alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

December 9, 1954

No. 58571.

protest 211206-K/4466 (Chicago).

#### Naumes Forwarding Service *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of buckle lighters similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 57300, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       9,139,669
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,678,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          153,667
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,464,033)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,678,887
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,123,325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             410,414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,533,739)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,533,739)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,533,739)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.074)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.074)


</TABLE>
Case No. 9,798.

#### In re MORGAN.

[8 Ben. 232.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Aug., 1875.

Attorney and Client — Representing Antagonistic Interests — Bankrupt Proceedings.

There is no legal objection to the appearance by counsel, who has previously acted as counsel *747for the bankrupt, as counsel for a creditor whose claim is under re-examination.

[This case was formerly heard upon the proof of debt of a corporation of which' the bankrupt had been president. Case No. 9,-797.]

The register in this case certified to the court that, on the re-examination of the claim of Yale & Co., alleged creditors of the bankrupt, Mr. Pelton. who had appeared in all the proceedings as counsel for the bankrupt [Henry N. Morgan], and was still acting as such, appeared as counsel for Yale & Co.; and that the creditor who had required the re-examination of such claim objected to such appearance for Hale & Co., by reason that such counsel occupied the antagonistic position of counsel for the bankrupt. And the. register certified to the court this question; “Does any legal objection exist to Mr. Pel-; ton’s acting as counsel for the claimants, Yale & Co., on the ground that be is the counsel for the bankrupt?” with his opinion thereon, as follows: “The objection is one that it might be very material for the claimants to consider; but it is not perceived how the fact stated as the foundation of it can work injury to the objector, nor -that the choice made by the claimants, is to be forbidden by the court”

1

 [Reported by Robert D. Benedict, Esq., and Benj. Lincoln Benedict, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

BLATOHFORD, District Judge.

I concur in the conclusion of the register.
Case No. 15,081.

#### UNITED STATES v. FEARSON.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 95.] 1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1836.

Judgment—Correction op—Mistake.

The court will, at a subsequent term, correct a judgment entered by mistake for too large a sum.

UNITED STATES (FEARSON v.). See Case No. 4,712.

Debt on an administration bond [by the United States for the use of Keirle]. Judgment for the whole amount of the plaintiff’s, claim, when the estate was insolvent.

Mr. Redin moved to quash

the executions and correct the judgment, which was confessed at the last term, it having been entered for about $50 too much, as the defendant contends by mistake.

Mr. C. Coxe, contra.

A judgment on an administration bond cannot be for assets,. as in an action against an executor or administrator. The judgment must be absolute.

1

 [Reported by Hon William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT,

being satisfied that Mr. W.. L. Brent had confessed the judgment by-mistake, ordered it to be corrected.
No. 63116.

#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/17232 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, *J.*

The protest was dismissed.
Before the Second Division,

November 19, 1947

No. 52037.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 616945-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore sustained.
409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 210  Washington, DC 20024  202-205-3850 (p)  202-205-6825 (f)  www.nwbc.gov

Numbers and Characteristics 

 There are 787,914 Hispanic women-owned businesses1

 in the United States. This reflects a tremendous 

45.7% increase in number since 2002 and a 133.3% increase since 1997. In comparison, Hispanic menowned businesses grew 84.1% from 1997 to 2007. 

 Hispanic women-owned firms across the country have total receipts of $55.7 billion. The total receipts of 

Hispanic women-owned firms grew 57.8% since 2002. 

 Women-owned firms make up 34.9% of all Hispanic nonfarm businesses across the country.

 A full 93.3% of these firms are non-employer firms, with average receipts of $21,904.

 The remaining 6.7% of the firms have paid employees, employing a total of 363,430 people across the 

country with a payroll of $9.3 billion. These employer firms have average receipts of $745,729. 

Geography 

 One in 10 (10.2%) of all women-owned firms across the country are owned by Hispanic women. 

 The West has the highest representation (14.7%) followed by the South (11.6%), the Northeast (9.0%) and 

the Midwest (2.7%).

 The states with the largest number of Hispanic women-owned businesses are: California (205,309), 

Florida (138,984), and Texas (137,541).

Industry 

 The top industries for Hispanic women include: health care and social assistance (20.1% of all Hispanic 

WOBs are in this sector), other services (18.1%), and administrative and support and waste management and 

remediation services (17.1%).

 Industries least represented by Hispanic WOBs include management of companies and enterprises (less 

than .01%), mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction (.06%), utilities (.07%), and agriculture, forestry, 

fishing, and hunting (.15%). 

The National Women’s Business Council is a non-partisan federal government council created to serve as an independent source of advice and 

counsel to the President, Congress, and the U.S. Small Business Administration on economic issues of importance to women business owners. 

Members of the Council are prominent women business owners and leaders of women’s business organizations. 

