alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robin HARRIS and James E. Harris, her husband, Appellants, v. William Robert MOSTELLER and Lewis Albert Fritter, Appellees.

No. 71-38.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 15, 1971.

Charles S. Carrere, of Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

No appearance for appellees.

PIERCE, Chief Judge.

Appellants, Robin Harris and James E. Harris, Plaintiffs in the Court below, appeal an order granting a motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Lewis Albert Fritter, one of the defendants below, in a law action.

The question as to whether the order is an appealable final order or whether it is an interlocutory order from which an interlocutory appeal would lie has not been raised by appellees, but this Court must raise it *sua sponte,*Chastain v. Embry, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 33; Bailey v. Allstate Insurance Company, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 761.

The order under review is obviously not a final order or judgment, *Chastain,*supra;*Bailey,*supra. Neither is it an order “granting partial summary judgment on liability,” from which an interlocutory appeal would lie under FAR 4.2, 32 F.S.A. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
| EXHIBIT 21.0 |   |   |   |   |   |
|--------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|         |   |   |   |   |   | SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT AS OF FEBRUARY 5, 2005 |
|         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | STATE/ |   |   |
|         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | PROVINCE |   | COUNTRY |
|         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPI Corp.

 

 

 

 

Delaware

 

United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Programs Incorporated

 

Missouri

 

United States

 

 

d/b/a Sears Portrait Studios

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Centrics Technology, Inc.

 

Delaware

 

United States

 

 

 

 

d/b/a searsphoto.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Programs Partner, Inc.

 

Delaware

 

United States

 

 

 

CPI Images, L.L.C.

 

Missouri

 

United States

 

 

 

 

d/b/a Sears Portrait Studios

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d/b/a Mainstreet Portraits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPI Research and Development. Inc.

Delaware

 

United States

 

 

 

myportraits.com, Inc.

 

Missouri

 

United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPI Corp.

 

 

 

 

Nova Scotia

 

Canada

 

d/b/a Sears Portrait Studios

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPI Technology Corp.

 

 

Missouri

 

United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPI Prints Plus, Inc.

 

 

Delaware

 

United States

 

Ridgedale Prints Plus, Inc.

 

Minnesota

 

United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPI Portrait Studios de Mexico

 

 

 

 

 

S. de R.L. de C.V.

 

 

Monterrey,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuevo Leon

Mexico

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPI International Holdings, Inc.

 

Delaware

 

United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPI Canadian Holdings, Inc.

 

Delaware

 

United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPI Portrait Studios of Canada Corp.

 

Nova Scotia

 

Canada

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas Portraits, L.P.

 

 

Delaware

 

United States

 

 

 

  |
# C_2012366EN.01000602.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/6

---

Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court

2012/C 366/11

At its meeting on 12 October 2012, the Court designated the Second Chamber of the Court as the Chamber that is, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure, responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of those Rules, for a period of one year expiring on 6 October 2013.

---
# C_2012053EN.01000401.xml

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6393 — Astrium Holding/Vizada Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 53/02

On 30 November 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6393. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6393. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana and City of Ruston v. Billy Ray STRINGFELLOW.

No. 62381.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Billy Ray Stringfellow applying for writ of review. Lincoln Parish.

Not considered. Not timely.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
registration statement.

                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

San Jose, California
August 11, 2000
38676 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Parts 59, 61, and 62 

[Docket ID FEMA–2018–0026] 

RIN 1660–AA95 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP): Conforming Changes To 

Reflect the Biggert-Waters Flood 

Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW–12) 

and the Homeowners Flood Insurance 

Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA), and 

Additional Clarifications for Plain 

Language; Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On July 16, 2018, FEMA 

published a proposed rule which would 

revise the National Flood Insurance 

Program’s regulations to codify certain 

provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood 

Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and the 

Homeowner Flood Insurance 

Affordability Act of 2014 that FEMA has 

already implemented and to clarify 

certain existing NFIP rules relating to 

NFIP operations and the Standard Flood 

Insurance Policy. In the preamble to the 

proposed rule, an incorrect web address 

appeared. This correction fixes that 

address. 

