alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Land *v.*Coffey.

(Division B.

Oct. 22, 1934.)

[157 So. 89.

No. 31299.]

*92Thos. Land, and J. G. Smythe, both of Kosciusko, for appellant.

F. E. Leach, of Carthage, for appellee.

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

An action of replevin was instituted by appellant in the court of a justice of the peace against appellee for some cotton. No certified transcript of the justice court proceedings appears in this record, as required by section *9366, Code 1930, and,' except for the recitals in the judgment of the circuit court, we would not know whether the case was ever tried in the justice court or, if so, what the result thereof was, and whether it was actually-appealed and an appeal bond given. Ball v. Sledge, 82 Miss. 747, 35 So. 214. The case was tried in the circuit court, and it is said that the trial there was de novo, but, as already stated, the record fails to show that it was ever tried in the justice court. It has repeatedly been held by this court that, in the absence of the certified transcript, as required by said section 66, the circuit court is without jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal in so far as the merits of the case are concerned. Pierce v. Jernigan, 151 Miss. 759, 118 So. 898, and prior cases therein cited.

The rule above stated has been modified in part by section 3403, Code 1930. That modification goes, however, only to the extent that an objection raising the question of the absence of the justice court transcript shall not be' permitted to be made for the first time in the Supreme Court. In the case before us the objection was specifically made and entered of record in the circuit court, which objection was sustained by the court; and, if the circuit court had dismissed the appeal and awarded a writ of procedendo to the justice court, the judgment would be affirmed. But the court did not do that — the judgment entered was a circuit court judgment for the defendant as if on the merits that plaintiff restore to dedefendant the cotton, or pay him the value thereof, to-wit, ninety-three dollars and eighty-three cents, and 'against the sureties on appellant’s appeal bond, when, as already stated, no appeal bond appears of record. In the state of the record as it then existed in the circuit court, that court was not authorized to render a judgment on the merits, for the court had no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal, if not perfected, and award *94a writ of procedendo. For the reason last stated, and that alone, the judgment must be vacated and reversed and the cause remanded, to be proceeded with in the circuit court as indicated in Pierce v. Jernigan, supra.

Reversed and remanded.
Memorandum 

To: Margaret McCourtney 

From: Andrew Skoglund 

Subject: Revisions per your comments 

Date: May 16, 2006 

Project: Taconite Industry BART Clients 

c: Mary Jean Fenske, Barr Taconite BART Project Team, Taconite BART Industry Reps. 

Attached is a revised version of our proposed changes to the BART-analysis modeling protocol. They are 

set up in the format described in Appendix G to the modeling protocol. The proposed OZONE.DAT files 

and a figure depicting the proposed modeling domain are also included, as requested. 

The PSD modeling protocols referenced for the CALMET parameters are based on PSD modeling 

protocols submitted for Mesabi Nugget LLC, Northshore Mining Line 5 Restart, and Minnesota Steel 

Industries LLC. Each of these facilities has submitted a modeling protocol using MM4/MM5 data with 

observations for review. The values noted are representative of those that were used after receiving 

comment from the FLMs. The Minnesota Steel Industries modeling protocol was submitted in May 2005, 

with FLM response on June 14, 2005. FLMs approved of the submitted values. 

 

The comments section regarding receptors has been revised to indicate that we will be using a subset of the 

original MPCA receptor group, using only BWCA and Voyageurs receptors. 

Thank you, 

Andrew J. Skoglund 

Barr Engineering Co. 

(952) 832 - 2685 

askoglund@barr.com 

Barr Engineering Company Appendix B 

4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 

Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.com An EEO Employer

Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 587

Concerning the profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Dean A.

Gallo, a Representative from the State of New Jersey.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 29, 1994

Mrs. ROUKEMA submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Concerning the profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Dean A. Gallo, a Representative from the State

of New Jersey.

1 Resolved, That the House has heard with profound

2 sorrow of the death of the Honorable Dean A. Gallo, a

3 Representative from the State of New Jersey.

4 Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolu5 tions to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the

6 family of the deceased.

