alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
256 La. 916

#### UNION SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. The GRAND COMPANY et al.

No. 50955.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 9, 1970.

In re: Union Savings & Loan Association applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 239 So.2d 395.

Writ refused. The case having been remanded, the judgment is not final.
# Official Journal L 455I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 455I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6420 December 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 455I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6420 December 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2268 of 6 September 2021 amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/653 as regards the underpinning methodology and presentation of performance scenarios, the presentation of costs and the methodology for the calculation of summary cost indicators, the presentation and content of information on past performance and the presentation of costs by packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) offering a range of options for investment and alignment of the transitional arrangement for PRIIP manufacturers offering units of funds referred to in Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as underlying investment options with the prolonged transitional arrangement laid down in that Article (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2268 of 6 September 2021 amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/653 as regards the underpinning methodology and presentation of performance scenarios, the presentation of costs and the methodology for the calculation of summary cost indicators, the presentation and content of information on past performance and the presentation of costs by packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) offering a range of options for investment and alignment of the transitional arrangement for PRIIP manufacturers offering units of funds referred to in Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as underlying investment options with the prolonged transitional arrangement laid down in that Article (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
United States of America 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Division of Advertising Practices 

Andrea C. Levine, Esq. 

Senior Vice President, Director 

National Advertising Division 

112 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor 

New York, NY 10016 

September 4, 2015 

Re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 's "Raise in Pay" Commercial 

Thank you for your July 20, 2015 letter referring the NAD's investigation of a Wal-Mart 

television commercial regarding Wal-Mart's initiatives to increase spending on higher pay, 

education, and training for employees, including an increase in the minimum starting wage. 

NAD was concerned that the advertisement implied that Wal-Mart had raised the wages of its 

employees from minimum wage to $15 per hour; that the increased wages represented a living 

wage, allowing employees to earn enough to support themselves and/or their family; and that the 

increased wages allow its employees to "build a future." Because Wal-Mart declined to 

participate in the self-regulatory process, you referred this matter to the Federal Trade 

Commission for our review. 

Upon review of this matter, we have determined not to take additional action at this time. 

In arriving at this conclusion, we considered a number of factors related to resource allocation 

and enforcement priorities, as well as the nature of any FTC Act violation and the type and 

severity of any consumer injury. The Commission reserves the right to take such further action 

as the public interest may require. 

Very truly yours, 

/

MaryK.~ 

VVL-u:-t ~ 

Associate Director for Advertising Practices
No. — , original.

#### Ex Parte in the Matter of the City of Monterey,

October 12, 1925.

Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus denied by the court in the exercise of its discretion, without prejudice to the petitioner’s other remedies.

*Messrs. Argyll Campbell, Golden W. Bell*and *Herman J. Hughes*for the City of Monterey.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29136-29137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13410]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Unither 
Manufacturing LLC

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and 
applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the 
issuance of the proposed registration on or before July 23, 2018. Such 
persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before July 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority 
to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation 
and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of 
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of 
controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with 
suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated 
to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division 
(``Assistant Administrator'') pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, 
appendix to subpart R.
    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 
24, 2018, Unither Manufacturing LLC, 331 Clay Road, Rochester, New York 
14623 applied to be registered as an importer of methylphenidate 
(1724), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to import the listed substance solely for updated

[[Page 29137]]

analytical testing purposes for EU customer requirements. This analysis 
is required to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured 
FDF to foreign markets.

    Dated: June 13, 2018.
John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-13410 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Antoinette Leone, Plaintiff, *v.*City of New York, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

June 11, 1952.

*74
      *Denis M. Hurley, Corporation Counsel (George P. Hennessy*of counsel), for defendant.

*Sciarra S Russo*for plaintiff.

Moss, J.

