alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1914

___________

Sherwin Brown, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

SunAmerica, Inc.; SunAmerica * District of Minnesota.

Securities, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 28, 2005

Filed: May 3, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sherwin Brown appeals the district court’s1

 orders (in two civil actions he

brought) denying his motion to vacate an arbitration award, confirming the award,

and granting summary judgment to defendants. Having carefully reviewed the record,

we conclude that the district court did not err in confirming the arbitration award or

in granting summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

    
    Mr. Kelfer agreed to reduce (i) his base salary rate by 10%, from $500,000 to
$450,000 per annum and (ii) his annual bonus by 10% from $500,000 to $465,400 for
2009;
    
    Mr. Kotler agreed to reduce his base salary rate by 10%, from $350,000 to $315,000
per annum; and
    
    Mr. Fels and Mr. Levy agreed to reduce (i) his base salary rate by 10%, from
$500,000 to $450,000 per annum and (ii) his annual bonus by 10%from $400,000 to
$372,320 for 2009.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                    Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



         I, Christopher M. Rasmussen, Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Accounting Officer), certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
that the information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway Energy Corporation
and its subsidiaries for the periods presented.


Date:  May 13, 2008                         /s/  Christopher M. Rasmussen
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Christopher M. Rasmussen
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 (Principal Accounting Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14454]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, 
July 11, 2018, 01:00 p.m. to July 11, 2018, 04:00 p.m., National 
Institutes of Health, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which 
was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2018, 83 248540 
27338.
    The meeting date has changed from July 11, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 
p.m. to August 14, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting is closed 
to the public.

    Dated: June 29, 2018.
Michelle D. Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-14454 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### TOLE ELECTRIC OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. ALLIED ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. OF WEST PALM BEACH, a Florida corporation, and Kilow, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-958.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 14, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James R. Stewart, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 463 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 463

   Requiring that LEGIS and TLS information be made available to the 
                        public on the Internet.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 1994

    Mr. Zimmer (for himself, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Horn, Mr. Boucher, Mr. 
    Sanders, Ms. Furse, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, and Mr. Conyers) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                                on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Requiring that LEGIS and TLS information be made available to the 
                        public on the Internet.

    Resolved, That the Committee on House Administration shall take 
such action as may be necessary to make all information from the 
Legislative Information and Status Service (LEGIS) and the Text of 
Legislation Service (TLS) available to the public on the Internet. The 
requirement of the preceding sentence shall be carried out not later 
than 30 days after the date on which this resolution is agreed to.

