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

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. The parties' request to stay 

the briefing schedule in this matter is denied as moot. 

It is so ORDERED. 

J. 

°ajar 

J. 

Parraguirre 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge 

Howard Kim & Associates 

Ballard Spahr, LLP 

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 me.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION AT JUNE 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         327,256
<SECURITIES>                                 4,892,649
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,289,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          405,264
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,884,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,298,695
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (84,362)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (84,362)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (84,362)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (18)


</TABLE>
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1477 

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian lands under 

the National Labor Relations Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian 

lands under the National Labor Relations Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tribal Labor Sov5 ereignty Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER. 

7 Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

8 U.S.C. 152) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or any en10 terprise or institution owned and operated by an InVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:33 Aug 09, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1477.IS S1477

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1477 IS

1 dian tribe and located on its Indian lands,’’ after 

2 ‘‘subdivision thereof’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(15) The term ‘Indian tribe’ means any Indian 

5 tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group 

6 or community which is recognized as eligible for the 

7 special programs and services provided by the 

8 United States to Indians because of their status as 

9 Indians. 

10 ‘‘(16) The term ‘Indian’ means any individual 

11 who is a member of an Indian tribe. 

12 ‘‘(17) The term ‘Indian lands’ means— 

13 ‘‘(A) all lands within the limits of any In14 dian reservation; 

15 ‘‘(B) any lands title to which is either held 

16 in trust by the United States for the benefit of 

17 any Indian tribe or individual or held by any 

18 Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction 

19 by the United States against alienation; and 

20 ‘‘(C) any lands in the State of Oklahoma 

21 that are within the boundaries of a former res22 ervation (as defined by the Secretary of the In23 terior) of a federally recognized Indian tribe.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR NOONEY  INCOME FUND LTD. II, L.P. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000757764
<NAME>                                      NOONEY INCOME FUND LTD. II, L.P.

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                               1,667,825
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          255,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,949,292
<PP&E>                                              17,057,850
<DEPRECIATION>                                       5,647,553
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      16,496,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  635,091
<BONDS>                                              6,756,201
<COMMON>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                           8,826,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        16,496,843
<SALES>                                              4,065,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4,070,550
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     2,953,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     617,879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        499,510
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                           499,510
<EPS-BASIC>                                              25.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0


</TABLE>
No. 72-6238.

#### Knight *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
WZ, ge 3
1 Zune I.—Free Inhabitants in pl. LEY pel Lon ep LE cece? in the County of Ly
of 2 eae enumerated i me, on the 27 uy of Lag 1850. “x. LLL.

Ass’t Marshal. 4434)

|
|

DESCRIPTION.

The Name of every Perscn whose usual place — Profession, Occupation, or Trade Prace or Birrn.

*s numbered
e order of

|
Whether deat and |
dumb, blind, inxine, |
idiotic, pauper, or

black, or
mulatto,

of abode on the first day of June, 1850, was of each Male Person over 15

Naming the State, Territory,

White, |
: |
over 20 y'rs of age |
nnot read & write. |

Colon HACK,

in this family. years of age. or Country.

Value of Real Eatate |
within the year. |

owned,

S§ convict.

Married within the |
year, |
Attended School

E2
a

|

| @

|
|
a
|

O11 12

—- —=

ees ee
——— LLL 7
ox L/ See eal, ie Peck

Historic census records are maintained and released by
the National Archives and Records Administration,
not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly
SIZ tp WO available records like the one shown here.

aay
Bits Lt

A Lee

ae AVA a 7

20. jays i ER VAHL Fea \Z4 er. NEN |

; Libr ——— IA Aa. : :

gh Pe 7 LLL ESO WE Aller
Z LOtt A pa A4 | :

=i, ©

ste = Vib va a
iy i fi ae a

Pt TETRA EE are OSE S Gee Mee E
Resnik cone ae banca tt eanse Tres

AS IS gas Tea cy ee og ae
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Patrick R. FOGARTY.

No. 62481.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Patrick R. Fogarty, applying for writ of mandamus. Orleans Parish.

Writ granted in part, denied in part. Brief submitted on behalf of applicant is herewith being furnished applicant; in other respects the application is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          22,771
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,852
<PP&E>                                          13,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,107
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           898
<OTHER-SE>                                     125,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,358
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,747
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,960
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,787
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,601)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,186
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



Certification

of

PSB Holdings, Inc.

under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of PSB Holdings, Inc. (the Company) certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d), and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



Date:  August 16, 2010



PETER W. KNITT

Peter W. Knitt

President and CEO





SCOTT M. CATTANACH

Scott M. Cattanach

Treasurer

(Chief Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 3
                                                                       ---------



                             Amendment No. 1 to the
                         Amended and Restated By-Laws of
                          Giga Information Group, Inc.

                  Article 3 of the Amended and Restated By-Laws of Giga
Information Group, Inc. are hereby amended by adding a new Section 3.13 to read
as follows:


                  "3.13 Non-Corporate Officers. The Chief Executive Officer of
                  the Corporation shall have the power to appoint non-corporate
                  vice presidents of the Corporation who may hold the title
                  "Vice President" but who shall not be corporate officers and
                  shall not have the power to bind the Corporation without the
                  express authority of the Board."








NY2:\957757\01
#### HARDISON et al. *v.*STATE

[No. 342,

September Term, 1961.]

(Three Appeals In One Record)

*292
      *Decided July 9, 1962.*

The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Horney and Sybem, JJ.

*C. Rogers Hall, Jr.,*for appellants.

