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

January 28, 1942

No. 46899.

#### Protests 907879-G, etc., of Giovanni Ansaldi et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CLIFTON A. POINTER, Jr., Boilerman Fireman Apprentice, U.S. Navy, Appellant

18 USCMA 587, 40 CMR 299

No. 22,217

September 19, 1969

*Commander E. M. Fulton, Jr.,*JAGO, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain Patricia A. Murphy,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

Before a special court-martial convened at Long Beach, California, the accused pleaded guilty to an unauthorized absence for a period of forty-eight days. During the sentence proceedings he testified in his own behalf. He indicated he had departed the Naval station without authority to find his pregnant wife who had summarily left him. When his wife returned to California and gave birth to his child, he returned to the service. He maintained his marriage was not “working out” and that the Navy, in which he had served since 1965, was the “only thing . . . [he had] left.” It was his “real desire” to remain in the Navy and, if he did, he would like overseas duty. The court imposed a sentence extending to a bad-conduct discharge.

*588We granted review' to determine whether the accused was denied the effective assistance of counsel as to the sentence. References in the convening authority’s action indicate the accused- served in Vietnam and is the recipient of a letter of commendation as a member of’ the crew of the U. S. S. NAVASOTA. Neither of these matters was presented to the court members. In a substantially similar case, we held that the accused’s Vietnam service and awards could have materially influenced the court members not to impose, a bad-conduct discharge and, therefore, the failure of defense counsel to inform the court members of these matters denied the accused effective representation to that extent. United States v Rowe, 18 USCMA 54, 89 CMR 54.

The decision of the board of review .as to _the sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy ■for reference to the Court of Military Review. In its ' discretion, the Court of Military Review may redetermine the sentence without including a punitive discharge, or direct a rehearing of the sentence by a court-martial.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Darden, Judge

(dissenting):

For an accused who had three special courts-martial for unauthorized absence within a period of slightly more than one year, the court adjudged a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for three months, less than one-half pay as forfeitures, and no reduction in grade. The supervisory authority suspended the bad-conduct discharge.

Because I doubt that the court would have reduced the sentence if it had known that a ship of which the accused was a crew member participated in naval operations off the coast of Vietnam and that the ship was commended for this service, I would affirm the findings and sentence as approved on review below. United States v McAlister, 18 USCMA 532, 40 CMR 244, dissenting opinion.
No. 45164.

#### Protests 42602-K, etc., of George Ehlenberger & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 41794 it was held that an allowance of 1 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible coverings.
## Jim Szabo DBA Sancap Aerial

1119 Periwinkle Way Unit 50 Sanibel, Florida, 33957 970-819-3379 jimandsue60@gmail.com

December 21, 2015 

### To: U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20590
To whom it may concern, I would like to amend my petition ( **ID:** FAA-2015-4730-0001) and add aircraft to my fleet. I would like to add 3 DJI products including DJI Inspire 1, Dji Phantom 3 Professional and DJI Phantom 3 Advanced. Sincerely yours, James R szabo
AFS-11-248-E 

April 22, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10179A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0947 

Mr. Omer ErSelcuk 

President/Chief Executive Officer 

Seaborne Virgin Islands, Inc., d.b.a. Seaborne Airlines 

1210 Watergut 

Christianstead, VI 00820 

Dear Mr. ErSelcuk: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10179. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 31, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Seaborne Virgin Islands, Inc., d.b.a. Seaborne Airlines (Seaborne Airlines) for an 

extension of Exemption No. 10179. That exemption from § 121.173(b)(2) and appendix K, 

paragraph (5)(a), of part 121 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Seaborne 

Airlines to continue to operate DHC-6-300 wheel-equipped airplanes after the December 20, 

2010, effective date without making certain aircraft performance requirements. 

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. 

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 Seaborne Airlines. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10179 

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

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10179 to November 30, 2011, 

unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 10179. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
Case No. 9,196.

#### The MARY ANN GUEST.

[1 Blatchf. 358.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. Term, 1848.2

Sale — Bona Fide Purchaser — Bill of Lading— Rights of Vendor.

