alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply585Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Patrick Corbin... (not verified)PermalinkApril 27, 2018 - 7:54amVery nice articles I thoroughly enjoyed them.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Jun-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          Jul-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                            Mar-31-1995                     
<CASH>                                          169
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   458
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                666    
<PP&E>                                         6443
<DEPRECIATION>                                  344
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           546
<BONDS>                                        4969
<COMMON>                                       5719
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                     704
<OTHER-SE>                                    (4323)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7431
<SALES>                                         616
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                616
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (12)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 740
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (428)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.19)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11
 
                           MICRON ELECTRONICS, INC.
 
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
               (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              AUGUST 29, 1996 AUGUST 31, 1995 SEPTEMBER 1, 1994
                              --------------- --------------- -----------------
<S>                           <C>             <C>             <C>
PRIMARY
Weighted average shares out-
 standing...................       91,687          86,959           81,427
Net effect of dilutive stock
 options....................          808             463               96
                                  -------         -------          -------
Number of shares used in per
 share calculation..........       92,495          87,422           81,523
                                  =======         =======          =======
Net income..................      $44,582         $65,086          $36,898
                                  =======         =======          =======
Per share earnings..........      $  0.48         $  0.74          $  0.45
                                  =======         =======          =======
FULLY DILUTED
Weighted average shares out-
 standing...................       91,687          86,959           81,427
Net effect of dilutive stock
 options....................          834             469               98
                                  -------         -------          -------
Number of shares used in per
 share calculation..........       92,521          87,428           81,525
                                  =======         =======          =======
Net income..................      $44,582         $65,086          $36,898
                                  =======         =======          =======
Per share earnings..........      $  0.48         $  0.74          $  0.45
                                  =======         =======          =======
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: E.L.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: E.L.B., MINOR CHILD

:

:

:

:

:

No. 30 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: E.B., MINOR 

CHILD

PETITION OF: E.B., MINOR CHILD

:

:

:

:

:

No. 31 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Rolshouse *v.*Wally et al., Appellants.

*Partnership*— Presumption *as to continuance of relation*— Ac*quisition of property.*

Where a partnership is formed for the purpose of drilling oil and gas on a certain property, the relation of partnership continues between the parties in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a3 respects the acquisition of additional property, acquired and used in the line of business of the partnership and developed with partnership funds, labor and material.

Argued Oct. 17, 1918.

Appeal, No. 77, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from decree of O. P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1917, No. 55, in the case of Charles O. P. Eolshouse v. W. C. Wally, William Shaffer, Emory Shaffer, and Henry EAneess.

Before Brown, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Fox, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an accounting. Before Carnahan, J.

*Errors assigned*were the decree of the court in overruling exceptions to certain findings of fact and conclusions of law.

*William A. Wilson,*with him *Donald Thompson*and *George H. Calvert,*for appellants.

The declaration of a partner cannot bind the partnership: Karrick v. Han*248naman, 168 U. S. 326; Reed v. Kremer, 111 Pa. 482; Walker v. Tupper, 152 Pa. 1.

January 4, 1919:

*John E.*Winner, for appellee.

Where a number of persons engage in a business enterprise and continue their operations in other business enterprises the presumption is that the old relation continues, unless a new arrangement was made: Dunham v. Loverock, 158 Pa. •197; Butler Savings Bank v. Osborne, 159 Pa. 10; Blood v. Ludlow Carbon Black Co., Ltd., 150 Pa. 1.

The fact that there is a partnership may be established by declarations of the partners: Reed v. Kremer & Co., Ill Pa. 482.

Per Curiam,

On this appeal from a decree for an account the complaint of the appellants is that the court below erred in finding that a partnership, admittedly formed under the name of W. C. Wally & Company, for the purpose of drilling oil and gas on a certain property, continued to exist between the same parties as to other land leased by the said company for the same purpose. The second legal conclusion of the chancellor below was: “all of the parties being members of the partnership, they necessarily continued so in the absence of an agreement or understanding to the contrary, as respects the acquisition of additional property, acquired and used in the line of business of the partnership and developed with partnership funds, labor and material.” On this correct legal conclusion under the facts found the appeal is dismissed, at appellants’ costs.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-30696 Summary Calendar

OLUGBENGA BALOGUN, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; JOHN B.Z. CAPLINGER, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-94

-------------------- December 1, 1999 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Olugbenga Balogun appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen his habeas corpus proceedings. He has filed a motion with this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Balogun argues that he was improperly deported after this court’s remand of his case to the district court in 1993, before an evidentiary hearing could be held. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Balogun has not demonstrated that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Accordingly,No. 99-30696 -2- Balogun’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Balogun’s requests for release pending appeal and for the entry of summary and default judgment are also DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN H. JOHNSON; PAULA A.

