alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ronald J. Rinck, Appellant *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee.

Argued April 9, 1981,

before President Judge Crttmlish and Judges Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

*329May 29, 1981:

*Mervin A. Heller, Jr., Baskin, Mendelsohn & Leisawitz,*for appellant.

*Harold H. Cramer,*Assistant Counsel, with him *Ward T. Williams,*Chief Counsel, Transportation, and *Jay C. Waldman,*General Counsel, for appellee.

Opinion by

Judge Rogers,

In August, 1977, Ronald J. Rinck (appellant) was notified by the Commonwealth Department of Transportation (Department) that his refusal to submit to a “breathalyzer test” had resulted in a six month suspension of his driving privilege.1 The appellant sought review of the Department’s action in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County where, after a hearing, his appeal was dismissed. A further appeal was taken to this Court. During the pendency of these appeals, the effect of the suspension was in abeyance in accordance with Section 1550(b) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §1550(ib) which provides:

> Supersedeas. — The filing of the petition shall operate as a supersedeas and no recall, suspension, cancellation or revocation shall be imposed against such person until final determination of the matter.

On March 13, 1978, the appellant withdrew Ms appeal in this Court and, having been notified of the withdrawal, the Department reinstated the six month suspension and directed the appellant, by letter dated October 11, 1979, to surrender custody of his driver’s license as required by Section 1540(b) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §1540(b). On December 14, 1979, the appellant filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas seeking review of the Department’s action of reinstating the suspension. After a hearing, the ap*330peal was dismissed on the grounds that it was not timely filed and that the appellant had no right of appeal from the reinstatement.

Of course, this determination was correct. The appellant’s withdrawal of his appeal in March, 1978 effected a final determination of the matter and the period of supersession ended. The Department’s October, 1979 letter merely memorialized this effect of the application of Section 1540(b).

Order affirmed.

Order

And Now, this 29th day of May, 1981, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County is affirmed.

1

 This suspension was pursuant to Section 1547(b) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §1547(b).
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 4, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00724-CV

IN RE D & L OIL AND GAS LLC AND BAYKO, PREBEG, FAUCETT & 

ABBOTT, PLLC, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-56699

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 15, 2021, relators D & L Oil and Gas LLC and Bayko, Prebeg, 

Faucett & Abbott, PLLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See 

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators

ask this court to compel the Honorable Tanya Garrison, presiding judge of the 157th 
2

District Court of Harris County, to vacate her October 15, 2021 order granting TAI 

Acquisition Corporation’s petition for Rule 202 presuit deposition.

1

Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.

1

See Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.
#### FLORENCE R. BRABBAN, APPELLANT, v. BENJAMIN *&*JOHNES, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

Submitted July 8, 1918

Decided November 25, 1918.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 90 *N. J. L.*355.

Por the appellant, *Wilbur A. Heisley.*

Por the respondent, *M. Casewell Heine.*

Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Swayze in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, JJ. 9.

*For reversal*— -None.
#### IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL J. SCHNITZER, ATTORNEY AT LAW.

Argued May 24, 1967

Decided June 12, 1967.

*Mr. Max M. Barr,*Chairman of the Monmouth County Ethics Committee, for the order.

*Mr. Michael J. Schnitzer, pro se.*

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam.

The Monmouth County Ethics Committee filed a presentment against respondent, Michael J. Schnitzer, a member of the bar since 1931, charging him with improper handling of trust funds. The sum involved was small and no one suffered any loss. The record, however, supports the Committee finding that respondent’s handling of the matter was irregular. On his assurance that in the future a proper trust account will be maintained for the deposit and disbursement of trust moneys, we are of the view that discipline beyond censure is not necessary.

Accordingly, it is ordered that respondent be and he is hereby reprimanded.
(Reap. Dec. 8724)

#### United States *v.*Venetianaire Corp. of America

Entry Nos. 769848; 771661.

(Decided January 10, 1957)

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Fred Bennett*for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of thé court, that at the time of exportation of the involved bamboo drapery material such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the

> *565IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value, as defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these reappraisement appeals are submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> In reappraisement 247041-A, invoice unit value, plus bale and packing $77.

> In reappraisement 247042-A, invoice unit value, plus bale and packing $37.75.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### William E. Taylor, *Appellant, v.*Robert B. McNeil and another, *Respondents.*

— Judgment and order affirmed. Opinions by Smith, P. J., and Hardin, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8563 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8563

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish a floor on 
the work geographic index for physicians' services furnished in Hawaii.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2024

 Ms. Tokuda (for herself and Mr. Case) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish a floor on 
the work geographic index for physicians' services furnished in Hawaii.

    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 ``Preserving Access To Care in Hawaii 
Act'' or the ``PATCH Act''.

SEC. 2. FLOOR ON WORK GEOGRAPHIC INDEX FOR PHYSICIANS' SERVICES 
              FURNISHED IN HAWAII.