This is a motion by the City of New York to vacate service of the summons and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that no proper service was made upon it. The summons and complaint were served by registered mail and retained by the defendant for several months, from February 9, 1952, to May 20, 1952, when the motion papers herein were served. During that time, at the request of the city, by stipulations on the printed form used by the corporation counsel, the time of the city to answer or make any motion with respect to the complaint was extended from time to time to May 21, 1952. Had the city returned the summons promptly, plaintiff would have had sufficient time to commence the action by personal service within the prescribed time. The action of the city in not returning the summons and complaint and in obtaining extensions of time at its request was tantamount to an admission of service of the summons and to a general appearance. The city waived any defect of service. The motion is denied with leave to the defendant to serve an answer within thirty days from date of service of a copy of the order to be entered herein. Settle order on notice.
# Official Journal C 5/9 Ja

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 5 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 589 January 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 5

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 589 January 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 005/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2015/C 005/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 005/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2015/C 005/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
## APPENDIX E 1

Nonroad Source Emissions

2007, 2017, 2025

(Provided in Electronic Form Only)

Bureau of Air Quality

Department of Environmental Protection[ This page intentionally left blank

. ]NA Area County Percent of Count y

Liberty

‐ Clairton Allegheny 1.53%

Pgh

‐ Beaver Allegheny 98.47%

Pgh

‐ Beaver Armstrong 3.96%

Pgh

‐ Beaver Greene 4.06%

Pgh

‐ Beaver Lawrence 1.15%
#### RISHER MOTORS, INC. and Corporate Group Service, Inc., Petitioners, v. Judith M. CLEM and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 43170.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 13, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 24, 2013

No. 04-12-00744-CR

James Davis MORRISON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR7696

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sachiko Nagao, the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record, has 

filed a notification of late reporter’s record, requesting an extension of time to May 19, 2013. We 

GRANT the extension and ORDER Sachiko Nagao to file the reporter’s record on or before May 

19, 2013. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of April, 2013.

 ____________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2013

p1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147818

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147818

COA: 314187

Wayne CC: 10

- 003344

- FC

WILLIAM EDWARD DAVIDSON

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 7

, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Louise GUYTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. I-499.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 29, 1967.

T. Edward Austin, Jr., Public Defender, and James L. Harrison, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen, and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Parrish v. State, 97 So.2d 356 (Fla.App. 1st 1957) and Taylor v. State, 189 So.2d 496 (Fla.App. 1st 1966).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
----

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 373rd meeting on 11 May 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/C-3/37.980 — Souris bleue/Topps

(2006/C 303/03)

----
**Part I, Section B, Item 2(**  **a )**  **Polymer Weight Information -**  **GPC**
#### HOWARD KENNEDY, p. b., app’t. *vs.*JAMES MURDICK, d. b., respondent.

A note given by one of several bidders for government contracts to another, to induce him to withdraw his bid, is an illegal consideration, and cannot be enforced.

Appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, in an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated May 25, 1848, for $100, payable in sixty days, to the plaintiff or order.

It was an action to recover the amount of a note for $100, given on consideration that Kennedy should procure a mail contract from the general government, at a certain sum. The defence was, the illegality of the transaction, and want of consideration.

Kennedy and Murdick were both bidders for mail service, on route No. 1916. Kennedy was the lowest bidder, and his bid was accepted, with a qualification that enabled him to decline it; and at this point Murdick gave his note to Kennedy for $100, to get him the contract, and Murdick thereupon refused to take the contract, and withdrew his bid; and the contract was .given to Murdick.

*The Court*

held this to be unlawful. Contracts in contravention of public policy, or of a public statute, are illegal, and will not be enforced.

The act of Congress provides that no mail contract shall be made with any person who shall have entered into any combination, or *459proposed to enter into any combination, to prevent the making of any bid for a mail contract, by any other person; or who shall have made any agreement, or shall have given or performed, or promised to give or perform any consideration whatever, or to do or not do any thing' whatever, in order to induce any other person not to bid for a mail contract.

*Whiteley,*for plaintiff.

*Buffington*and *Booth,*for defendant.