JOHNSON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-56358 

D.C. No. 5:19-cv-01387-PA-GJS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action arising out of foreclosure 

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

district court’s dismissal based on claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-56358 

F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed the Johnsons’ action on the basis of 

claim preclusion because the action involved the same primary right raised in a 

prior state court action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See San 

Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 

(9th Cir. 2009) (federal court must follow state’s preclusion rules to determine 

effect of a state court judgment; discussing elements of claim preclusion under 

California law).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Johnsons’ 

motion to vacate or amend the judgment because the Johnsons failed to 

demonstrate any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. 

v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and 

grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b)).

To the extent the Johnsons contend that the district court abused its 

discretion by denying their request for judicial notice of Richard A. Kalinoski, Jr.’s 

affidavit, we reject the contention as without merit. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.b**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit FundII L.P. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the Fund’s general partner,Boston Capital Associates II L.L.C., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:

 
| (1)    |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15  or 15(d)-15 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  Fund. |

 

 
| Date:              |   |                        |
|--------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
| July 14, 2008 |   | /s/ Marc N. Teal            |
|               |   |                        |
|               |   | Marc N. Teal                |
|               |   | Principal Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
1

Mears, Gilbert

From: Gail Carpenter <gpersonal@ymail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:06 AM

To: Mears, Gilbert

Subject: (from a professional realtor) Docket #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Mr. Mears, 

I implore you to have T.R.I. (Toxic Release Inventory) available to the public as their right to know --- it 

should not be another exemption for the oil and gas industry. 

Every piece of real estate sold in our country involves its own 'environment' - and every buyer/developer 

purchases the real estate accordingly.... 

Toxic releases are an enormous factor into such decisions and should always be available to the public for 

those who choose to look into such (similar to sex offenders, etc. - it's public information as it's for the 

public's awareness and protection, as their RIGHT TO KNOW). 

'Stationary' industry is at least visible and known to the public who are house-hunting. 

The fact that the O&G operations are NOT stationary; but quite wayfaring is ONE very good reason the 

toxic release inventory needs to be public information .... 

People (many are my clients) have been selecting areas they deem as 'safe/healthy/etc.' for the best 

interest of their families' futures....and made their largest investment in their homes according to those 

decisions and locations....only to have these toxic and industrial operations pop up only 500' from their 

children's bedrooms. 

The lack of such disclosure of gas leases/operations in new construction appalls me - and I'm working on 

that - but YOU can work on this 'right to know' information now as it's JUST as important as the other 

concerns (such as sex offenders) I've mentioned above. 

Please do the RIGHT thing - and stop enabling the O&G industry from bullying you, from bullying the 

DEP, from bullying our country into being exempted from all that's important.....and be certain to make 

the TRI publicly available! 

Thank you. 

Gail Carpenter 

Mars, PA
Annex 14

CHAPTER 8.18.**INFECTION WITH *TRICHINELLA* SPP.**

Article 8.18.1.

General provisions

Trichinellosis is a widely distributed zoonosis caused by eating raw or undercooked *meat* from *Trichinella* infected food-producing animals or *wildlife*. Given that clinical signs of trichinellosis are not generally recognised in animals, the importance of trichinellosis lies exclusively in the *risk* posed to humans and costs of control in *slaughter* populations.

The adult parasite and the larval forms live in the small intestine and muscles (respectively) of many mammalian, avian and reptile host species.~~Within the genus *Trichinella*, twelve genotypes have been identified, nine of which have been designated as species. There is geographical variation amongst the genotypes.~~

Prevention of *infection* in susceptible species of domestic animals intended for human consumption relies on the prevention of exposure of those animals to the *meat* and *meat products* of *Trichinella* infected animals. This includes consumption of food waste of domestic animal origin, rodents and *wildlife*.