7 Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it ad8 journ as a further mark of respect to the memory of the

9 deceased.

Æ
Exhibit 10.2


 





Supplementary Agreement


 


	Lessor:	Neighborhood Committee of Xiqili Community, Caiyuan Street, Taishan District, Tai’an City (hereinafter referred to as “Party A”)
	 	 
	Lessee:	Tai’an Tony Fun Shopping Mall Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Party B”)


 


Per friendly consultation, in the spirit
of mutual benefit and reciprocity as well as mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, and based on the “Lease”
and “Supplementary Agreement” signed by both parties on June 25, 2014 and June 16, 2017 respectively, both parties
hereby agree unanimously to amend the amount of rent as follows:


 


		1.	Party B has paid RMB 2,555,000 in total to Party A for the rent.



 


		2.	Both parties will not amend the paid rent as mentioned above, however, for the rent due through
July 31, 2021, both parties agree that:



 


		1)	The amount of rent from August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2017 is RMB 2,555,000.



 


		2)	The amount of rent from August 1, 2017 to July 31, 2018 is RMB2,555,000.



 


		3)	The amount of rent from August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019 is RMB 2,555,000.



 


		4)	The amount of rent from August 1, 2019 to July 31, 2020 is RMB 2,555,000.



 


		5)	The amount of rent from August 1, 2020 to July 31, 2021 is RMB 3,406,700.



 


		3.	In case of any discrepancy among different versions, this Supplementary Agreement shall prevail
on the adjusted clauses, the unchanged clauses shall be performed pursuant to the previous agreements.



 


		4.	This Supplementary Agreement shall be performed beginning on July 6, 2018.



 


		5.	This Supplementary Agreement is made in quadruplicate, each party holds two copies respectively,
and it will come into effect after the signature of both parties.



 


		Party A:	Neighborhood Committee of Xiqili Community, Caiyuan
Street, Taishan District, Tai’an City



 


Authorized representative
(Signature) /s/ Linshan Liu


 


	Date of signature: 	July 6, 2018


 


		Party B:	Tai’an Tony Fun Shopping Mall Co., Ltd.



 


Authorized representative
(Signature) /s/ Zhiqiang Han


 


	Date of signature: 	July 6, 2018
#### Herod *v.*Carroll County.

(Division B.

Nov. 19, 1934.)

[157 So. 533.

No. 31418.]

J. W. Conger, of Winona, for appellant.

*218E. V. Hughston, of Greenwood, and S. E. Turner, of Carrollton, for appellee.

*219Argued orally by J. W. Conger, for appellant.

Ethridge, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case has been before this court before; the decision being found in Herod v. Carroll County, 1621 Miss. 78, 138 So. 800, where the judgment of the court below was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. It appears that this appeal is, substantially, from the same testimony as the former appeal.

The board of supervisors laid out a highway which it turned over to the state which improved the road, and the county had paid Herod up to the southeast corner of block 10 in the town of McCarley, but had not paid for other land over which the road traversed, and refused to pay for the right of way and other damages to the last-mentioned property.

The court granted a peremptory instruction for the appellant, and also' instructed the jury that the appellant was entitled to recover damages according to the evidence adduced at the trial, the weight and credibility of which they were the sole judges, and that the appellant was entitled to due compensation, not only for the value of the property actually taken as specified in the claim, but also for damages, if any, resulting to him as a consequence of the taking, and that they were not to deduct therefrom anything on account of the supposed benefits incident to the public use of said property as a *220public road. Tbe court also' gave another instruction on the measure of damages.

The court then instructed the jury for the defendant (appellee here) that, in estimating the quantity of land taken from the appellant for road purposes, they could only consider the land actually taken, as shown by the roadbed viewed by them, and that they could not take into consideration, in their estimate, the land that belonged to the old roadbed, nor the land that the map of the town of McCarley shows was dedicated to street or road purposes adjacent to said road, nor the land of the right of way of the Columbus & Greenville Railway Company, and that, unless the jury believed, from the evidence, that the defendant, Carroll county, took land from Herod which it had not paid him for, then they must find for the defendant.