    Section 1848(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(e)) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A), in the matter preceding clause 
        (i), by striking ``and (I)'' and inserting ``(I), and (J)''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(J) Floor on work geographic index for services 
                furnished in hawaii.--For purposes of payment for 
                services furnished in Hawaii on or after January 1, 
                2025, after calculating the work geographic index in 
                subparagraph (A)(iii), the Secretary shall increase the 
                work geographic index to 1.5 if such index would 
                otherwise be less than 1.5. The preceding sentence 
                shall not be applied in a budget neutral manner.''.
                                 <all>
```
29796.1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Impact Aid Program

HOUSING UNDERGOING RENOVATION OR REBUILDING CERTIFICATION

1. HOUSING OFFICIAL NAME

2. HOUSING OFFICIAL TITLE

3. NAME OF MILITARY INSTALLATION OR TRIBAL HOUSING AREA

4. HOUSING OFFICIAL EMAIL ADDRESS

5. HOUSING OFFICAL PHONE NUMBER

6. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN WHO

WOULD HAVE RESIDED IN UNITS HAD THEY NOT BEEN 

UNDERGOING RENOVATION OR REBUILDING

7. DATE HOUSING PROJECT BEGAN

8. SCHOOL DISTRICT SURVEY DATE

9. NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN REPORTED ON TABLES 1 

AND 3 FOR EITHER MILITARY LIVE-ON OR INDIAN LANDS 

CHILDREN FOR THE FY 2014 IMPACT AID APPLICATION

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the estimated number of school age children above represents the number of 

children who would have resided in housing on Federal property if the housing was not undergoing renovation or 

rebuilding. In addition, the units used as the basis for this calculation do not include any units vacant for less than 30 days 

or units vacant for minor or sustainment repairs.

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE DATE

INSTRUCTIONS

Line 1 – Verify the contact person named on Line 1 is the appropriate person for providing and certifying information related to 

ongoing housing projects.

Line 2 – Verify the title of the contact person listed on Line 1.

Line 3 – Verify the name of the military installation or Indian lands housing area.

Line 4 – Verify the email address of the housing official. 

Line 5 – Verify the phone number of the housing official. 

Line 6 – Enter the estimated number of school-age children who would have resided in the housing had it not been undergoing 

renovation or rebuilding. We have provided a suggested methodology for your use, although you may certify a number of 

school-aged children based on your records. 

Step 1 : number of school age children (see line 9) ÷ number of occupied units = average number of school age children per 

unit.

Step 2: average number of school age children per unit x the number of units undergoing renovation or rebuilding on the 

survey date = average number of school age children that would have resided in the housing had it not been undergoing 

renovation or rebuilding.

Line 7 – Enter the date the construction project began. If there are multiple overlapping construction projects, please enter the 

earliest project start date. 

Line 8 – The survey date is provided by the school district. This is the date you should use to determine the number of units 

vacant due to renovation or rebuilding projects lasting longer than 30 days and that are not sustainment projects.

Line 9 – The number of school age children residing in military or Indian Lands housing on the survey date. This number may be 

used in calculating Step 1 of Line 6 above.
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of


SinoCoking Coal and Coke Chemical Industries, Inc. (“Company”):





We consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 (“Form 10-K”) and the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Commission as number 333-166720 (“Registration Statement”) of our report dated September 28, 2010 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of SinoCoking Coal and Coke Chemical Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2010 and 2009 and for the years ended June 30, 2010 and 2009.





/s/ Frazer Frost LLP





Frazer Frost LLP


Brea, California


September 13, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8642 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8642

To reprogram funds appropriated to the United States Postal Service for 
   the acquisition and support of zero-emission delivery vehicles to 
          support the hiring and retention of rural employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2024

 Mr. Stauber introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reprogram funds appropriated to the United States Postal Service for 
   the acquisition and support of zero-emission delivery vehicles to 
          support the hiring and retention of rural employees.

    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 ``Modifying Allocations to Improve 
Local service Act'' or the ``MAIL Act''.

SEC. 2. REPROGRAMMING OF ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLE FUNDS FOR RURAL 
              EMPLOYEES.

    The unobligated balance of funds made available under section 70002 
of Public Law 117-169 (commonly referred to as the ``Inflation 
Reduction Act'') shall be used by the United States Postal Service to 
support hiring and retaining employees of the United States Postal 
Service whose primary duty stations are located in rural areas or whose 
regular duty involves the collection and delivery of mail on a rural 
route. The amounts reprogrammed under this section shall remain 
available until expended.
                                 <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 9566)

#### Sage Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 918479.

(Decided on rehearing [Reap. Dec. 9530] December 17, 1959)

*Sharretts, Paley <& Carter (Howard Clare Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Dotib,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above was originally submitted on an oral stipulation and decided in *Sage Manufacturing Co.*v. *United*States, 43 Cust. Ct. 522, Reap. Dec. 9530. A motion for rehearing was granted in Reap. Dec. 9548 to correct an error in the facts of the stipulation and the appeal was resubmitted, with the consent of the defendant, upon certain facts.