*Meat* and *meat products* derived from *wildlife* should be considered a potential source of *infection* for humans. Therefore, untested *meat* and *meat products* of *wildlife* may pose a public health *risk*.

For the purposes of the *Terrestrial Code*, *infection* with *Trichinella* spp. is defined as an *infection* of suids or equids by parasites of the genus *Trichinella*.

This chapter provides recommendations for on-farm prevention of *Trichinella infection* in domestic pigs *(Sus scrofa domesticus)*, and safe trade of *meat* and *meat products* derived from suids and equids. This chapter should be read in conjunction with the Codex Alimentarius Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat (CAC/RCP 58-2005) and Guidelines for the control of *Trichinella* spp. in meat of Suidae (CAC/GL 86-2015).

~~Methods for the detection of *Trichinella**infection* in pigs and other animal species include direct demonstration of *Trichinella* larvae in muscle samples. Demonstration of the presence of *Trichinella*-specific circulating antibodies using a validated serological test may be useful for epidemiological purposes.~~

When authorizing the import or transit of the *commodities* covered in this chapter, with the exception of those listed in Article 8.18.2., *Veterinary Authorities* should apply the recommendations in this chapter.

Standards for ~~diagnostic tests~~diagnosis and information on the epidemiology are described in the *Terrestrial Manual*.

[...]

___________________________

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2023	1
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NAHMS Antimicrobial Use and

Resistance Information

Last Modified: 

Print

NAHMS has collected information on antimicrobial use, stewardship, and resistance

during many of the NAHMS commodity studies.
NAHMS first started collecting antimicrobial use information and testing fecal

samples for the presence of Salmonella and E. coli in the 1992 National Dairy Heifer

Evaluation Project. Over the last 10 years, NAHMS has conducted nine studies where

antimicrobial use data were collected or fecal samples were tested for antimicrobial

resistance for some combination of Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli, and

Enterococcus.

See the complete list of all NAHMS studies and related materials

Loading...

Antimicrobial Use and Resistance Information
23279

#### State v. Marbou

Affirmed
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00354-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Trial Court No. PR-2014-00697-01

Before Birdwell, Kerr, and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE TREATMENT EQUIPMENT COMPANY, JANIS V. SMITH AND BRUCE 

S. SMITH, Relators
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, we lift our stay of the trial court’s 

September 19, 2019 “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel, to Extend 

Fact Discovery Deadline and to Continue Trial Setting,” and we deny relators’

petition for writ of mandamus.

Per Curiam

Delivered: November 7, 2019
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael Renner, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1479 C.D. 2017

:

The Court of Common Pleas :

of Lehigh County, County of Lehigh, :

John J. Sikora and Mark Surovy :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, December 3, 2018, having considered appellant’s application for 

reconsideration/reargument, the application is denied.
#### Kim v. Pacific Guardian Center

27430

09/21/2006

Affirmed
<PAGE>   1


                                 EXHIBIT 10(q)

                    ANNUAL TOP MANAGEMENT CASH BONUS PROGRAM

The Company maintains a cash bonus plan whereby the executive officers and
salaried marketing department personnel are eligible to receive cash bonuses
equal to a percentage of the executive officer's base salary if certain
corporate pretax profit objectives are achieved.  The executive officers
selected each year to participate in the cash bonus plan, as well as the
performance targets on which the cash bonuses are based and the amount of the
cash bonuses are determined each year at the discretion of the Chairman and the
Board of Directors.

Specifically, the Chairman recommends to the Board of Directors certain
executive officers who will participate in the plan each year.  Such executive
officers who will participate in the plan as evidenced by written notice from
the Company.  The amount of the actual cash bonus paid to the various executive
officers participating in the cash bonus plan is calculated based on the
attainment of the corporate pretax profit objectives set at the commencement of
each fiscal year.

The cash bonuses are normally paid within the sixty (60) days after the end of
the fiscal year.




                                     -150-
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136026(22) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136026 

 COA: 282578 

Wayne CC: 94-005006-01-FC

DAVID KORAS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 9, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

1215 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

December 23, 2008 

 Clerk