alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1406 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2011 

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California, as the 

Myron Donovan Crocker United States Courthouse. 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

S 1406 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. MYRON DONOVAN CROCKER UNITED STATES 

2 COURTHOUSE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

4 under construction, as of the date of enactment of this 

5 Act, at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California, shall be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Myron Donovan Crocker 

7 United States Courthouse’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the United States courthouse referred to in sub11 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

12 ‘‘Myron Donovan Crocker United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the Senate July 26, 2011. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
No. 49407.

#### Protest 938083-G of Stone & Downer Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The merchandise was classified and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). It was conceded that the merchandise at bar is the same in all material respects as similar merchandise covered by said cited decision, the record in which was incorporated herein. On the record presented the merchandise was found to contain salt and was therefore excluded from paragraph 5. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Exhibit
32.1











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey A. Rein, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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














/s/ Jeffrey A.
Rein


Jeffrey
A. Rein


Chief
Executive Officer


Dated:  July
1, 2008





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Walgreen Co. and will be retained by Walgreen Co. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 45239.

#### Protest 35201-K of Dan Brechner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 43372 the tape measures in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kevin M. Goodwin, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc.; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    KEVIN M. GOODWINKevin M. GoodwinPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


September 7, 2010
### Annual runoff in the United States

By: Walter Basil Langbein

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir52

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (580 KB pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (2.57 MB pdf)                        
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

The water that drains from the land into creeks and rivers is called runoff. Supplying many of our basic human needs for water, runoff occurs chiefly as a residual of rainfall after Nature’s take – that is, after the persistent demands of evaporation from land and transpiration from vegetation have been supplied.

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
[Cite as Abdulrahaman v. S. Ohio Correctional Facility , 2009-Ohio-7099.] 

# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

ABDUL ABDULRAHAMAN

Plaintiff

v.

SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Defendant

Case No. 2007-01274

Judge J. Craig Wright Magistrate Steven A. Larson

JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶ 1} On November 25, 2009, the magistrate issued a decision recommending
judgment for defendant.
{¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to
a magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not
the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by
Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).” No objections were filed.
{¶ 3} The court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident
on the face of the magistrate’s decision. Therefore, the court adopts the magistrate’s
decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of
law contained therein. Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are
assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment
and its date of entry upon the journal.Case No. 2007-01274 - 2 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

_____________________________________ J. CRAIG WRIGHT Judge

cc:

A my S. Brown Emily M. Simmons A ssistant Attorneys General 150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130

Magistrate Steven A. Larson A bdul Abdulrahaman, #487-773 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, Ohio 45699

HTS/cmd Filed December 17, 2009 To S.C. reporter January 19, 2010
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FREDYS A. MARTINEZ A/K/A FREDDY A. MARTINEZ, Appellant,

vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA,

Respondent. No. 69277



# FILED JAN 1 2 2016

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL TRACE K. UNDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY • 3 •V DEPLA C C i rE f F l it ( 

### This is a pro se appeal from a purported decision denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.

No decision, oral or written, had been made on the petition when appellant filed his appeal on November 20, 2015. 1 Because appellant failed to designate an appealable order, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.



# I 

# Ae, Hardesty

Saitta

The documents before this court do not indicate that a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed in district court case number C226586, the case number designated in the notice of appeal. In light of this order, the pro se motions filed on December 22, 2015, are denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 

### e 16,- oo gq 7cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Fredys A. Martinez Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 

### e 2
No. 46390.

#### Protests 19799-K, etc., of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the siren whistles in question are in chief value of metal the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was sustained on the authority of Abstracts 39948 and 40480. Whistling balloons, rubber balloons, and noisemakers stipulated to be composed in part of bamboo, similar to those the subject of Abstract 40493, were held dutiable as bamboo articles at 45 percent under paragraph 409 as claimed.
No. 6185.

#### ANNA MARIA AMRHEIM vs. NYLKA LAND CO., LTD.

Syllabus.

Forfeitures for non-payment of taxes assessed in the name of dead persons and persons not the owners of the property are *void*and are not cured by the prescription of. three years.

Appeal from the 'Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “A,” No. 102,171. Hon. T. C- W. Ellis, Judge.

Dreyfus .and Danziger, for plaintiff and appellee.

Foster, Milling, Brian *&*Saal, and W. W. Wall, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion .and decree of the Court, as follows:

This is a petitory action. In the language of defendant’s brief “plaintiff traces her title, by an unbroken chain of conventional conveyances, to the dim and distant past.” From July, 1860, to July, 1906, the property belonged to one Edward Filleul.

Defendant claims by mesne conveyances through a tax title executed in the year 1885 for taxes of 1882 and 1883 *50‘assessed to one August- Girard, but under a description too vague to describe any property whatever, much less that of Filleul which was assessed to him for those years. (See Purcell vs. Seeger, No. 5882 of our docket.)

Opinion and decree, November 9th, 1914.

Rehearing refused, November 23rd, 1914.

Writ granted, January 13, 1914.

To supplement this deficiency in description defendant has recourse to a description of some property belonging to said Girard but situated in an adjoining and different square. Manifestly the ruling in Weber vs. Martinez, 125 La., 663, has not the slightest application to this case.

Defendant further urges that plaintiff is without interest whatsoever to bring this suit, claiming that the whole square of which this property forms a part was forfeited to the State for non-payment of the taxes of 1876, assessed to August Girard.