Goods were purchased on credit and shipped by the vendor on board of a vessel whose master gave a bill of lading for their delivery to the consignee or his order. Before the vessel reached her port the bill was endorsed to A., who advanced cash upon it. After she arrived, and before A. demanded the goods, they were replevied by the vendor, on an allegation that the vendee had agreed to pay for the goods on delivery, but had become insolvent, and had not paid for them: *Mdd,*that A. was a bona fide purchaser, that the seizure of the goods by virtue of the writ of replevin constituted no bar to his right to the delivery of the goods, and that, on a libel in rem, the vessel was responsible to him, irrespective of the suit between vendor and vendee.

[Cited in The M. M. Chase, 37 Fed. 711.]

[Cited in Michigan State Bank v. Gardner, 81 Mass. (15 Gray) 372.]

This was a libel in rem filed in the district court by Townsend Underhill against the schooner Mary Ann Guest, for the non-delivery of goods shipped by that vessel from Philadelphia to New-York. The goods had been purchased cn credit and shipped by the vendor, and a bill of lading in the ordinary form was given by the master for the delivery of the same to the consignee or bis order. The bill of lading was transmitted to *956New-York previous to the arrival of the vessel, and endorsed to the libellant, who advanced on it $1.050 in cash. After the vessel arrived, the delivery of the goods was demanded of the master in pursuance of the terms of the bill of lading, but they were not delivered. On the same day on which the vessel arrived, and before the demand was made, the goods were replevied in a suit brought by the vendor against the ven-dee, upon an allegation that the latter had agreed to pay for the goods on their delivery at New-York, but had become insolvent, and had not paid for them. The court below decreed in favor of the libellant, and the claimant appealed to this court.

2

 [Affirming Case No. 9,197.]

THE COURT

held that the libellant was to be regarded in the light of a bona fide purchaser, that the seizure of the goods by virtue of the writ of replevin constituted no bar to his right to have them delivered by the master, and that the vessel was responsible to him, irrespective of the suit between the vendor and the vendee.

Decree affirmed.
EX-4.2


  Exhibit 4.2

  Schedule to Exhibit 4.1 - Form of Credit Agreement Warrant

  			
	Name of Warrant Holder
	Number of Shares Subject to Warrant
	Expiration Date

	Perceptive Credit Holdings, LP
	42,453
	June 23, 2027

	PCOF EQ AIV, LP
	12,340
	June 23, 2027

	Perceptive Credit Holdings, LP
	38,208
	October 16, 2028

	PCOF EQ AIV, LP
	11,106
	October 16, 2028

	Perceptive Credit Holdings, LP
	38,208
	October 7, 2029

	PCOF EQ AIV, LP
	11,106
	October 7, 2029

	Perceptive Credit Holdings III, LP
	150,684
	August 23, 2031



   

  	- 1 -
Searched for **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab97-2/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab97-2/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Exhibit 12


UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
              (Amounts In Thousands,  Except Ratios)
                           (Unaudited)


                                                           Six Months       
                                                          Ended June 30,      
                                                     1997              1996   
Earnings:                                            ----              ----

 Income from continuing operations . . . . . .    $404,663           $400,997 
                                                  
 Undistributed equity earnings . . . . . . . .     (18,210)           (22,462)
                                                  --------           --------
   Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     386,453            378,535 
                                                  --------           --------

Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     226,969            183,588 
                                                  --------           --------
 
Fixed Charges:

 Interest expense including amortization 
 of debt discount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     190,990            194,799 

 Portion of rentals representing an interest 
 factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      72,394             50,578 
                                                  --------           --------
   Total Fixed Charges . . . . . . . . . . . .     263,384            245,377 
                                                  --------           --------

Earnings available for fixed charges . . . . .    $876,806           $807,500 
                                                  ========           ========


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (Note 7). .         3.3                3.3 
                                                  ========           ========
Case Wo. 13,915.

#### THOMAS v. WOLCOTT et al.

[4 McLean, 365.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Illinois.

June Term, 1848.

Evidence — Admissions—Partnership.

On an issue of partnership, an offer to pay the partnership note, if the holder would take property, is evidence. And also that the defendant said the note was signed by his partner.

At law.

Mr. Logan, for plaintiff.

Peter & Powell, for defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT.