                                 <all>
```
Order entered May 12, 2016

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00963-CR 

CORNELIUS TURNER, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F15-52355-M 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Lang 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to issue the 

mandate in this appeal INSTANTER. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         240,911
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,992
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                85,025
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    473,420
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      11,910,084
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        11,691,814
<LOANS>                                     23,485,887
<ALLOWANCE>                                    233,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,026,973
<DEPOSITS>                                  26,335,706
<SHORT-TERM>                                   160,597
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            915,764
<LONG-TERM>                                  7,448,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,525
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,161,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              38,026,973
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                921,602
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              100,543
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               358,114
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,380,259
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             613,634
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             881,052
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          499,207
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     (153)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                189,072
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                388,135
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     388,135
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   242,755
<EPS-BASIC>                                     4.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.06
<LOANS-NON>                                    239,937
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                15,896
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 70,255
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               244,466
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,293
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              233,471
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           233,471
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
GLD
- 423 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 3

- 3451

___________ IN RE: EARL A. PONDEXTER, Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United S tates District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2

- 13

- cv
- 00732)

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

September 12, 2013
Before: FUENTES, FISHER and VANASKIE , Circui t Judges

(Opinion filed: September 18, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
Earl A. Pondexter , proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions for a writ of
mandamus which, liberally construed, seeks to compel District Judge Nora B. Fischer to
recuse herself f

rom the underlying District Court case. Pondexter’s petition also argues2

that the District Court wrongfully dismissed his complaint in the underlying action. See
W.D. Pa. 2:13

- cv
- 00732

. 1
Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordin ary circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). While mandamus is available to review a District Court’s refusal to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), see Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc. , 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993) , Pondexter’s threat to name Judge Fischer as a defendant in his case does not provide the basis for her recusal. See Azubuko v. Royal , 443 F.3d 302, 304 (3d Cir. 2006) . To require disqualification every time a litigant files suit again st a judge would allow litigants to improperly “judge shop.” See In re Taylor , 417 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2005) . As Pondexter has not shown any reason for Judge Fischer to recuse herself pursuant to § 455(a) , he is not entitled to mandamus relief on t hat ground. To the extent that Pondexter seeks to argue that the District Court wrongfully dismissed his complaint , Pondexter is separately seeking relief through the appellate
process and is therefore not entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Baldwin , 7 00 F.3d 122, 127 (3d Cir. 2012)

. For the reasons above, the mandamus petition will be denied.

1 In his complaint, Pondexter requested that the District Court reinstate a previous lawsuit where the District Court granted summary judgment against Ponde xter , which this Court affirmed on appeal

. See C.A. 12

- 3954. The District Court dismissed Pondexter’s instant complaint and denied his motion for reconsideration. Pondexter has separately appealed from that ruling. See C.A. 13

- 3366.
#### Forest E. WATSON, Petitioner, v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and Mildred H. Watson, Respondents.

No. 41530.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 28, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### EMMONS *v.*CITY OF DETROIT.

This case is controlled by *Houseman*v. *City of*Detroit, 257 Mich. 557.

Appeal from Wayne; Searl (Kelly S.), J., presiding.

Submitted April 19, 1932.

(Docket No. 155, Calendar No. 36,246.)

Decided June 6, 1932.

Bill by Cora D. Emmons against City of Detroit, a municipal corporation, to enjoin the levy of a special assessment for paving. Decree for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Reversed.

*James F. Lane (Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*Walter Barlow (Clarence E. Wilcox,*of counsel), for defendant.

North, J.

Plaintiff is the owner of property on Ohio boulevard, so-called, in the city of Detroit, and by her bill of complaint seeks to have the city enjoined from collecting an unpaid instalment of a paving tax. She bases her right to relief on the provision in the Detroit city charter which provides that the cost of paving boulevards shall be paid by the city at large rather than being assessed against abutting property as in the case of ordinary streets and avenues. Prom the decree granting the relief sought defendant has appealed.

Since this case was disposed of in the circuit decision was rendered in this court in *Houseman*v. *145
      *City of Detroit,*257 Mich. 557. One of the plaintiffs in that case (Oscar E. Frost) owned property fronting on Ohio boulevard in the same addition and locality as the plaintiff’s lot involved in the instant case. A review of this record fails to disclose any facts in consequence of which this case can be distinguished from the *Frost Case*which presented the identical question. Decision herein is controlled by *Houseman*v. *City of Detroit, supra.*

The decree of the circuit court is reversed, with costs to appellant.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
#### EBE TYRE *vs.*STEPHEN MORRIS.

After testimony closed and the case opened by the plaintiff’s counsel, if the defendant’s counsel submit without argument, the plaintiff is not entitled to a further hearing before the jury.

Sussex,

April term, 1848.

Ejectment for 158 acres of land called “Hobb’s Choice.”

It was a question of location dependent on a boundary line beginning at a white oak; and the parties differed as to the position of this tree. A white oak, said to be the beginning bounder of Hobb’s choice, was at the end of an old marked line of trees (which defendant claimed as the true line:) another white oak, standing several yards further east, and called by plaintiff the “ Cow horn bounder,” was at the end of a more recently marked line, which he claimed to be the true line of Hobb’s choice. The cow horn oak was marked externally; the defendant’s white ■ oak had no visible marks. By advice of Wm. B. Ewing, surveyor, it was cut down and split open, and near the heart four distinct rows of marks, three in' each row, were found, and one hundred and nineteen years’ growth counted over them, making the oak eighteen or twenty years old when marked, if marked at the time of the patent. A section from the heart of the tree was produced in court, with a very distinct scar in it, covered by a large growth. . The date of the patent was 1714.

After the evidence was closed, and one of plaintiff’s counsel had opened,

*Mr. Bayard*

declined to argue the cause for the defendant, and insisted on the jury taking it, either without or with a charge from the court, as the court should see fit.

*Mr. Layton*

resisted this, and insisted on his right to address the *4jury on the facts; which the court refused to allow, and the jury took the ease. The court charged briefly on the law.

*Saulsbury*and *Layton,*for plaintiff.

*J. A. Bayard,*for defendant.

Verdict for defendant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEPFON L. WILSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 5 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of March

, 2018, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22806-22807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09474]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, May 23, 2014.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and 
Examinations. In the event that the times, dates, or locations of this 
or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along 
with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

[[Page 22807]]

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, 202-
418-5516.

Natise Allen,
Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2014-09474 Filed 4-22-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 12


                   GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARY
        Statement of the Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Dollars in Millions)                        Nine Months Ended
                                             September 30, 1999
                                             ------------------
<S>                                          <C>
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations               $ 194.8
  Add - Income taxes                                113.9
      - Fixed charges                                45.6
                                                  -------
Adjusted earnings                                 $ 354.3
                                                  =======

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                $  43.5
  Portion of rent expense representing interest       2.1
                                                  -------
Adjusted fixed charges                            $  45.6
                                                  =======

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                   7.77
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

             FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES AND EARNINGS USED IN PER SHARE
                                   COMPUTATION
                        (DOLLARS AND SHARES IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                               MARCH 31,
                                                                         --------------------
                                                                          2000         1999
                                                                         -------      -------
<S>                                                                       <C>          <C>
The weighted average number of shares of
  Common Stock were as follows ......................................     90,000       90,000
                                                                         =======      =======
Income used in the computation of earnings per share were as follows:

</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                               MARCH 31,
                                                                         --------------------
CONSOLIDATED                                                              2000         1999
                                                                         -------      -------
<S>                                                                       <C>          <C>
Net earnings ........................................................    $23,094      $17,627
Dividends paid on preferred stocks ..................................       (130)        (130)
                                                                         -------      -------
Income used in per share computation of earnings                         $22,964      $17,497
                                                                         =======      =======
Basic and fully dilutive earnings per share .........................    $  0.26      $  0.19
                                                                         =======      =======

</TABLE>
#### Lloyd Allan EGGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-344.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 15, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2020240EN.01003401.xml

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/34

---

Action brought on 30 May 2020 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

(Case T-336/20)

(2020/C 240/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger and A. Brenneis, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 19 March 2020 on the calculation of the 2016 ex-ante contributions due by Banco Cooperativo Español S.A., Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (formerly: Vorarl-berger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG), and Portigon AG to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2020/16), including the annexes thereto, and in any event in so far as that decision, including the annexes thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 19 March 2020 on the calculation of the 2016 ex-ante contributions due by Banco Cooperativo Español S.A., Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (formerly: Vorarl-berger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG), and Portigon AG to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2020/16), including the annexes thereto, and in any event in so far as that decision, including the annexes thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant;

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-479/19; Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB. (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2019 C 305, p. 58.

---