alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Henry Zwickler, as Committee of the Person and Property of Lila Zwickler, an Alleged Incompetent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

August 25, 1952.

*165
      *1. M. Stern*for Henry Zwickler, as committee, petitioner.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

Insofar as the committee seeks permission to withdraw $25 monthly from the estate of the alleged incompetent “ for the maintenance and support of the incompetent person ”, such as *“*the purchase of clothing, stockings, underwear, and other sundry items necessary ” for her, the application is denied. The court appoints a committee of the person and property of an incompetent for the purpose of taking care of his physical well-being and of his estate. The court is not to be expected to assume the committee’s functions or tasks or to perform the committee’s duties. It is the committee’s responsibility, under bond, to administer the affairs of the incompetent, not to ask the court to administer them for him. The court should not be requested or required, as each disbursement is about to be or has been made, to authorize or ratify proper payment for reasonable expenses of a normal and ordinary nature. The court will, of course, proceed in its usual supervisory fashion. It is for the committee, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, to make proper expenditures for the benefit of the incompetent, and it is the committee who must assume the responsibility therefor. Their propriety in any case is subject to the court’s determination on an accounting by the committee.

Insofar as the committee applies for leave to purchase a cemetery plot and to provide for funeral services for the incompetent, that is another matter. Although, in view of the.apparent age of the incompetent, there would seem to be no immediate or even compelling necessity for such plans, life is uncertain and preparatory arrangements for such purposes are in order and will probably avoid the added expense sometimes occasioned by the emergency pressure of grief and haste incident to sudden and unprepared-for death. This procedure does not involve passing in advance upon the ordinary, normal living expense of the ward. The committee’s desire here is to make a necessary *166reservation for the incompetent alongside the burial ground of her parents, one of whom is already deceased, and to have the family society he in charge of the funeral services. The request for $250 for these purposes is reasonable, and is allowed. Settle order, which shall include a reasonable fee for legal services.
EXHIBIT (21)
<TABLE>

        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT AS OF APRIL 8, 1999

<CAPTION>
                                   STATE/PROVINCE    COUNTRY
                                   -------------- -------------
<S>                                   <C>         <C>
CPI Corp.                             Delaware    United States

 Consumer Programs Holding, Inc.      Delaware    United States

   Consumer Programs, Incorporated    Missouri    United States
     d/b/a Sears Portrait Studios
       CPI Images L.L.C.              Missouri    United States
         d/b/a Sears Portrait Studios
         d/b/a Mainstreet Portraits

       CPI Management Services L.L.C. Missouri    United States

       CPI Properties L.L.C.          Missouri    United States

       myportraits.com, Inc.          Missouri    United States

       Consumer Programs Partner,Inc. Delaware    United States

       CPI Research and Development, 
        Inc.                          Delaware    United States

   CPI Prints Plus, Inc.              Delaware    United States

       Ridgedale Prints Plus, Inc.    Minnesota   United States
         d/b/a Prints Plus

           Prints Plus, Inc.          California  United States
             d/b/a Prints Plus
             d/b/a Prints & Posters

 CPI Technology Corp.                 Missouri    United States

 CPI Corp. Canada                     Ontario     Canada       
    d/b/a Sears Portrait Studios

</TABLE>
                               35
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 11
                                                                      ----------



                              COURIER CORPORATION

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNING



                                      1997            1996            1995
                                   ----------      ----------      ----------

Average shares outstanding (1)      2,005,000       2,021,000       1,980,000

Common equivalent shares (2)           42,000          51,000          35,000
                                   ----------      ----------      ----------

                                    2,047,000       2,072,000       2,015,000
                                   ==========      ==========      ==========

Net income                         $4,316,000      $2,550,000      $5,230,000

Net income per share (3)           $     2.11      $     1.23      $     2.60



(1) Computed as weighted average (including ESOP shares allocated to 
    participants)

(2) 1993 and 1983 Stock Option Plans and Directors' Option Plan

(3) Primary earnings per share (fully diluted earnings per share are not
    materially different)
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 12-5287 September Term, 2013

1:06-cv-00742-RWT

Filed On: January 15, 2014

Dianne D. Sledge, Co-personal representative

of the Estate of Rico Woodland, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Federal Bureau of Prisons,