It will be seen from these instructions that they are in conflict with the peremptory instruction granted for the appellant.

We think it is clear, from the record, that the peremptory instruction granted for the appellant was proper, and that the court erred in granting instructions conflicting therewith, and the judgment of the court below will be reversed, and judgment entered here as to liability, and the cause remanded for the purpose of assessing damages.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 11

               General DataComm Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries
                          Calculation of Loss per Share
                      (In thousands except per share data)

                                          Three months ended   Six months ended
                                                March 31,          March 31,
                                            1997       1996      1997     1996
===============================================================================
Primary loss per share:

 Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                      21,056     20,676    21,021    20,586
 Assumed exercise of certain stock
  options                                      -          -         -         -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          21,056     20,676    21,021    20,586
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Net loss                               ($11,718)   ($1,656) ($17,392)  ($4,547)
 Payment of preferred stock dividends       (450)         -      (900)       -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        ($12,168)   ($1,656) ($18,292)  ($4,547)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary loss per share                    ($0.58)    ($0.08)   ($0.87)   ($0.22)
===============================================================================

Fully diluted loss per share:

The fully diluted loss per share calculation is identical to the calculation
 presented above.


                                      -17-
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
TMBR/Sharp Drilling, Inc.

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No.33-46699, No. 33-89878 and No. 333-32028) on Form S-8, and the
registration statement (No. 333-23391) on Form S-3, of TMBR/Sharp Drilling, Inc.
of our report dated June 5, 2003 with respect to the balance sheets of
TMBR/Sharp Drilling, Inc. as of March 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years
then ended and all related financial statement schedules, which report appears
in the March 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of TMBR/Sharp Drilling, Inc.
The 2001 financial statements and financial statement schedule of TMBR/Sharp
Drilling, Inc. were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations. Those
auditors expressed an unqualified opinion of those financial statements and
financial statement schedule in their report dated May 18, 2001.


                                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

Midland, Texas
June 25, 2003
#### Clarence KEMP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Paul L. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. P-36, P-37.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 16, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and John W. Watson, III, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SPECTOR, Chief Judge.

Appellants were convicted after a jury trial for possession of a short-barrelled shotgun. In another case not presently before us, both appellants were charged and convicted of robbery. During the course of the robbery, one of the appellants here wielded the shotgun in question while his companion, the other appellant, used a pistol. Both weapons were used to accomplish the joint venture on which appellants had embarked; to wit, the robbery. The possession was joint and mutual. The manual possession and use of the weapons held by the respective appellants aided and abetted the other to possess the weapon he held.

In circumstances such as these where one of two or more persons possesses a weapon unlawfully for the purpose of committing an offense to which all are a party, the weapon is possessed jointly by the participants.

The judgments reviewed herein are affirmed on authority of Maloney v. State, 146 So.2d 581 (Fla.App.1962); and Wood v. State, 230 So.2d 484 (Fla.App.1970).

WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
# C_2021382EN.01000602.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH

(Case C-95/21)

(2021/C 382/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Applicant and respondent: AirHelp Germany GmbH

This case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021.

---
<PAGE>   1




Exhibit 12
GTE Northwest Incorporated and Subsidiary

STATEMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Thousands of Dollars)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Three Months
                                                                       Ended
                                                                     March 31,
                                                                        1997
                                                                   --------------
<S>                                                                <C>           
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                                $       48,067
  Add - Income taxes                                                       26,673
      - Fixed charges                                                      13,892
                                                                   --------------
Adjusted earnings                                                  $       88,632
                                                                   ==============

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                                 $       13,555
  Portion of rent expense
      representing interest                                                   337
                                                                   --------------
Adjusted fixed charges                                             $       13,892
                                                                   ==============

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                           6.38


</TABLE>
# C_2021357EN.01001702.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — EF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-172/21) (1)

(2021/C 357/26)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
l\Iarch 26, 2012 

GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO 

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 

CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE 

MRS. JUDI'l1I A. ENCK 

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

USEPA- REGION II 

290 BROAD\\' A Y 25m FLOOR 

NEWYO!U<::NY 10007-1866 

Puerto Rico Designation for the New 1-Hour S02 NAAQS 

Withdrawn of initial recommendation and new recommendation 

PUEHTO HI CO 

VERDE 

On June 3, 2012 the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) submitted the initial 

designation for all areas in Puerto Rico, pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C 7407(d)(1)(A)). 