*J. Thomas Nissel, Special Attorney,*with whom were *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Joseph D. Buscher, Special Assistant Attorney General,*and *Donald C. Sponseller, State’s Attorney for Carroll County,*on the brief, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

This is the second appeal by these appellants from their conviction of breaking and entering the store of Dutterer’s of Manchester, Inc., and the larceny of $2500. On the first appeal *(Hardison v. State,*226 Md. 53), the judgment was reversed because the advisory instructions given by the court were inadequate. But on this appeal — where it is contended by the appellants that there was no proof of the corporate existence of Dutterer’s or of the ownership of the stolen money — the claims are without merit and the judgment must be affirmed.

Since it is not clear that the appellants made timely objections to the lack of proof or moved for a directed verdict based on the insufficiency of the evidence, it may be there is nothing to review, but assuming there is, the record shows *293there was sufficient proof of the fact that the business was incorporated. And there was also evidence that the store manager had placed the money in the safe and locked it before closing the store of the corporate owner. This was enough to justify an inference that the corporation owned the money. See *Byrd v. State,*229 Md. 148, in which the same questions were raised by the appellant in that case and decided adversely to him.

*Judgment affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 37605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16414]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 06/06-0346]


Stellus Capital SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Stellus Capital SBIC, L.P., 4400 Post 
Oak Parkway, Suite 2200, Houston, TX 77027, a Federal Licensee under 
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the Act''), in 
connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an 
exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings 
which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Stellus Capital SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide loan financing to 
KelleyAmerit Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a Amerit Fleet Solutions), 1331 North 
California Blvd., Suite 150, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(4) 
of the Regulations because Stellus Capital SBIC, L.P., seeks to 
purchase the loan financing to KelleyAmerit Holdings, Inc. from Stellus 
Capital Investment Corp., an Associate of Stellus Capital SBIC, L.P. 
Therefore, this transaction is considered discharging an obligation of 
an Associate, requiring a prior SBA exemption.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on this transaction within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment 
and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street 
SW, Washington, DC 20416.

A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2018-16414 Filed 7-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
No. 11087.

#### Marrone et al., Partners, *v.*The Telling Brothers Ice Cream Co.

Decided *501October 19, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. Harold Remington and'Mr. Cyrus Locher,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs.*

*Geier, Farrell & Edzvards,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed and judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AMBROSIO S. BRITO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-94-33-F, CA-97-86-7-F) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ambrosio S. Brito, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ambrosio S. Brito seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brito , Nos. CR-94-33-F; CA97-86-7-F (E.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 1997). We deny Brito’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Joyce H. DURRETT, Appellant, v. Henry C. DURRETT, Jr., Appellee.

No. 72-182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 27, 1972.

Appeal quashed.
CMP-1 

Revised: May 3, 2004

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Supplemental Application Form 

Conservation Management Practices: ALFALFA 

Farm Name: CMP Plan Years: to 

Maximum Crop Acreage: 

Fallow Acreage Last Planted in Alfalfa: 

Land 

Preparation/ 

Cultivation 

Select at least one of the following CMPs. 

Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. 

 Chemigation/Fertigation, ac Night Farming, ac 

 Combined Operations, ac Non-Tillage/Chemical Tillage, ac 

 Conservation Irrigation, ac Precision Farming (GPS), ac 

 Equipment Change/Tech. Improvements, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac 

 Multiple CMPs in Another Category 

Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: 

 

 

 

Harvest 

Select at least one of the following CMPs. 

Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. 

 Baling/Large Balers, ac Night Harvesting, ac 

 Green Chop, ac Shuttle System, ac 

 Equipment Change/Tech. Improvements Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac 

 Multiple CMPs in Another Category, ac 

Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: 

 

 

 

Other 

Select at least one of the following CMPs. 

Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. 

 Application Efficiencies, ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category 

 Bulk Materials Control No Burning, ac 

 Cover Crop, ac Surface Roughening, ac

 Irrigation Power Units Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac 

Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: 

 

 

 

CMP

1
#### Ann Reese KNIFFEN, Appellant, v. Jared Charles KNIFFEN, Appellee.

No. FF-139.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 25, 1977.

Selig I. Goldin, of Goldin & Cates, Gaines-ville, for appellant.

Leonard E. Ireland, Jr., of Clayton, Duncan, Johnston, Quincey, Ireland, Felder & Gadd, Gainesville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s alimony award. Appellant will be given an opportunity to show a need for an extension of the rehabilitative payments if she is unable to obtain employment in the given period of time.

Affirmed.

MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

ly. BOYER, Acting C. J., concurring special-

BOYER, Acting Chief Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur in affirming the award of rehabilitative (as distinguished from permanent) alimony, the trial court having reserved jurisdiction to review the need for an extension of the rehabilitative period. However, I again express the view that there is no more important position or job in our society than that of being a parent. Therefore, inasmuch as appellant has been awarded the custody of the children of the parties and has announced a desire to devote her efforts to mothering rather than entering *1144the job market, if at the expiration of the period for which rehabilitative alimony has been awarded the evidence should reveal that appellant is in fact fulfilling her role of being a mother and furnishing guidance to the children the rehabilitative alimony should be continued until such time as the children have attained adulthood or ceased the need for parental guidance (whichever event should occur first) even though the evidence should also reveal that appellant has in the meantime become a viable candidate for the job market and self-support.
#### Thomas E. CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-107.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 15, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Michael MEYERS, etc., Appellant, v. ATRIUM DEVELOPMENT CORP., a corporation, et al., Appellees (two cases).

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.