alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gallio, Appellant, *v.*Balter.

*Equity*— Equity *practice*— Bill *to enjoin maintenance of stockyard*— Dismissal—Direction *to properly pave*— Partial *relief*— Gosts *—Liability of defendant for costs.*

Where in a suit in equity for an injunction to restrain the maintenance of a stockyard alleged to be a nuisance, the court finds that the stockyard has been insufficiently pave ' and drained, and directs the defendant to adequately pave it, although it does not enjoin the defendant from maintaining the stockyard, a measure of relief is granted to the plaintiff and he should not be required to pay a part of the costs; and the decree will be modified so as to impose the costs on the defendant.

Submitted Feb. 5, 1918.

Appeal, No. 9, Oct. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Beaver Co., June T., 1915, No. 3, in equity dismissing bill in equity for the abatement of a nuisance, in case of Angelo Gallio v. Harry Balter.

Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Mosci-izisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Modified.

Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Baldwin, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The court on final hearing refused the injunction and directed that the costs should be divided equally between the plaintiff and the defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*F. Ganuit, H. Easton*and *W. A. McGonnell,*submitted for ^appellant.

*Lawrence M. Behring,*submitted for appellee.

March 4, 1918:

Per Curiam,

The bill of the plaintiff was for an injunction to restrain the defendant from maintaining a stockyard and *466slaughterhouse. A measure of relief was granted to him by that portion of the decree which requires the defendant to adequately pave the stockyard with brick, cement, or other suitable material, in such a way as to promptly and efficiently drain it. This followed a finding that the stockyard had been insufficiently paved and drained. In view of this the complaint of the plaintiff was not entirely groundless, and so much of the decree as directs him to pay half of the costs is inequitable.

The third assignment of error is sustained and the decree is now modified by orderingAhe defendant to pay all the costs below and on this appeal.
The Ho norable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for th e 1 Distric t of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorabl e CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4124

___________ Michael D. Ashby, also known * as Michael Y. Ashraf, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Frank Woods; Jim Zellmer; Dennis * Benson; Eric Skon; Tim Lanz; * [UNPUBLISHED] Virginia Levasseur, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 4, 1998 Filed: November 16, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michael Ashby, a Minnesota inmate currently incarcerated at a Florida facility purs uant to an Interstate Corrections Compact, Minn. Stat. § 241.28-.30 (1992) , appeals the District Court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. 1Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- § 1983 lawsuit. After ca

refully reviewing the record and the parties’ submissions, we affirm the judgment of the District Court for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s thorough report and recommendation adopted by the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
From: Flaten, David L [mailto:david.l.flaten@xcelenergy.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 12:52 PM 

To: 'Rosenstock, Steven'; Brian Coffey; Richard Parker; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com; 

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; gbf1@pge.com; adelaski@standardsasap.org; rroy@nrdc.org; Nadel, Steve; 

eduardorobles@eaton.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; 

chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com; john.caskey@nema.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; 

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; mark.e.stoering@xcelenergy.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; 

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com; paul.ryan@hitmet.com; 

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; Robert Berman; Phil Hopkinson; Caitlin Johnson; Freeman, Jeremiah 

(CONTR); Michael Rivest; Zhimei Luo; Chris Bolduc; Richard Parker; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; 

tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@LVMetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; 

jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsASAP.org; 

Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; 

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; 

Nadel, Steve; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; 

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; 

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; mark.e.stoering@xcelenergy.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; 

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.Creevy@nema.org; 

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsASAP.org; 

paul.ryan@hitmet.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; kwinder@mleainc.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; 

Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; GJRosenquist@lbl.gov 

Cc: Katie Coughlin; Matthew Nardotti; Brian Coffey 

Subject: Transformer Loading 

Attached is a comment on transformer loading.

 

If transformers are assumed, loaded to 45%, load loss cost will be valued highly. 

Getting the loading correct is important in placing a value on load loss cost.

 

Hope the attached is of value to you.

 

David Flaten

Xcel Energy

303-571-3978
#### John Stewart, surviving trustee vs. Edward J. Codd, trading as E. J. Codd & Co.

*Question as to the Bight of a Trustee to Appeal.*

Where a fund arising from the sale of mortgaged property is brought into Court for distribution among creditors and persons entitled to the same, the trustee, whose commissions have been allowed, has no right to appeal from an order directing the payment of a " claim against such fund.

Appeal from, the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

The case is stated iu the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before Bartol, C. .J., Miller, Alvey, Robinson and Irving, J.