PREQB recommended the EPA to classify the Barceloneta/Manati, Guayama, San Juan, and 

Guayanilla/Ponce areas as "non-attaitunent" under the revised NAAQS for S02. It also proposed 

that the Mayaguez and Fajardo/Humacao areas be designated as unclassified areas for S02• Tlus 

itutial request was based on monitoring data and results from a refined air dispersion model. 

More recently, the PREQB has gathered additional information related to the emission inventory 

used for the dispersion models demonstration. Since the emission inventmy may not reflect the 

more recent and available information, as required for the sulfur dioxide designation (75 FR 35569), 

the PREQB is requesting to retire the reconunendations contained in tl1e letter dated June 3, 2011. 

In consequence, the PREQB is now subnutting an "unclassifiable" recommendation for all areas of 

Puerto Rico. 

Please feel free to contact me at (787) 767-8056 if you have any questions regarding tlus matter, or 

contact Mr. Luis Sierra, Manager of the Air Quality Area, at (787) 787-756-8393. 

;e: I tfiranda 

c. George Pavlou 

Jose Font
# C_2021163EN.01001501.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

(Case C-89/21)

(2021/C 163/20)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Romega’ UAB

Respondent: Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

Question referred

Must Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (1) of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs and Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety be interpreted as conferring on the competent supervisory authorities of a Member State the discretion to determine that fresh poultry meat which meets the requirements set out in Row l.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005 fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 178/2002 in the case where a food product coming under that food category is contaminated by Salmonella serotypes other than those referred to in Row l.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005, as has been established in the present case?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (OJ 2005 L 338, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

---
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 477

To declare that July 12, 1994, be recognized as ‘‘Kashmir World Action

Day’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 12, 1994

Mr. BURTON of Indiana submitted the following resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

To declare that July 12, 1994, be recognized as ‘‘Kashmir

World Action Day’’.

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) declares that on July 12, 1994, the world’s

3 news media, governmental bodies, and citizens focus

4 attention on the continuous abuse of human rights

5 perpetrated against the Kashmiri people;

6 (2) calls on all parties to the Kashmir dispute

7 to abide by international standards of human rights

8 and humanitarian law and cease extrajudicial

9 killings, torture, and other human rights violations;
2

•HRES 477 IH

1 (3) calls on the Indian government to restore

2 due process of law and support the initiatives of

3 independent and nongovernmental organizations in

4 monitoring against human rights abuses; and

5 (4) calls on the governments of both India and

6 Pakistan to recognize and respond to the call for

7 self-determination, a right which was historically

8 promised but never exercised by the people of Kash9 mir and to reactivate the role of the United Nations

10 as a catalyst in this process which would include full

11 participation of the Kashmiri people.

Æ
district court decline to grant the relief requested.' Any such motion to 

reinstate this appeal shall be filed within 60 days of the district court's 

order declining to grant the requested relief. See NRAP 3A. 

It is so ORDERED. 

J. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge 

The Clarkson Law Group, P.C. 

Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'We note that any aggrieved party may file a notice of appeal from 

any appealable order entered at the completion of the district court 

proceedings. See NRAP 3A. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A ce
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10(a)


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment
No. 22 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 (Reg. No. 2-95002) of Sun Life
(N.Y.) Variable Account A of our report dated February 9, 2001 accompanying the
financial statements of Sun Life (N.Y.) Variable Account A, and to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 7, 2001 accompanying the
financial statements of Sun Life Insurance and Annuity Company of New York.

We also consent to the references to us under the heading "Condensed Financial
Information - Accumulation Unit Values" in the Prospectus, and under the heading
"Accountants" in the Statement of Additional Information, which are parts of
such Registration Statement.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
July 24, 2001