SOURCE: All data comes from the US Census’ 2007 Survey of Business Owners. 

1

 Nonfarm businesses only. Women-owned defined as a woman or women owning 51% or more of the company. 

Hispanic Women-Owned Businesses

2012
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

d0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

141217

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141217 COA: 292898 Wayne CC: 06-011379-FC THOMAS HAROLD ZAKER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 16, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
CERTIFICATION OF				PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF				HYBRID DYNAMICS CORPORATION				PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Leonard DuCharme, Chief Executive Officer of Hybrid Dynamics Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.				I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  November 14, 2007                                                                                                                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                    |
| By:  /s/ LEONARD DUCHARME                      |
| Leonard DuCharme                                                                                                                                             |
| Principal Executive Officer                                                                                                                                  |

----
#### RICHARD H. HUBBARD, Captain, U. S. Air Force, Petitioner v ROY D. ADCOCK, Colonel, U. S. Air Force, Trial Judiciary Officer; WILLIAM G. MOORE, Jr., Major General, U. S. Air Force, Commander, 22d Air Force, Military Airlift Command; and Honorable ROBERT C. SEAMANS, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force, Respondents

20 USCMA 164, 43 CMR 4

Miscellaneous Docket No. 70-66

November 24, 1970

*Richard P. Fox, Esquire, Captain Grover G. Jackson,*and *Captain David B. Harrison,*counsel for Petitioner.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court

In this “Petition for Extraordinary Relief, Stay of Proceedings, Writ of Mandamus, Writ of Prohibition, and Other Appropriate Relief,” petitioner avers:

*165A charge of missing movement through design, in violation of Article 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 887, has been preferred against petitioner and has been referred to trial by a general court-martial appointed by respondent, Commanding General, 22d Air Force, Military Airlift Command. At a preliminary session of the general court-martial pursuant to Article 39(a), Uniform Code, supra, 10 USC § 839(a), the defense moved to dismiss the charge. In support thereof, it was contended that respondent, Secretary of the Air Force, has improperly denied proffered resignations submitted by petitioner on grounds of conscientious objection. The military judge denied the motion. Further proceedings are scheduled for December 1, 1970. Petitioner is under no restraint whatever, and has not entered a plea to the charge.

In Gale v United States, 17 USCMA 40, 37 CMR 304 (1967), this Court held that petitions under the All Writs Act, 28 USC § 1651, are extroadinary in nature and relief thereby sought may be afforded only upon a showing of extraordinary cause.

In support of his attempt to invoke this Court’s extraordinary powers, petitioner relies solely on the following grounds:

> “Immediate action by this court is essential in order to prevent petitioner from suffering irreparable and unnecessary harm which will result from a virtually certain federal felony conviction predicated upon an unlawful act of the Government. Petitioner seeks the protection of this honorable court and the extraordinary relief herein prayed for because he possesses no other plain, speedy, adequate, or available remedy or relief.”

Nothing advanced by petitioner warrants circumvention of the normal trial and appellate procedures established by the Uniform Code. He submits a bare assertion of inconvenience. Such a claim is usually not a proper basis for resort to extraordinary judicial measures, for the law does not favor piecemeal appeals. United States v Best, 4 USCMA 581, 16 CMR 155 (1954); United States v Papciak, 7 USCMA 224, 22 CMR 14 (1956); Gale v United States, supra. See also, Priest v Koch, 19 USCMA 293, 41 CMR 293 (1970).

The petition is denied.

Judge Darden would dismiss the petition.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Delcarpio, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 520]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered October 12, 1993, convicting him of scheme to defraud in the first degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny (three counts), and practicing or appearing as an attorney-at-law without being admitted and registered, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual *360review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

It is within the trial court’s broad discretion to limit the scope of the cross-examination of witnesses concerning collateral matters designed to impeach their credibility. Where, as here, there has been no improvident exercise of this discretion, the trial court’s determination should not be disturbed on appeal *(see, People v Schwartzman,*24 NY2d 241, 245, *cert denied*396 US 846; *see also, People v Griffin,*194 AD2d 738).

Although the defendant requested a missing-witness charge, the defendant failed to sustain his initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the uncalled witness was knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case and that the witness would naturally be expected to provide testimony favorable to the party who has not called him *(see, People v Kitching,*78 NY2d 532, 536; *see also, People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424). Thus, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the request.

The remarks by the prosecutor during summation were fair comment on the evidence and constituted legitimate responses to the defense counsel’s summation *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *see also, People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY McIVER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-01-1967 KJM

vs.

CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION & FAIR, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ISC, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-1790 KJM

vs.

CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION & FAIR, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

 The court has been advised that the parties have not reached settlement on the

issue of attorneys’ fees. The parties are reminded that under Section X and paragraph 40,

respectively, of the consent decrees filed December 16, 2005, plaintiffs are allowed 120 days

after entry of the consent decrees to file a motion for attorneys’ fees. No extensions of time with

respect to that date in the above-titled actions will be considered. Moreover, only motions that

Case 2:04-cv-01790-KJM Document 27 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

are appropriate given the posture of the cases, in which the consent decrees have been entered,

will be considered. 

DATED: March 3, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

006 mciver-isc.srmb

Case 2:04-cv-01790-KJM Document 27 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10449)

#### Daido Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 701684, etc.

(Decided February 13, 1963)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*John*W. *Douglas,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of this decision, involve the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain chain and parts thereof, exported from Japan.

Said appeals have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation of the parties hereto wherein it has been agreed that at the time of ex-*405porbation such or similar chain and parts thereof were not sold or freely offered for sale for home consumption in Japan, nor for exportation to the United States. It was further stipulated and agreed that such or similar chain and parts thereof were not sold or freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United 'States, at the time of exportation, and that the cost of production for such merchandise was the invoiced unit prices, less the items shown on the invoices accompanying the entries as ocean freight and insurance (or as insurance premium).

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.O § 1402(f)), is the proper basis of value for the chain and parts thereof in issue and that such value is the invoiced unit prices, less the items shown on the invoices as ocean freight and insurance (or as insurance premium).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Worksheet Description

Annual_Undiscounted This worksheet pulls undiscounted benefits estimates for the 

elimination of baseline IM&E losses from other excel workbooks 

and presents them in a single table. Values in 2011$.

New Units Benefits Inputs_03.20.14

Author: Abt Associates Inc.

Created: 03/20/14

Purpose: This is an input file for the New Units Benefits SAS Model. 
lossmode region com rec_low rec_mean rec_high TE BT SP_survey_low SP_survey_mean

i National 1,817,604 18,209,410 35,278,636 69,546,433 800,836 617,994 1,487,453,843 2,454,098,607

e National 7,494,288 31,934,807 56,071,183 101,785,532 586,193 103,774,273 2,797,108,480 4,334,220,816

ie National 9,311,892 50,144,217 91,349,818 171,331,965 1,387,030 104,392,267 4,284,562,323 6,788,319,423
SP_survey_high

3,418,053,205

6,135,330,558

9,553,383,763
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH MILLS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1649 DFL CMK P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a request to proceed to trial and to be provided

with an attorney. This civil rights action was closed on February 1, 2006. Plaintiff is advised

that documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will

issue in response to future filings. 

DATED: August 16, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/bb

mill 04cv1528.58

Case 2:04-cv-01649-DFL -CMK Document 20 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 46718.

Suit 4358.

#### United *States*v. *Wecoline Products Corp. (A. J. Murray & Co.)*

C. A. D. 186.
CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION

                                     of

                     SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK

                                     of

                           UNITED ECOENERGY CORP

                    Pursuant to Section 78.195 of the
                 Revised Statutes of the State of Nevada

	UNITED ECOENERGY CORP., a corporation organized and existing under the
laws
of the State of Nevada (the Corporation), does hereby certify that, pursuant
to
the authority conferred on its board of directors (the Board of Directors) by
its
articles of incorporation (the Articles of Incorporation), as amended, and in
accordance with Section 78.195 of the Revised Statutes of the State of Nevada
(NRS), the Board of Directors (or, as to certain matters allowed by law, a
duly
authorized committee thereof) adopted the following resolution establishing a
series of 1,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock of the Corporation designated as
Series A Convertible Preferred Stock.

       RESOLVED, that pursuant to the authority conferred on the Board of
Directors of this Corporation (the Corporation) by the Articles of
Incorporation,
a series of preferred stock, $.001 par value, of the Corporation be and hereby
is
established and created, and that the designation and number of shares thereof
and
the voting and other powers, preferences and relative, participating,
optional or other rights of the shares of such series and the qualifications,
limitations and restrictions thereof are as follows:

Convertible Preferred Stock

	1.  Designation and Amount.  There shall be a series of Preferred Stock
designated as Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, and the number of shares
constituting such series shall be 1,000,000.  Such series is referred to
herein
as the Convertible Preferred Stock.

	2.  Par Value.  The par value of each share of Convertible Preferred
Stock
shall be $.001.

	3.  Rank.  The shares of Convertible Preferred Stock shall rank prior to
all
of the Corporations Common Stock, par value $.001 per share (the Common
Stock),
now or hereafter issued, both as to payment of dividends and as to
distributions
of assets upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Corporation,
whether
voluntary or involuntary as provided herein.
# lflow3
Before the Second Division,

July 14, 1943

No. 48544.

#### Protest 13758-K of American Straw Goods Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the. authority of Abstract 46497 the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1), was sustained.