Appellee

BEFORE: Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge; Sentelle and Randolph, Senior Circuit

Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the court’s order to show cause filed December 13, 2013,

and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the sealed opinion filed December 13, 2013, be

unsealed. The Clerk is directed to unseal the opinion and issue it publicly. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the record material filed under seal in the Joint

Appendix at JA 210-937 remain under seal.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Jennifer M. Clark 

Deputy Clerk
# C_2013247EN.01000101.xml

| 28.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6969 — Valeant Pharmaceuticals International/Bausch & Lomb Holdings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 247/01

On 5 August 2013, 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 32013M6969. 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 32013M6969. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1868 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1868

To provide for the conversion of temporary judgeships for the districts 
             of Hawaii and Kansas to permanent judgeships.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 19, 2013

   Ms. Hirono (for herself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Schatz, and Mr. Moran) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the conversion of temporary judgeships for the districts 
             of Hawaii and Kansas to permanent judgeships.

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

SECTION 1. CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS TO PERMANENT JUDGESHIPS 
              FOR THE DISTRICTS OF HAWAII AND KANSAS.

    (a) In General.--The existing judgeship for the district of Hawaii 
and the existing judgeship for the district of Kansas authorized by 
section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 133 
note; Public Law 101-650; 104 Stat. 5089) shall, as of the date of 
enactment of this Act, be authorized under section 133 of title 28, 
United States Code, and the incumbent in each such office shall hold 
the office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as 
amended by this Act.
    (b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 133(a) of 
title 28, United States Code, will reflect the change in the total 
number of permanent district judgeships authorized as a result of 
subsection (a) of this section--
            (1) the item relating to Hawaii is amended to read as 
        follows:

``Hawaii........................................................    4'';
 

        and
            (2) the item relating to Kansas is amended to read as 
        follows:

``Kansas........................................................    6''.
 