This suit is brought upon a note. The defendants pleaded, 1st. Non-assumpsit. And 2d. That the note was signed by Wolcott, who was not the partner of Goodwin, and had no right to use his name. Affidavit as to the truth of the plea. Jury sworn. A witness states, that Goodwin, on presentation of the note, offered to pay it, if the person presenting it would take property; said the note was signed by his partner; not specifying whether he was his partner at the time the note was executed or not. It was proved that there had been no partnership between the parties, for ten years past, in Illinois. The note was dated 13th October, 1845. Parties lived formerly in New York.

THE COURT instructed the jury that the admission of Goodwin, that the note was signed by his partner, was evidence in the case, and from which, together with the offer to pay the note in property, they might infer a joint liability, unless such inference was opposed to other evidence in the case.

Verdict for plaintiff, and judgment.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 12321 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:13

- cr - 00207

- SCB

- TGW

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus FREDDIE WILSON, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (February 22, 2019) Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON, and HULL, Ci rcuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-12321 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 1 of 32 Freddie Wilson is a federal inmate serving a 102

- month sentence for converting to his personal use United States Treasury checks issued as a result of fraudulently filed federal income tax returns. See United States v. Wilson , 788 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming conviction and sentence on direct appeal) ; Wilson v. United States , No. 17

- 14204

- J, 2018 WL 4676492, at *2 (11th Cir. Sept. 13, 2018) (denying COA for Wilson to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion ). Proceeding pro se , he appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct clerical errors in his indictment, presentence investigation report, and judgment

. We construe Wilson’s filings liberally given his pro se status, Mederos v. United States , 218 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 2000) , and r eview de novo the district court’s application of Rule 36 , United States v. Portillo , 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004 ). Ru le 36 allows a court to “correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Wilson contends that there are several errors in need of corr ecting, including the district court’s refusal to dismiss two of his counts of conviction, its application of a senten ce enhancement based on a total loss amount that he says should not have been attribut ed to him, and its imposition of a sentence far abov e what he argues the mandatory minimum should have been

.

Case: 18-12321 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 2 of 33 “It is clear in this Circuit that Rule 36 may not be used to make a substantive alteration to a criminal sentence.” Portillo , 363 F.3d at 1164 (quotation marks omitted). And i t is equally clear that Wilson’s challenges to his sentence call for such substantive changes

. Cf. id

. at 1165 (describing clerical errors under Rule 36 as “minor and mechanical in nature”). As a result , t he district court lacked jurisdiction to grant Wilson relief and properly denied the request

. See id. at 1164

. AFFIRMED . Case: 18-12321 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 3 of 3
EPA Listening Sessions on Existing Power Plant Rule 

My name is Sister Colleen Dauerbach, a Sister of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania. I am 

speaking as a religious educator who has worked with children, both as a teacher and principal for fortyfive years. I have seen an increase in health issues over these past ten years. Asthma is on the rise and 

children are coming into school with inhalers to insure their ability to manage this health issue so that 

they can fully participate in their school day. It is a moral imperative that the EPA put into place strong 

standards that will reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide from the existing power plants. These 

standards must not be weakened in any way. 

The American Lung Association believes that power plants should not be allowed to emit unlimited 

amounts of carbon pollution into the air. Scientists warn that the buildup of carbon pollution will create 

warmer temperatures which will increase the risk of unhealthy smog levels. Every summer smog season, 

smog creates health issues that send 10,000 Pennsylvanians to the emergency rooms and people suffer 

directly from 370,000 smog-related asthma attacks. Any increase in smog levels directly impacts more 

childhood asthma attacks and complications for those with lung disease. Children who regularly breathe 

high levels of ozone may face reduced lung functions later in life. This is due to the fact that their 

airways are smaller and their repertory defenses are not fully formed. Their higher breathing rates 

increase their exposure to the toxins in our air. 

Pope Francis has stated very clearly, "Whenever human beings fail to live up to environmental 

responsibilities, whenever we fail to care for creation and for our brothers and sisters, the way are open 

to destruction and hearts are hardened." Our children who are the most vulnerable and need all of us 

to be more responsible for providing them with a safe place to live. 

