alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11191.

#### Milner, Sr., *v.*Milner et al.

Decided November 9, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Highland county.

*Mr. Henry M. Huggins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Steele & Sams,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Silauck and Price, JJ. concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,251
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      643
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,014
<PP&E>                                          33,031
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,328
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,225
<SALES>                                         18,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,761
<CGS>                                            4,711
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                       638
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,185
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,185
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Glendell SHOWERS.

No. 59788.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1977.

Patrick C. McGinity, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Roy F. Blondeau, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Director, Research and Appeals Div., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Succession of Russell N. SMITH, Sr.

No. 62503.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Minette Smith, Administratrix of the Succession of Russell N. Smith, Sr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Winn.

Writ denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50405

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PAUL WAYNE AKERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-94-CR-263-1)

June 19, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Paul Wayne Akers appeals his jury

conviction for manufacturing marijuana and maintaining a place to

manufa cture a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) and 846, as well as the sentence imposed following2

conviction. On appeal Akers contends that the district court erred

in refusing to suppress e vidence, contending that helicopter

flights over his property were unlawful, as was the sweep search of

the property thereafter, and that the subsequently obtained warrant

was likewise invalid. In addition to the suppression issue, Akers

contends that the district court erred by denying a jury

instruction on simple possession of marijuana as a lesser included

offense, in determining the number of marijuana plants involved in

the offense, and in denying relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) as

to the amount of marijuana on which his sentence should be based.

We have carefully reviewed the arguments and applicable law as

proffered to us in the briefs of counsel, and have likewise

reviewed the record, and we are convinced that the district court

committed no reversible error in refusing to grant Akers’ motions

to suppress, in denying the jury charge on simple possession, or in

determining the number of marijuana plants involved for purposes of

sentencing.

Nevertheless, as acknowledged by both the government and

Akers, he is entitled to ha ve his sentence vacated and to be

resentenced, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in light of

retroactive amendments to the Guidelines. At the time Akers was

sentenced, the notes to § 2D1.1(c)(4) specified that, in offenses

involving more than 50 marijuana plants, ea ch plant should be

counted as one kilogram of marijuana. The November 1995 Guidelines

amended the notes and commentary to § 2D1.1 to provide that, in all3

offenses involving marijuana plants, the defendant’s sentence

s hould be based on the greater of (1) the actual weight of the

usable marijuana, or (2) 100 gra ms per plant. U.S.S.G. App. C,

Amendment 516 (Nov. 1, 1995). Moreover, Amendment 516 applies

retroactively. § 1B1.10(a) and (c) (1995).

We therefore affirm Akers’ conviction but vacate his sentence

and, pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), remand this case to the district

court for resentencing in light of th e retroactive amendments to

the notes and commentary to § 2D1.1.

AFFIRMED as to conviction; VACATED as to sentence, and REMANDED for

resentencing.
Table B-1.  Standard Errors of Vacancy Rates by Area:  1999
                   (Range of 68 chances out of 100)



    Rental                       Rate   Standard   Year-to-   Standard
                                  for   error on year diff-   error on
                                 year       rate     erence difference1

United States..............       8.1        0.1        0.2        0.2
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       7.8        0.1        0.1        0.2
    In central cities......       8.4        0.2        0.2        0.2
    Not in central cities..       7.2        0.2        0.1        0.2
  Outside Metropolitan Area       9.6        0.3        0.5        0.4
  Northeast................       6.3        0.2       -0.4        0.3
  Midwest..................       8.6        0.3        0.7        0.4
  South....................      10.3        0.2        0.7        0.3
  West.....................       6.2        0.2       -0.5        0.3

                                   For-rent as a percent of all housing units

United States..............       2.6        (z)                   0.1
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       2.7        (z)                   0.1
  Outside Metropolitan Area       2.2        0.1                   0.1
  Northeast................       2.2        0.1       -0.1        0.1
  Midwest..................       2.4        0.1        0.2        0.1
  South....................       3.1        0.1        0.2        0.1
  West.....................       2.3        0.1       -0.2        0.1


     Homeowner
                                 Rate   Standard   Year-to-   Standard
                                  for   error on year diff-   error on
                                 year       rate     erence difference1

United States..............       1.7        (z)       -0.1                  (z)
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       1.5        (z)       -0.1        0.1
    In central cities......       1.8        0.1       -0.2        0.1
    Not in central cities..       1.4        (z)       -0.1        0.1
  Outside Metropolitan Area       2.1        0.1        0.1        0.1
  Northeast................       1.4        0.1       -0.1        0.1
  Midwest..................       1.2        0.1       -0.2        0.1
  South....................       2.0        0.1        (z)        0.1
  West.....................       1.7        0.1        0.1        0.1