DATES: This correction is effective 

August 7, 2018. The closing of the 

comment period for the proposed rule 

published July 16, 2018, at 83 FR 39256, 

remains September 14, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: For information on 

submitting comments, see the July 16, 

2018, proposed rule at 83 FR 39256. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

proposed rule document 2018–13292 

appearing on pages 32956 through 

33015 in the issue of Monday, July 16, 

2018, make the following correction: 

1. On page 32957, in the third 

column, in the first full paragraph, 

correct the web address 

‘‘www.nfipservice.com’’ to read ‘‘https:// 

www.nfipdirect.fema.gov’’. 

Brock Long, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16718 Filed 8–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–52–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-CN.179 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  WEDNESDAY, AUG. 24, 2011 U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2010 Census  Population Counts for Guam The U.S. Census Bureau today  released the 2010 Census population counts for Guam. On April 1, 2010, the  population was 159,358. This represented an increase of 2.9 percent from the  2000 Census population of 154,805. The population counts have been provided to  the governor. The accompanying data table  shows population totals and percent changes from 2000 to 2010 for Guam as well  as several lower-level geographies. The attached custom maps include maps  showing the population by municipality and percent change in population by  municipality. As part of the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau worked with the Guam  government to enumerate and gather detailed data on population and housing  characteristics. Next year, more 2010 Census statistics will be available for Guam  in a demographic profile. The demographic profile will show a set of basic  demographic, social, economic and housing characteristics for the Island Area  and lower levels of geography. **Additional  Geographic Resources** Two key geographic resources have been released for Guam this  summer: a series of maps showing the 2010 Census blocks and 2010 TIGER/Line  Shapefiles. The series of large-scale block maps provide a reference guide for geographic  entities down to the census block level and display the boundaries and numbers  for all census blocks. The 2010 Census TIGER/Line Shapefiles provide a base layer  for mapping and contain the location and relationship of streets, rivers and  other features to one another. The shapefiles also show the numerous geographic  entities for which Census Bureau statistics are available. For local context, please contact Guam  Bureau of Statistics and Plans at 671-472-4201. -X- Follow @uscensusbureau on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Ustream.
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### W. Ray ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HANCOCK BANK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3234.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 9, 1970.

Donald Soileau, Mamou, for defendant-appellant.

Daniel J. McGee, Mamou, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SAVOY, HOOD and CULPEP-PER, JJ.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

CULPEPPER, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this suit against the Hancock Bank, domiciled in Gulfport, Mississippi, for damages for the illegal seizure and sale of a Cadillac vehicle on which it held a mortgage.

Defendant filed an exception to the Court’s jurisdiction over the person. The trial court overruled the exception. Defendant has appealed.

Plaintiff-appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal under LSA-C.C.P. Article 2083 which reads as follows :

> “An appeal may be taken from a final judgment rendered in causes in which appeals are given by law whether rendered after hearing or by default, and from an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury.”

Our jurisprudence is established that a judgment overruling an exception to jurisdiction over the person is interlocutory and, in the absence of irreparable injury, is not appealable. Woodcock v. Crehan, La.App., 28 So.2d 61 (1st Cir. 1946) ; Gierczic v. Gierczic, La.App., 150 So.2d 84, 86 (4th Cir. 1963). No irreparable injury is shown here.

For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed at defendant-appellant’s cost.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2012378EN.01000101.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6665 — Sun Capital/Rexam Personal and Home Care Packaging Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 378/01

On 29 October 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6665. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6665. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2012027EN.01000201.xml

| 1.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 January 2012

2012/C 27/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3176 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 100,63 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4346 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83510 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8967 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2048 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,6560 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,188 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 293,91 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6991 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2243 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3418 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3330 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2366 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3134 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2194 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5918 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6487 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 477,99 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,2530 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3121 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5780 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 835,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0128 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,506 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,6900 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,753 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2893 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,0234 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,1360 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3176

JPY

Japanese yen

100,63

DKK

Danish krone

7,4346

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83510

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8967

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2048

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,6560

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,188

HUF

Hungarian forint

293,91

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6991

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2243

RON

Romanian leu

4,3418

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3330

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2366

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3134

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2194

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5918

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6487

KRW

South Korean won

1 477,99

ZAR

South African rand

10,2530

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3121

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5780

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 835,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0128

PHP

Philippine peso

56,506

RUB

Russian rouble

39,6900

THB

Thai baht

40,753

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2893

MXN

Mexican peso

17,0234

INR

Indian rupee

65,1360

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
No. 00-7239.