                                 <all>
```
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2044 

To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits and 

communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

Mrs. FISCHER (for herself, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. JOHANNS) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits 

and communications between taxpayers and the Internal 

Revenue Service. 

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 ‘‘Taxpayer Account5 ability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES TO TAXPAYER COR7 RESPONDENCE. 

8 Not later than 30 days after receiving any written 

9 correspondence from a taxpayer, the Internal Revenue 

10 Service shall provide a substantive written response. For 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2044 IS

1 purposes of the preceding sentence, an acknowledgment 

2 letter shall not be treated as a substantive response. 

3 SEC. 3. TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURES BY IRS 

4 OF TAXPAYER INFORMATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after dis6 closing any taxpayer information to any agency or instru7 mentality of Federal, State, or local government, the In8 ternal Revenue Service shall provide a written notification 

9 to the taxpayer describing— 

10 (1) the information disclosed, 

11 (2) to whom it was disclosed, and 

12 (3) the date of disclosure. 

13 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply if 

14 the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary’s designee, 

15 determines that such notification would be detrimental to 

16 an ongoing criminal investigation or pose a risk to na17 tional security. 

18 SEC. 4. DEADLINE FOR CONCLUSION OF AUDITS OF INDI19 VIDUAL TAXPAYERS. 

20 Any audit of a tax return of an individual by the In21 ternal Revenue Service shall be concluded not later than 

22 1 year after the date of the initiation of such audit and 

23 the Internal Revenue Service shall not assess any tax with 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2044 IS

1 respect to which such audit relates after the conclusion 

2 of such audit. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CFC International,  Inc.
and  subsidiaries  (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities  and Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Dennis W. Lakomy, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  April 29, 2004                      /s/           Dennis W. Lakomy
                                           ------------------------------
                                                Dennis W. Lakomy
                                                Executive Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer

This   certification   accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided by CFC International,  Inc., and will be retained by CFC International,
Inc.  and  furnished to the  Securities  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7558

TROY LUKE BURKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COLIE RUSHTON, Unit Warden; PAM SMITH, Mail Clerk; SCOTT 

LEWIS, Unit Major, sued in their official and individual 

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (3:08-cv-03025-HMH)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 3, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Luke Burks, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, 

MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Troy Luke Burks appeals the district court’s orders: 

(1) denying his motions to alter or amend judgment, Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(e) and for a temporary restraining order and (2) adopting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Burks v. Rushton, No. 

3:08-cv-03025-HMH (D.S.C. July 21, 2009). We deny Burks’ 

motions to appoint counsel, for stay pending appeal, for 

injunctive relief pending appeal, to stay the mandate and for 

reconsideration of prior order deferring action on his original 

motion for appointment of counsel. Burks v. Rushton, No. 3:08-

cv-03025-HMH (D.S.C. July 21, 2009). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
U .S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

JOSMAN BLYTHE. 

Respondent. 

.lUn 3 0 2010 

'mG DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. CP10800005/f^ 

Judge Benkin / _, ? / 

NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

C 3 

The Complainant, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby submitgjthis -— 

Notice of Substitution of Counsel in accordance with Section 13.204(b) of the Rules of 

Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions [14 C.F.R. Section 13.204(b)]. 

The Administrator will now be represented in the above matter by: 

Nicole L. Jackson, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel (ASO-7) 

Post Office Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

(404)305-5200 

(404) 305-5223 FAX 

E-mail Address: nicole.jackson(^faa.gov 

th Respectfully submitted this 25 day of June, 2010. 

NICOLE L. JACKXON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that the foregoing Notice of Substitution of Counsel has been sent via 

facsimile and regular mail to: 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, El2-320 

Washington. DC 20590 

(FAX) (202) 366-7536 

Josman Blythe 

c/o Douglas Blythe 

536 Medcalf Drive S.W. 

Sunsset Beach. NC 28468 

(FAX) (910) 579-1507 

and the original and one copy via regular mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

'Mkw 2 5 2010 

Dated
# C_2013106EN.01000202.xml

| 12.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6869 — GM/Ispol)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 106/03

On 3 April 2013, 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 32013M6869. 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 32013M6869. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Major Instruments and Agreements

on Santa Monica Airport Land

EXHIBIT
~~rrarr6N. TEXASI 78711 

November 30, 1973 

The Honorable Joe Carroll 

District Attorney 

P. 0. Box 684 

Belton, Texas 76513 

Dear Mr. Carroll: 

Opinion No. H- 169 

Re: Cost of transporting 

prisoners in multi-city 

countie 8 

In your opinion request you advise that: 

“Belton is the County Seat of Bell County, but 

it is less than a third the size of either Temple or 

Killeen. The County Jail is in Belton, but by far the 

. . maJorlty of the arrests are made in either of the aforementioned larger cities. We have a problem with 

reference to the transfer of Felony prisoners to the 

County Jail. ” 

The problem concerns whether the time. trouble and expense required 

to transport prisoners from Temple and Killeen to the county jail in Belton 

should fall on the police of tho6e respective cities or upon the sheriff of Bell 

County. 

There are no statutes or cases specifically answering your problem. 

The problem i6 one that is usually worked out by agreement in multi-citied 

counties similar to Bell County. 

We believe two circumstances indicate that the sheriff of Bell County 

i6 responsible for the prisoners after they are taken before a magi6trate in 

Temple or Killeen and committed to the county jail. The first is juricldictional. 

The juri6diction of the police ends with their city limit8 except in rpecified 

circum6tances; the sheriff’6 juri6diction i6 county-wide. 

The second is Article 2.16, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which 

provides: 

p. 775 
The Honorable Joe Carroll, page 2 (H-169) 

“When a prisoner is committed to jail by 

warrant from a magistrate or court, he shall be 

placed in jail by the sheriff. It is a violation of 

duty on the part of any sheriff to permit a defendant so committed to remain out of jail, except 

that he may, when a defendant is committed for 

want of bail, or when he arrest6 in a bailable 

case, give the person arrested a reasonable time 

to procure bail; but he shall so guard the accused 

a6 to prevent escape. ” 

In the absence of specific statute, we believe that the 6heriff’s duty 

to see that the prisoner is “placed in jail” after commitment by a magistrate impliedly requires the sheriff to transport the prisioners from the 

place where the magistrate commits him to the county jail. 

SUMMARY 

. It is the duty of the sherlff to see that prisoners committed to the county jail by a magi6trate 

in a city outside the county seat are hansported to 

the county jail. 

Attorney Genera .I of Texas 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 776
#### CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Ruth KIRBY, Individually, and as Executrix of the Ed. C. Wright Estate, Appellee.

No. 72-9.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 30, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.