I am not a scientist, but as an educator I am certain that there are professions with the necessary 

expertise and technology to create solutions for mediating the emissions of carbon dioxide from our 

existing power plants. We need to take action now to reduce the greenhouse-gas pollution that is 

driving climate change. Working as one, we can build a sustainable future for all our children. 

Sister Colleen Dauerbach, SSJ 

Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania 19118 

cda ue rbach@ ssj ph ila .o rg
# C_2008294EN.01S00301.xml

| 18.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 613 

Honoring the life and work of William Wilberforce and commemorating the 

200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2006 

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. PRYOR) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life and work of William Wilberforce and commemorating the 200th anniversary of the abolition of 

the slave trade in Great Britain. 

Whereas William Wilberforce, born August 25, 1759, used 

his position as a Member of Parliament in the House of 

Commons to stop the slave trade in Great Britain, proclaiming, ‘‘I [will] never rest until I have effected [slavery’s] abolition.’’; 

Whereas William Wilberforce displayed remarkable 

perserverance in answering the call of social justice and 

fought the slave trade in Great Britain and slavery itself 

for 46 years, despite the national and personal financial 

interests aligned against him, the public criticism and 

slander he endured, and the stress and pain placed on his 

family; 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 613 IS 

Whereas William Wilberforce rested his political career on the 

ideals of stewardship, respect for the rights of others, advancing the views of others, and promoting the happiness 

of others, and proclaimed, ‘‘Let every one . . . regulate 

his conduct by the golden rule . . . and the path of duty 

will be clear before him.’’; 

Whereas William Wilberforce defended the rights of slaves 

who had no voice in the legislature of Great Britain and 

committed himself to sweeping social reform in his country; 

Whereas William Wilberforce joined with Sir Thomas Fowell 

Buxton, Thomas Clarkson, Olaudah Equiano, Harriet 

Martineau, Hannah More, and other great abolitionists in 

Great Britain; 

Whereas William Wilberforce inspired abolitionists in the 

United States, including William Lloyd Garrison, John 

Greenleaf Whittier, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David 

Thoreau, and Harriet Beecher Stowe; 

Whereas William Wilberforce also influenced John Quincy 

Adams, James Monroe, John Jay, Abraham Lincoln, and 

Benjamin Franklin, along with many leaders in the African-American community, among them William Wells 

Brown, Paul Cuffe, and Benjamin Hughes; 

Whereas Frederick Douglass said, ‘‘it was the faithful, persistent and enduring enthusiasm of . . . William Wilberforce . . . and [his] noble co-workers, that finally thawed 

the British heart into sympathy for the slave, and moved 

the strong arm of the government in mercy to put an end 

to his bondage.’’; and 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 613 IS 

Whereas March 25, 2007 marks the 200th anniversary of the 

abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) honors the life and work of William Wilber3 force; and 

4 (2) commemorates the 200th anniversary of the 

5 abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain and its 

6 impact on similar efforts in the United States. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B ALJIT SINGH, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-70350 Age n c y No. A095-568-815 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July 22, 2014 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . B a ljit Singh, a

native an d c itiz e n of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his mo tion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of 

# FIL ED JUL 30 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc re tion theB IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n. N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing Singh’ s m otion to re ope n a s untim e l y whe re the m otion wa s file d m ore tha n four y e ars a fte r the B IA’ s fina l orde r, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), Singh fa ile d to show tha t som e of the e vide nc e wa s not pre viously

ava ila ble and c ould not ha

v e be e n pre se nte d at his pre vious he aring, se e 8 C .F.R

§ 1003.2(c )(3)(ii), a

nd Singh otherwise fa ile d to de m onstra te c ha nge d c onditions tha

t qua lify for the re gula

tory e xc e ption to the

tim e lim it for filing m otions to re ope n, se e id. ; Toufighi v . Muk a se y , 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th C ir. 2008) (e vide nc e wa s im m ate ria l in light of prior a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation). W e re

j e c t Singh’ s c onte ntions tha t the B IA ignore d or fa ile d to a de quate ly

c onside r e ithe r his ide ntity doc um e nts or thec ountry c ondition e vide nc e pre se nte d with them otion to re o pe n. Se e N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 990-91 (B IA a de quate l y

c onside re d e vide nc e an d suffic ie ntly announc e d de c ision). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 0 3 5 0 2