The involved merchandise consists of “Spun Eayon Girls’ Cabana Sets” imported from Japan. It was stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties that the market value or price of the merchandise at the time of exportation, at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including all costs and charges specified in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, was $3.10 per dozen sets, FOB Kobe. It was further stipulated and agreed that no higher foreign value existed for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation.

*586Upon tbe agreed facts of record, I find and bold the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis of value of tbe merchandise in question, and that such statutory value is $3.10 per dozen sets, FOB Kobe.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DOUGLAS E. SCHULTZ, Airman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

8 USCMA 129, 23 CMR 353

No. 9992

Decided July 12, 1957

*Commander H. H. Brandenburg*was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Guilbert W. Martin*was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Homer Ferguson, Judge:

Once again we are faced with the question of whether an accused was prejudiced by reference to a SECNAV instruction during his court-martial. Once again we conclude that he was Here, after the accused’s sentence was announced, the president of the special court-martial stated:

> “For the information of the convening authority, the following statement of the reasons for the sentence are submitted for inclusion in the record:

> “The court feels the sentence is in keeping with the expressed policy of the Navy, as set forth in SeeNav Instruction 5810.8, Com6NavDist Instruction 5815.1, and paragraph 33h of the Manual for Courts-Martial. Further, the court agrees that offenses involving moral turpitude are not considered as minor.”

This was error and its prejudicial effect is apparent without extended discussion on our part. United States v Fowle, 7 USCMA 349, 22 CMR 139; United States v Estrada, 7 USCMA 635, 23 CMR 99; and United States v Holmes, 7 USCMA 642, 23 CMR 106. The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record is returned to *130The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for return to the convening authority for a rehearing on the sentence.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Latimer, Judge

(concurring in the result) :

I concur in the result.

The law in this area has become fixed by prior decisions of the Court and while the principle in the case at bar is an extension of the rule previously announced, the difference is not significant. 1, therefore, follow the law as announced by my associates. However, in this case I believe it worth mentioning that the statement by the president of the special court-martial impinges on the rule that the deliberations of the court-martial should remain inviolate. I believe it inadvisable to announce in the sentence a reason for the punishment imposed. If it is decided to make a recommendation for clemency, that is a matter permitted by the law but in other matters secrecy should be respected.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11173

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN ANTONIO MORENO-AREVALO,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-70-ALL-J

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender has moved for leave to withdraw

and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Juan Antonio Moreno-Arevalo was sent a copy of

counsel’s motion and brief, but he has not filed a response. 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
No. 03-11173

-2-

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                        APW LTD. FISCAL 2001 BONUS PLAN


Plan Concept:             Company officers will be paid bonuses based on
                          improvement in specified measurements during each
                          six-month bonus period.

Measurements:             Adjusted EVA at the corporate level and CMM at the
                          operating level. Adjusted EVA is calculated at the
                          corporate level as follows:
                            Net Operating Profit After Tax - Capital Changes.
                          CMM is calculated at the operating level as
                          EBITA - 20% net assets.

                          Base Adjusted EVA for the six-month period ending
                          February 28, 2001 is $5,637,000 and for the six-month
                          period ending August 31, 2001 is $15,936,000

                          Base CMM for North America for the six-month period
                          ending February 28, 2001 is $23,893,000 and for the
                          six-month period ending August 31, 2001 is
                          $28,795,000.

                          Base CMM for outside North America for the six-month
                          period ending February 28, 2001 is $76,000 and for the
                          six-month period ending August 31, 2001 is $135,000.

Applicable Measurements:  For William J. Albrecht and Guus Boel the applicable
                          measurements are 1/3rd regional CMM and 2/3rds
                          Corporate Adjusted EVA.

                          For other corporate officers the applicable measure is
                          100% Corporate Adjusted EVA.

Bonus Awards:             A bonus award is an initial dollar amount each
                          executive receives which is to be multiplied by the
                          bonus multiplier (below) to determine the actual bonus
                          to be paid. The bonus award is made for one year, and
                          one-half of each bonus award is to be used for each
                          six-month bonus period.

Bonus Multiplier:         The bonus paid to each officer for each six-month
                          bonus period is obtained by multiplying the applicable
                          amount of the bonus award by the following bonus
                          multiplier:

                          Improvement in Adjusted
                          EVA or CMM ratio during
                          six month period          0.8  1.0  1.25  1.50  1.75

                          Bonus multiplier            -  0.2   1.1   2.0   2.9


There is no cap on the amount of bonus which can be paid during a bonus period.
#### Katherine Harft, *Respondent, v.*Charles Harft, *Appellant.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J.