Even granting this, the forfeiture was a radical nullity, and was not cured by prescription; because at the time the property herein claimed belonged to Felleul and not to Girard. Forfeitures in the name of dead person and persons not the owner are void, and are not cured by the prescription of three years.

George vs. Cole, 199 La., 816.

The judgment appealed from is correct.

Judgment affirmed.

(137 La., 570.)
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Bradley Wayne Shipley, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00114

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 115th District Court of Upshur County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 16,356 ).
Memorandum Opinion delivered b y Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Bradley Wayne Shipley, has adequately indicated his inability

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED M ARCH 14, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# C_2015414EN.01004301.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/43

---

Action brought on 29 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-127/15)

(2015/C 414/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C.W. Godfrey, C. Antoine and M. Gomes Lopes, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Commission’s decision imposing the disciplinary measure of withholding EUR 185 from the applicant’s pension for a 12-month period and taking effect on the date on which he is to retire, on account of the exercise of an outside activity without permission.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the European Commission decision dated 16 December 2014, with all ensuing legal consequences; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission decision dated 16 December 2014, with all ensuing legal consequences;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>
       
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      677
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (58)
<INVENTORY>                                        236
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,023
<PP&E>                                             300
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (272)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           852
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,924)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,053
<SALES>                                          2,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,848
<CGS>                                            2,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   861
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (675)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (675)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (675)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.11
 EXECUTION VERSION
 
 KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN DE MÉXICO, S.A. de C.V.,
 as Issuer
 and
 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee
 
 First Supplemental Indenture
 Dated as of November 12, 2009
 
 121/2% Senior Notes due 2016




---



##### 



Supplemental
Indenture sociedad anónima de capital variable Company Trustee Paying Agent
 Indenture 1 2 Notes
 Board
    ARTICLE ONE  AMENDMENTS
 Amendment to the Indenture
  Section 2.03
  2




---



##### 



Section 3.04
 Amendment to the Notes
     ARTICLE TWO  MISCELLANEOUS
 Relation to Existing Indenture
 Construction
 Trustee Acceptance
 3




---



##### 



Indenture Ratified
 Parties Bound
 Successors and Assignees
 Counterparts
 Severability
 Headings
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWING]
 4




---



##### 



KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN de MÉXICO, S.A. de C.V.By:
    /s/ Michael W. UpchurchName:
    Michael W. UpchurchTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer and
Attorney-in-FactBy:
    /s/ Paul J. WeyandtName:
    Paul J. WeyandtTitle:
    Treasurer and Attorney-in-Fact




---



##### 



U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and Paying
AgentBy
    /s/ Michael M. HopkinsName:
    Michael M. HopkinsTitle:
    Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         295,070
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               420,724
<PP&E>                                      14,641,987
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,866,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,408,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,945,599
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       791,782
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,032,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,408,528
<SALES>                                         77,287
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               825,866
<CGS>                                           49,907
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  846,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             178,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,237)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,493)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 19-BG-1123

IN RE DONALD R. HARRIS, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 485340)

On Report and Recommendation

Of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(DDN 364-17)

(Decided March 26, 2020)

Before: FISHER, THOMPSON, and MCLEESE, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM: In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility

accepted the recommendation of Hearing Committee Four that respondent be 

suspended pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13(c). In its report, the Board stated that 

this matter was referred to the Committee after respondent, who was previously 

charged in a separate disciplinary proceeding with either reckless or intentional 

misappropriation of entrusted funds, failed to comply with conditions imposed to 
2

protect the public while he continued to practice law pending the conclusion of his 

disciplinary matter (Board Docket No. 19-BD-004). Specifically, in response to 

that earlier disciplinary complaint, respondent asserted he suffered from a 

disability that entitled him to mitigation of the disciplinary sanction. When

respondent first failed to comply with the conditions, Disciplinary Counsel filed a

motion to reconsider and the Board imposed additional conditions and warned

respondent that his failure to comply could subject him to the revocation of 

conditions and the imposition of a suspension. Respondent again failed to comply,

and the Board referred the matter to Hearing Committee Four, which determined 

that respondent was non-compliant and recommended that he be suspended 

pending disposition of his original disciplinary proceeding. In response, the Board 

accepted the recommendation and requests that this court immediately suspend

respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13(c).

Respondent has failed to respond to this court’s order directing him to show 

cause why he should not be suspended. Further, respondent previously

acknowledged that he failed to comply with the imposed conditions that would 

permit him to practice law while his disciplinary case was pending. In light of the 

Board’s report, we conclude that respondent has asserted a disability that impairs 

his ability to practice law but has failed to comply with conditions imposed to 
3

protect the public; therefore, a disability suspension pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 

13(c) is needed to protect the public. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Donald R. Harris is hereby suspended from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13(c) pending final 

resolution of his disciplinary proceedings in Board Docket No. 19-BD-004. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s attention is directed to the 

obligations of a suspended attorney found in D. C. Bar R. XI § 14.

So ordered.
No. 62082.

#### S. H. Pomerance Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 314072-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Before the First Division,

May 31, 1944

No. 49449.

#### Protest 76470-K of Wo Kee & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The ve-tsin was classified and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of the said cited case the ve-tsin involved found to contain salt was excluded by the court from paragraph 5. The claim under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained. The fish in question was found to consist of fish in lard with beans and was therefore held dutiable at 20 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1558 (19 U. S. C., 1940 ed. § 1001, par. 1558) as claimed. Abstract 42516 followed.