                                   For-sale-only as a percent of all housing units

United States..............       1.0        (z)          -        (z)
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       0.9        (z)       -0.1        (z)
  Outside Metropolitan Area       1.3        (z)          -        0.1
  Northeast................       0.8        (z)       -0.1        0.1
  Midwest..................       0.8        (z)       -0.1        0.1
  South....................       1.2        (z)          -        0.1
  West.....................       1.0        (z)        0.1        0.1

  Z less than 0.05 percent.
  1Difference between 1999 rates and 1998 rates.
# U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

# Federal AviationAdministration 

# National Airport System 

# Plan1978-1987

EXHIBIT 

# 106

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 1978 National Airport System Plan (NASP) provides, in accordance with Section 12ofthe Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970,as amended, acompilation ofdevelopment needs for the Nation's civil airports in the decade ahead. The NASP, although published periodically, represents acontinuous planning process and is constantly being updated. It is a traditional "needs" study and, as such, does not consider alternative levels of service related to different investment commitments. The generation of such assessments will require the development ofperformance measures and an appropriate data base. Future publications willreflect this type of analysis.
The NASP identifies airport development projects in which there is apotential Federal interest and on which Federal funds may be spent under the Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP). The inclusion inthe NASP of airport development does not represent Federal approval for that development, nor does it commit the Federal Government in any way to participate in the cost of that development. Such aid may be granted, subject to the availability offunds, only upon the request of an eligible sponsor and upon fulfillment of various requirements, including a more thorough study and analysis, meeting the provisions ofthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the environmental review provisions of the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1910, as amended.
Aviation aswellas other forms oftransportation must compete for limited resources at the state and local levels and must be reconciled with other, sometimes conflicting, priorities such as environmental and energy considerations. For these reasons, the data on airport development costs should beregarded only asestimates of future needs. Whether the recommended development willactually be achieved willdepend ondecisions made at Federal, state, and local levelswith respect topolicy, priorities, and availability offunds.
The number of airport locations in the 1978NASP and the estimated cost of development are shown below.

Service Level 1918--1987NATIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN System Composition and Development Costs Total costs in 1916dollars

Locations 10 Yr. Projection Existing

620 133 147 2,237 3,137 635 193 204 2,571 3,603 Costs ($Billions) 0-10 Yr.
$6.49 0.37 0.91 2.85 $10.62 Air Carrier Commuter Service Reliever General Aviation Total

Ofthe $10.62 billion in airport development over the next decade, $7.46billion isinthe first fiveyears (1978- 1982), and $3.17 billion isin the second fiveyears (1983-1981). The estimates include total costs ofonly those airport items that are eligible for Federal aid but are not limited by the amount ofmoney that may actually be

iii
#### W. C. HOLLEY et al., Petitioners, v. SAF-T-CLEAN, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 43892.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied, 276 So.2d 841.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 174 DB 2022 (No. 26 RST 2023)

:

SEANNE N. MURRAY : Attorney Registration No. 67700

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION : (Delaware County)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6

th day of April, 2023, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated March 26, 2023, is approved and it is ORDERED that

SEANNE N. MURRAY, who has been on Administrative Suspension, has demonstrated 

that she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for 

admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active 

status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the 

Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
#### STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an Agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Armer E. WHITE et al., (Parcel 103) (E. P. Sanders, Jr. and Frances M. Sanders, his wife) (Cherry Lake Orchards, Inc.), Appellees. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an Agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Armer E. WHITE et al., (Parcel 102) (R. M. Scruggs and Doris Scruggs, his wife), Appellees.

Nos. Q-45, Q-47.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 18, 1972.

Geoffrey B. Dobson, and Barbara Ann McPherson, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Ernest M. Page, Jr., and Edwin B. Browning, Jr., of Davis & Browning, Madison, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This consolidated cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and records on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgments of the lower court appealed from herein are affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Table B-7.  90-Percent Confidence Inverval of Standard Errors of

                   Homeownership Rates, by Race and Ethnicity:  2005





                                                 90-Percent

                                                 Confidence Interval (+/-)\2

                                                 of 2005 rate



U.S. total.......................................           0.5



  White alone, total.............................           0.3

    Non-Hispanic White alone.....................           0.3

  Black alone, total.............................           0.8

  All Other Races alone, total\1.................           1.0

      American Indian or Alaskan Native alone....           2.6

      Asian or Pacific Islander alone............           1.2



  Hispanic or Latino.............................           0.8

  Non-Hispanic...................................           0.3





\1 Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Americn Indian or Alaska Native (only one race reported) and Two or more races.