*E. J. D.*Gross, for the appellant.

*William A. Stewart,*for the appellee.

Bartol, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant is a trustee appointed by a decree in chancery, to sell certain mortgaged property of “The Maryland Sugar Refinery Company.” The sale was made, reported and ratified, and the fund arising from the sale brought into Court for distribution among the creditors and persons entitled.

Among the property sold were certain articles alleged to constitute fixed machinery in the Refinery, upon which the appellee, a machinist and builder, claimed a preferred lien, under the mechanics’ lien law. The Circuit Court decided in favor of the claim, and passed an order directing that the same should he paid out of the funds in the hands of the trustee.

*87(Decided 3rd March 1882.)

Erom this order the present appeal lias been taken, and a motion has been made to dismiss the appeal, because the trustee has fio interest in the subject-matter of the controversy, and has been in no manner aggrieved by the order of the Circuit Court, and therefore has no right to appeal.

We are clearly of opinion that the motion ought to prevail. There is no question or contest with regard to the commissions of the trustee; they have "been allowed. The appellant is simply the officer or hand of the Court, whose duty it is to hold the fund, and to pay and disburse it under the Court’s order.

In a contest between creditors claiming the fund, he has no interest, and no right to intervene, and whore the creditors themselves have acquiesced in the decision, as said in *Salmon vs. Pierson,*8 *Md.,*299, the trustee cannot set up any interest to continue the litigation here, after a decision below to which the parties really interested do not appear to have objected.

*Appeal dismissed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         9
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          8,752
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            741
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                3,934
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    47,886
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         14,068
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           14,346
<LOANS>                                       153,649
<ALLOWANCE>                                     1,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                233,491
<DEPOSITS>                                    199,800
<SHORT-TERM>                                    4,550
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             2,586
<LONG-TERM>                                     6,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,805
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                233,491
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                13,404
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               3,020
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  323
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               16,746
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              8,176
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              8,722
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           8,025
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 36
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 6,115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3,017
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      3,017
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,089
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    2.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.36
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.21
<LOANS-NON>                                       582
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 1,345
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                1,845
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     207
<RECOVERIES>                                        9
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               1,947
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            1,947
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 27, 2015

a0520

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2015

150437-8

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150437-8

COA: 316827, 316829

Wayne CC: 12-010423-FC,

GABRIEL ANTONIO ALFARO, 12-010424-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 16, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals, we VACATE the sentence of the Wayne Circuit Court for second-degree 

criminal sexual conduct (CSC II), and we REMAND this case to the trial court for 

resentencing on the defendant’s conviction for CSC II. Even assuming, without deciding, 

that MCL 771.14(2)(e) addresses the duties of the trial court, the probation officer was 

required to calculate the sentencing guidelines range for CSC II, and the trial court was 

required to determine the applicable guidelines range. See MCL 777.21(2). MCL 

771.14(2)(e) required the probation officer to include in the presentence report in this 

case both the “sentence grid . . . that contains the recommended minimum sentence 

range” and the “computation that determines” that range for all convictions for which a 

consecutive sentence was authorized. Because the acts of criminal sexual conduct in this 

case occurred in the same transaction, the court was authorized to impose a sentence for 

CSC II that is consecutive to the sentences for CSC I. MCL 750.520b(3). Because the 

defendant was being sentenced for a felony occurring after January 1, 1999, and subject 

to MCL 777.1 et seq., the trial court is required to sentence the defendant within the 

appropriate sentencing guidelines range, or articulate on the record a substantial and 

compelling reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines range. MCL 769.34(2); 

People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (2003).

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
David B. Holden

222 E Adams St. OFallon IL 62269 Tel: 618.531.4887 Email: holdenrealtyinc@gmail.com

Petitions for Exemption Filed under Section 333 Submission of a petition of exemption under Section 333 for civil operation of Operation of Drone (under 55 pounds) for Real Estate Photography, for the purpose of photographing homes currently for sale by my firm. Aircraft operated DJI Inspire 1. Over 100 current flight hours.