It has been decided that an attempt to contravene the policy of a public statute is illegal, though the statute contain no express prohibition of such attempt. (4 *Halst. Rep.,*352 ; 5 *Ibid,*87.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,245
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,704<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,062)
<INVENTORY>                                     38,146
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,033
<PP&E>                                          59,672<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                (43,033)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          244,179
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,146,165<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,672
<SALES>                                        585,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               585,266
<CGS>                                          249,092
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  249,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,166,263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,949<F4>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (858,038)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                259,109<F5>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (599,019)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
<FN>
<F1>This is the balance before deducting allowance for doubtful accounts.
<F2>This is the balance before deducting accumulated depreciation.
<F3>This includes amounts paid in excess of par value.
<F4>This is net of interest income of $239.
<F5>This includes loss on the sale of PP&E of $38,346; write-off of intangibles of
$197,293 and gain on settlement of obligations of $494,658.
</FN>


</TABLE>
| Area Code/County                 | Count |
|----------------------------------|-------|
| 505  New Mexico                  | 10906 |
| 575  New Mexico                  | 4503  |
| Bernalillo New Mexico            | 8383  |
| Catron New Mexico                | 32    |
| Chaves New Mexico                | 391   |
| Cibola New Mexico                | 69    |
| Colfax New Mexico                | 273   |
| Curry New Mexico                 | 466   |
| De Baca New Mexico               | 3     |
| Doña Ana New Mexico              | 1889  |
| Eddy New Mexico                  | 422   |
| Grant New Mexico                 | 333   |
| Guadalupe New Mexico             | 4     |
| Harding New Mexico               | 3     |
| Hidalgo New Mexico               | 25    |
| Lea New Mexico                   | 274   |
| Lincoln New Mexico               | 399   |
| Los Alamos New Mexico            | 246   |
| Luna New Mexico                  | 222   |
| McKinley New Mexico              | 141   |
| Mora New Mexico                  | 24    |
| No Zip Code Reported, New Mexico | 150   |
| Otero New Mexico                 | 479   |
| Quay New Mexico                  | 118   |
| Rio Arriba New Mexico            | 160   |
| Roosevelt New Mexico             | 57    |
| San Juan New Mexico              | 676   |
| San Miguel New Mexico            | 113   |
| Sandoval New Mexico              | 1940  |
| Santa Fe New Mexico              | 3489  |
| Sierra New Mexico                | 139   |
| Socorro New Mexico               | 276   |
| Taos New Mexico                  | 296   |
| Torrance New Mexico              | 207   |
| Union New Mexico                 | 39    |
| Valencia New Mexico              | 506   |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAIN DICKEY-O’BRIEN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 13-16667

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01241-WBSCKD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 10, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Rain Dickey-O’Brien appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition

for habeas corpus. The facts are known to the parties and will not be repeated here.

FILED

DEC 22 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1
He first contends that the state trial court’s decision to use CALJIC 4.00 rendered

his trial fundamentally unfair. Second, he contends that two events that occurred

during his trial created doubt concerning his competency to stand trial, requiring

the state trial court to hold a competency hearing sua sponte.

The claim that CALJIC 4.00 does not conform to the M’Naghten test fails

because there was no showing that any violation of clearly established federal law

occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62,

71-72 (1991) (“[T]he fact that” a jury instruction was “allegedly incorrect under

state law is not a basis for habeas relief.”). 

As to the competency at trial issue, Dickey-O’Brien identifies two events

that he argues created doubt. First, the trial court judge noted unspecified

“difficulties.” Second, on the same day, the prosecutor noted that Dickey-O’Brien

had sat “nearly motionless and mute” during the trial. At oral argument, his

counsel acknowledged that the record contains no other references to either event. 

“[T]he failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant’s right

not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due

process right to a fair trial.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172 (1975). A court

must conduct a hearing sua sponte if it has a “bona fide doubt” as to the

defendant’s competency. Maxwell v. Roe, 606 F.3d 561, 568 (9th Cir. 2010). 

2
“Genuine doubt” rather than “synthetic or constructive doubt” is required. de

Kaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975, 982-83 (9th Cir. 1976). 

Without more, the two events identified by Dickey-O’Brien are insufficient

to meet the “high bar” for establishing a bona fide doubt. See Clark v. Arnold, 769

F. 3d 711, 729 (9th Cir. 2014). The California District Court of Appeal did not

unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it determined that the

state trial court was not required to conduct a competency hearing. 

AFFIRMED

3