\2 A 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger the confidence interval is, in

     relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 38686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16862]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers


Withdrawal of the Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for the City of Abilene, TX, Cedar Ridge 
Reservoir Water Supply Project

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, 
Regulatory Division is notifying interested parties that it has 
withdrawn the Notice of Intent (NOI) to develop an EIS for the proposed 
Cedar Ridge Reservoir. The original NOI to Prepare an EIS was published 
in the Federal Register on Friday, April 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the withdrawal of 
this NOI should be addressed to Mr. Frederick Land, Regulatory Division 
(CESWF-DE-R), Fort Worth District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. 
Box 17300, Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300; (817) 886-1729; 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d6e48494c5f7f44494a486d585e4c4e48034c5f405403404441"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="155670717467477c7172705560667476703b7467786c3b787c79">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 20, 2018, the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued 
an OMB/CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies 
titled ``One Federal Decision Framework for the Environmental Review 
and Authorization Process for Major Infrastructure Projects under 
Executive Order [E.O.] 13807.'' Additionally, twelve federal agencies, 
including Department of the Army, signed a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) as an appendix to the OMB/CEQ Memorandum. The MOU is titled 
``Memorandum of Understanding Implementing One Federal Decision Under 
Executive Order 13807'' and was effective on April 10, 2018. E.O. 13807 
sets a goal for agencies of reducing the time for completing 
environmental reviews and authorization decisions to an agency average 
of not more than two years from publication of a NOI to prepare an EIS. 
The MOU set forth activities to be accomplished before the issuance of 
an NOI, including project prescoping, the development of a permitting 
timetable, and the development of project Purpose and Need. Because the 
Cedar Ridge Reservoir planning had not reached these milestones prior 
to publication of the NOI, the NOI is being withdrawn until such time 
that these milestones are complete.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-16862 Filed 8-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 12
 COUSINS PROPERTIES INCORPORATED
STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED
FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS
($ in thousands)
 2010
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006Earnings:Loss from continuing operations before taxes,
unconsolidated joint ventures, sale of investment properties
and net income attributable to noncontrolling interests
    
    $
    (34,523
    )
    
    $
    (81,860
    )
    
    $
    (6,597
    )
    
    $
    (3,087
    )
    
    $
    (28,532
    )Add:Gain on sale of investment property, net of
applicable income tax provision
    
    
    1,938
    
    
    
    168,637
    
    
    
    10,799
    
    
    
    5,535
    
    
    
    3,012Distributed income of equity investees
    
    
    11,394
    
    
    
    7,237
    
    
    
    23,751
    
    
    
    7,716
    
    
    
    169,481Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    2,173
    
    
    
    2,974
    
    
    
    1,880
    
    
    
    1,336
    
    
    
    837Fixed charges
    
    
    37,401
    
    
    
    43,851
    
    
    
    43,382
    
    
    
    32,299
    
    
    
    34,071Subtract:Capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (3,736
    )
    
    
    (14,894
    )
    
    
    (23,474
    )
    
    
    (22,324
    )Preferred dividends
    
    
    (12,907
    )
    
    
    (12,907
    )
    
    
    (14,957
    )
    
    
    (15,250
    )
    
    
    (15,250
    )Earnings
    
    $
    5,476
    
    
    $
    124,196
    
    
    $
    43,364
    
    
    $
    5,075
    
    
    $
    141,295Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends:Interest expense
    
    $
    37,180
    
    
    $
    39,888
    
    
    $
    28,257
    
    
    $
    8,565
    
    
    $
    11,119Capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3,736
    
    
    
    14,894
    
    
    
    23,474
    
    
    
    22,324Interest component of rental expense (30%)
    
    
    221
    
    
    
    227
    
    
    
    231
    
    
    
    260
    
    
    
    62837,401
    
    
    
    43,851
    
    
    
    43,382
    
    
    
    32,299
    
    
    
    34,071Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    12,907
    
    
    
    12,907
    
    
    
    14,957
    
    
    
    15,250
    
    
    
    15,250Fixed charges and preferred dividends
    
    $
    50,308
    
    
    $
    56,758
    
    
    $
    58,339
    
    
    $
    47,549
    
    
    $
    49,321Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges
and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    2.19
    
    
    
    0.74
    
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    2.86
No. 00-7036.

#### Woods *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1455 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1455

To condition the provision of premium and cost-sharing subsidies under 
  the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act upon a certification 
       that a program to verify household income is operational.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2013

Mr. Coburn (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Boozman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To condition the provision of premium and cost-sharing subsidies under 
  the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act upon a certification 
       that a program to verify household income is operational.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Exchange Verification of Eligibility 
to Receive Income-Related Funds for Individuals'' or the ``Requiring E-
VERIFI Act''.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONING PROVISION OF PREMIUM AND COST-SHARING SUBSIDIES 
              UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT UPON 
              CERTIFICATION THAT A PROGRAM TO VERIFY HOUSEHOLD INCOME 
              AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS FOR THOSE SUBSIDIES IS 
              OPERATIONAL.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no premium tax credits 
shall be permitted under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 and no reductions in cost-sharing shall be permitted under section 
1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 
18071) prior to the date on which the Inspector General of the 
Department of Health and Human Services certifies to Congress that 
there is in place a program that successfully and consistently 
verifies, consistent with section 1411 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18081), 
the household income and coverage requirements of individuals applying 
for such credits and cost-sharing reduction reductions.
                                 <all>
```