#### McCune *v.*Butler County Children and Youth Agency.

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             37
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   9,297
<ALLOWANCES>                                      351
<INVENTORY>                                    12,722
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,899
<PP&E>                                         52,038
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,674
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 66,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          21,058
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           76
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,516)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   66,405
<SALES>                                       110,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              110,830
<CGS>                                          94,869
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  94,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                8,116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              7,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   221
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (337)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               558
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      558
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.10
        

</TABLE>
#### Leroy R. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-904.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 17, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
* 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. 96-40415

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN R. NEWMAN, also known as Dick Newman and

VIRGINIA L. NEWMAN, also know as Jenny Newman,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CR-18-1

_________________________________________________________________

April 16, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John R. Newman and Virginia L. Newman appeal their

convictions and sentences for bankruptcy fraud. The district

court did not err by refusing to dismiss the indictment for an

alleged misstatement of law made to the grand jury as the Newmans

have not shown that they were prejudiced by the misstatement. 

See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254
2

(1988); United States. v. McKenzie, 678 F.2d 629, 634 (5th Cir.

1982). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

excluding, as hearsay, testimony by James Moon regarding what the

Newmans had told him of how they had determined the value of

their jewelry. United States v. Liu, 960 F.2d 449, 452 (5th Cir.

1992). The district court did not commit clear error in

determining the amount of loss under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b). United

States v. Wimbish, 980 F.2d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
[J

- 96

- 2017]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

,

Appellee

v.

SEIFULLAH ABDUL

- SALAAM

,

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 737 CAP

Appeal from the Order entered on 3/28/17 in the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Criminal Division, dismissing PCRA relief at No. CP

- 21

- CR

0001499

- 1994

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2017, the Order of the Court of Common

Pleas is AFFIRMED. See Commonwealth v. Spotz , 731 CAP, 2017 WL 4655002 (Pa.

Oct. 18, 2017).
p. 1 of 2

From: Palazzolo, Michael A. [mailto:Michael.Palazzo lo@alcoa.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 10:25 AM To: Putney, David Cc: Van Der Meyden, Henk Subject: RE: Additional bake furnace PM data

Hi David,

I confirmed with Henk this week that all of Alcoa’s available bake furnace PM emissions data were included in the Febr uary 6th comment letter that we submitted for the RTR supplemental p roposal. Blanks in the emission table represent several tests from the 2010 to 2014 timeframe where the test consultant either 1) did n ot calculate and report PM data for the Method 315 tests (two tests or 6 test runs at Mt Holly) or 2) where insufficient sample volume wa s collected to quantify the PM emissions (two test runs at Wenatch ee).

Please let me know if you have any questions regard ing the data or if additional information is needed.

Thank you,

Mike

Michael Palazzolo

Alcoa Inc. 201 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5858 Ph: 412-553-4832

From: Putney, David [mailto:putney.david@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:55 PM To: Palazzolo, Michael A. Subject: EXT: Additional bake furnace PM data

Hello Mike,

Just touching base to check on the additional bake furnace PM emissions data. That is - as I recall, when we spok e on 01/29/15 you agreed to provide summaries of additional PM emissi ons data (both historical data and data obtained subsequent to the 2013 ICR) to EPA in order to better inform the PM floor for these de vices. Is all of this PM emissions data included in the comments, da ted 02/05/15 and 02/06/15, submitted by Alcoa or should I expect add itional PM emissions data for bake furnaces? If additional PM emissions data is on the way, I will need to get that data soon (with in a week or so)p. 2 of 2

in order for it to be considered before promulgatio n of the final rule.

Thanks.

David Putney, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 Mail Drop D243-02 Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207 Email: putney.david@epa.gov