>Extent of relief sought: The operation of a UAV (drone) for the use of Real Estate photography below 200 feet and at speeds not to exceed 10 mph. >Public best interest: Many properties we market have large parcels of ground (ove r 1 acre) aerial photography allows us to capture video of the property previously unavailable to us. The public has the ability to “see” the property in a format that was not possible. P roperty with additional buildings etc can be difficult to capture i n standard point and shoot situation. > Why this would not adversely affect Public safety: Our safety outline follows: Safety and procedures 1.) Pre flight of aircraft to include all flight control surfaces, avionics, navigation, and battery charge. Obstructio n survey (Trees, power lines, Buildings etc) 2.) 2 Individuals on all flights one PIC and one observer. Line of sight maintained at all times. 3.) No overflights of ANY property other than the one being photographed. In fact in most cases we don’t directly fly over the structure being photographed. 4.) Operational parameters: Ceiling height of **200 feet** Max speed below 10 mph

. 5.) Daylight hours only. 6.) After landing inspection to include everything outlined in item 1 above. 7.) Private Pilot Certifi cate Airplane Single Engine land certificate # 326687666 Our goal is to maintain the public safety at all times. If there is any doubt that we can’t ensure 100% protection to the public there will be no flight.
```

                                                                      Exhibit 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

            We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in the  Registration
Statements (Nos. 333-06705, 333-30042, 333-89096 and 333-114898) on Form S-8 and
in the Registration  Statements  (Nos.  333-99201 and 333-122226) on Form S-3 of
our report dated  August 17,  2005,  except for Note 19, as to which the date is
February 21, 2006, for the years ended June 30, 2003,  2004 and 2005, and to the
addition of our firm under the caption  "Experts" in the Prospectus,  insofar as
it relates to our report on the financial  statements  for the three years ended
June 30, 2005.

                                                  /s/ Margolin Winer & Evens LLP
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                      Margolin Winer & Evens LLP

Garden City, New York
February 21, 2006
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4024-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4024-DR), dated September 3, 2011, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         February 7, 2012.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Daniel T. Alexander, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Donald L. Keldsen as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2012-4896 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 12435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5120]



[[Page 12433]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 40

February 29, 2012

Part IV





The President





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



Memorandum of February 28, 2012--Delegation of Waiver Authority Under 
Section 1022(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 29, 2012 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 12435]]

                Memorandum of February 28, 2012

                
Delegation of Waiver Authority Under Section 
                1022(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
                for Fiscal Year 2012

                Memorandum for the Attorney General

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, including section 301 of title 3, United 
                States Code, I hereby delegate to you the authority 
                conferred upon the President by section 1022(a)(4) of 
                the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
                2012, Public Law 112-81, to waive certain requirements 
                of the Act. You shall exercise this authority in 
                consultation with other senior national security 
                officials, including the Secretaries of State, Defense, 
                Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, 
                Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of the 
                Central Intelligence Agency, and Director of the 
                Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as any other 
                official I may designate.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, February 28, 2012

[FR Doc. 2012-5120
Filed 2-28-12; 2:00 pm]
Billing code 4410-19-P
Summary of 2007 Executive Officer Cash Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.46 
 Summary of 2007 Executive Officer Cash Bonus Plan 
 Overview and Purpose 
 This plan (the “2007 Bonus Plan”) was adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) of Kosan
Biosciences Incorporated (the “Company”) on December 18, 2006 and is designed to offer incentive compensation to the Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice Presidents of the Company by rewarding achievement of specifically measured
corporate goals and, if applicable, individual goals. 
 Administration 
 The 2007 Bonus Plan will be administered by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee will be responsible for approving, or recommending to the Board of Directors for approval, any incentive awards to
executive officers of the Company, including any incentive awards to the Chief Executive Officer. 
 Eligibility 
 The Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice Presidents of the Company are eligible to participate in the 2007 Bonus Plan. 
 Corporate and Individual Performance 
 The Compensation Committee
intends to approve in early 2007 the Company’s corporate objectives for 2007. Each participant other than the Chief Executive Officer will also be subject to key individual performance objectives. The 2007 Bonus Plan provides for the
payment of cash bonuses to participants if corporate and, other than with respect to the Chief Executive Officer, individual performance criteria are achieved during 2007. The actual bonuses payable for 2007 (if any) will vary depending on the
extent to which actual performance meets, exceeds or falls short of the specified corporate objectives and, other than with respect to the Chief Executive Officer, applicable individual performance objectives approved by the Compensation Committee,
as determined by the Compensation Committee in its discretion, and on the level of the Company’s then current or anticipated cash reserves. The Company’s Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee reserves the right to modify the
corporate or individual performance objectives at any time based on business changes during the year. 
 Target Cash Bonus Amount 
 The 2007 Bonus Plan provides a target cash bonus amount for the Chief Executive Officer and each Senior Vice President of the Company, expressed as a percentage of 2007
base salary for each participant.