least a statutory lien.

I, however, find in the account filed by the captain, that he paid ■ $55.50 board of crew and $23.85 for supplies of the boat These items being proven, he will be entitled to the amount of those items, $79.35, or rather, to his pro rata, with the other claimants.

Eor a full discussion of the master’s lien, and collection of authorities, see 2 Pars. Shipp. *&*Adm. 24, 25, and notes.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-1503

Lower Tribunal No. 2015-CF-005747-A-O

_____________________________

BENITO ORTA OCHOA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Marc L. Lubet, Judge.

November 21, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL, MIZE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Terri L. Backhus, Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ATTACHMENT QC-7.1 3/6/96
Attachment QC-7.3, 3/6/96 (qc07_1a.xls)
# C_2016454EN.01001501.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/15

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio dei Monopoli per la Lombardia

(Case C-141/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Single tax on betting and pools - Tax liability of national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of operators established in another Member State - Insufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2016/C 454/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani

Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio dei Monopoli per la Lombardia

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria regionale di Milano (Milan Regional Tax Court, Italy), by decision of 29 September 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 191 of 30.5.2016.

---
# C_2016410EN.01003701.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/37

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — NI v CEPD

(Case T-237/16) (1)

1

(2016/C 410/67)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHELLE MADDEN, as Parent and : CIVIL ACTION

Natural Guardian and Administrator of the :

Estate of MYKENZIE MADDEN, a minor, :

deceased :

:

v. :

:

THE A.I. DUPONT HOSPITAL FOR : NO. 05-787

CHILDREN OF THE NEMOURS :

FOUNDATION, WILLIAM I. NORWOOD,:

M.D., PH. D., and CHRISTIAN PIZARRO, :

M.D. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 24 day of December, 2009, upon considering Defendant William I. th

Norwood, M.D., Ph. D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 67), it is hereby

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED.

As developed on the record of the December 17, 2009 hearing, the Motion of Dr.

Norwood for Summary Judgment is also raised in the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No.

80) and that Motion will be GRANTED as to Dr. Norwood only.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael M. Baylson

 ____________________________

Michael M. Baylson, U.S.D.J

O:\CIVIL\05-787 Madden v. DuPont\05-787 Madden Order - MSJ.wpd
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001052971
<NAME> 1HLLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          75,758
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,484
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    263,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               423,706
<PP&E>                                         152,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,046,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          359,160
<BONDS>                                        200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,046,468
<SALES>                                        921,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               921,313
<CGS>                                          815,533
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  955,566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2,388)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,489
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (64,477)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,201
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (67,678)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (67,678)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
No. 65441.

#### The Best Foods, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 304870-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order entered April 2, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01676-CR

MARION DOLL SAYLES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-00399-U

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On March 4, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On March 28, 2013, we received the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the March 4, 2013 order 

requiring findings. 

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1



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 Report of ZymoGenetics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Bruce L.A. Carter, Chief Executive Officer and James A. Johnson, Chief
Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)    The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C
78m or 78o(d)); and



(2)    The
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: March 25, 2004



/S/    BRUCE L.A. CARTERBruce L.A. CarterChief Executive Officer/S/    JAMES A. JOHNSONJames A. JohnsonChief Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

November 23, 1955

No. 59469.

protests 175053-K, etc. (Baltimore).

#### F. W. Woolworth Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of novelty figures, composed wholly or in chief value of papier máché, the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 57108, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4071 — Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR)

(2006/C 176/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 29 May 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 1 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 2 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 3 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 4 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 5 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 6 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 7 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 8 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 9 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 10 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 11 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 12 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 13 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 14 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 15 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 16 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 17 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 18 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 19 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 20 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 21 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 22 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 23 of 24
Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 5 Filed 12/09/2003 Page 24 of 24
Microsoft Word 11.0.6502;
                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

            Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Principal Accounting Officer

I, Robert E. Dolan, certify that:

1.  I  have  reviewed  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB  of  Sunshine  PCS
Corporation;

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)) 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) 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; and

         (c)  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 (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  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; and

         (b) 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.

Date:  March 31, 2006


/s/ Robert E. Dolan
-------------------
Robert E. Dolan
Principal Accounting Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

DOLORES BARRETT, :

:

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 02-4421

:

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER :

OF COMMERCE, INC., :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, on this 14th day of December, 2004, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

parties shall file and serve all motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment on or

before Monday, January 10, 2005. All briefs filed in opposition shall be filed and served on or

before Monday, January 24, 2005. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case will be placed on the Court’s trial list for

Monday, March 21, 2005.

BY THE COURT:

/S/ Petrese B. Tucker

____________________________

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 22 Filed 12/15/2004 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 22 Filed 12/15/2004 Page 2 of 2
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 147 

To prevent a taxpayer bailout of health insurance issuers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 17, 2017 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. LEE, and Mr. COTTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prevent a taxpayer bailout of health insurance issuers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Obamacare Taxpayer 

5 Bailout Prevention Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF BAILOUT OF HEALTH INSURANCE 

7 ISSUERS. 

8 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is 

9 amended by striking section 1342 (42 U.S.C. 18062). 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HORIZON
OFFSHORE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          17,469
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,029
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,125
<PP&E>                                         185,122
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (13,193)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 223,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,547
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,128
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   223,792
<SALES>                                         52,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,494
<CGS>                                           44,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (141)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (24)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (117)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        1,381
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,264
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1376 

To ensure that all fast-tracked reconciliation bills are subject to a committee 

hearing, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 15, 2017 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

SANDERS, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BENNET, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. BOOKER, 

Mr. BROWN, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. 

COONS, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. 

FRANKEN, Ms. HARRIS, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. HEINRICH, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. 

KAINE, Mr. KING, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. 

MERKLEY, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. NELSON, Mr. PETERS, Mr. REED, Mr. 

SCHATZ, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. UDALL, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WARREN, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To ensure that all fast-tracked reconciliation bills are subject 

to a committee hearing, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Hearing, No Vote 

5 Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1376 IS

1 SEC. 2. COMMITTEE HEARINGS FOR RECONCILIATION 

2 BILLS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 310 of the Congressional 

4 Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 641) is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(h) COMMITTEE HEARINGS FOR RECONCILIATION

7 BILLS.—It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider 

8 any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution, unless— 

9 ‘‘(1) the reconciliation bill or reconciliation res10 olution was— 

11 ‘‘(A) ordered reported to the Senate under 

12 subsection (b)(1) by the committee of the Sen13 ate receiving reconciliation instructions; or 

14 ‘‘(B) reported by the Committee on the 

15 Budget of the Senate under subsection (b)(2) 

16 after receiving recommendations ordered to be 

17 reported to the Committee on the Budget by 1 

18 or more committees of the Senate receiving rec19 onciliation instructions; and 

20 ‘‘(2) each committee that ordered reported the 

21 reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution or or22 dered recommendations to be reported to the Com23 mittee on the Budget held not less than 1 hearing 

24 regarding any major provision of the reconciliation 

25 bill or reconciliation resolution within the jurisdic26 tion of such committee.’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1376 IS

1 (b) WAIVER AND APPEAL.—Section 904 of the Con2 gressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 note) is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ‘‘310(h),’’ 

5 after ‘‘310(d)(2),’’; and 

6 (2) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ‘‘310(h),’’ 

7 after ‘‘310(d)(2),’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS