alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         885,782
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,904,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 73,750,945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            98,051,522
<PP&E>                                      15,860,550
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             118,339,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       68,011,161
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,078
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,135,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               118,339,112
<SALES>                                     86,668,286
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            86,668,286
<CGS>                                       48,894,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               48,894,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (171,555)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (66,906)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (104,649)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (104,649)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### J. E. WRIGHT, Plaintiff in Error, v. Retha WRIGHT, Defendant in Error.

No. 36898.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 25, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1956.

*429Sid White, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

John B. Ogden, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

HALLEY, Justice.

Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1936. They have two children, daughters.. One child was eighteen and the other eight on the date of trial February 25, 1955. Plaintiff’s sole ground for; divorce was incompatibility, which is now listed as the seventh .ground for divorce under Section 1271, Title 12 O.S.1951, as amended by the State Legislature 1953 and 1955, 12 O.S. Supp. § 1271. Defendant denied incompatibility and asked for separate maintenance. The case was tried and at the close of the trial, the judge denied the divorce and granted separate maintenance and fixed the amount the plaintiff should • pay for the support of his family and provided for visitation of the children. No finding, was made in regard to incompatibility.

The husband admitted he Was guilty of misconduct with other women.. He testi-; fied that' his wife nagged him but there was no evidence that there was any injury to his health as a result thereof or that living with her was impossible. The wife did not want a divorce and thought that the marriage could be maintained successfully.

On the motion for new trial it was urged that evidence sufficient to authorize a judgment for separate, maintenance was sufficient to show incompatibility. In his order overruling the motion for. new trial, the trial judge found:

> “That the plaintiff has established incompatibility upon his part as alleged in his petition; but: because the conduct of plaintiff as frankly admitted caused or largely contributed to said situation his' prayer for' relief should be denied.”

The judge, however, did not modify his original judgment in any way. He did not consider the evidence of incompatibility sufficient to justify a divorce upon that ground. This Court said in Chappell v. Chappell, Okl., 298 P.2d 768, 771:

> “It should not be grounds for divorce where only one of the parties to a marriage is. incompatible. Incompatibility is a two way proposition and should not be applicable where the party seeking the divorce is the only one who is incompatible. Our statute did not intend to mean that any one could .obtain a divorce on this ground merely because a divorce was desired..

We see no error in denying the divorce sought on- the ground of incompatibility.

Where the husband. will not stay at home and make his contribution to maintaining .the -same, the allowance of separate maintenance is proper.

This is a case of equitable cognizance. We have weighed the evidence and find that the judgment denying divorce and granting separate -maintenance is fully sustained. The judgment is áL firmed. .

■ JOHNSON, C. J., WILLIAMS, V.' C. J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

BLACKBIRD, J., concurs in result.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

s0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140144 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140144 

 COA: 281207 

St. Clair CC: 06-003248-FC 

WILLIAM ROGER DEKEYZER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 13, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1090 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act to provide eligibility for broadcasting facilities to receive certain 

disaster assistance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2015 

Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to provide eligibility for broadcasting facilities to receive certain disaster assistance, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Emergency Informa5 tion Improvement Act of 2015’’. 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1090 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF BROADCASTING FACILITIES FOR 

2 CERTAIN DISASTER ASSISTANCE. 

3 (a) PRIVATE NONPROFIT FACILITY DEFINED.—Sec4 tion 102(11)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

5 and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(11)(B)) 

6 is amended by inserting ‘‘broadcasting facilities,’’ after 

7 ‘‘workshops,’’. 

8 (b) CRITICAL SERVICES DEFINED.—Section 

9 406(a)(3)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

10 and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(a)(3)(B)) 

11 is amended by striking ‘‘communications,’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘communications (including broadcast and telecommuni13 cations),’’. 

Æ 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Ronnie BLACKWELL; Joyce Blackwell, Appellants, v. CITY OF ST. CHARLES, Appellee.

No. 90-1105.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 1990.

Decided Nov. 7, 1990.

Bradley Pierce, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

Robert J. Krehbiel, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and McMILLAN,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The HONORABLE JAMES B. McMILLAN, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The Blackwells filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of St. Charles contending the City’s policy requiring them to sign a petition for voluntary annexation before granting access to its sewer and water systems violates their constitutional rights. The Blackwells are residents of unincorporated St. Charles County. The district court granted summary judgment to the City and the Blackwells appeal. We affirm.

The Blackwells assert the City’s policy violates their first amendment right to free speech and their fourteenth amendment rights to due process and equal protection. The district court correctly found the Blackwells have no legally enforceable right of access to the City’s sewer and water systems, and accordingly, entered summary judgment for the City. *Blackwell v. City of St. Charles,*726 F.Supp. 256, 259 (E.D.Mo.1989).

Having thoroughly reviewed the record and considered the Blackwells’ claims, we conclude further discussion of the issues would serve no useful purpose. We thus affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. *See*8th Cir.R. 47B.
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 12291]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary exhibition or display in the Department of Greek and Roman Art of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Nicole L. Elkon,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2023-28205 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
II 

Calendar No. 333 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4285 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2017 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 123 Bridgeton Pike in Mullica Hill, New Jersey, as the ‘‘James C. ‘Billy’ Johnson Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. JAMES C. ‘‘BILLY’’ JOHNSON POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 123 Bridgeton Pike in Mullica 

7 Hill, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘James C. ‘Billy’ Johnson Post Office Building’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4285 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James C. ‘Billy’ John5 son Post Office Building’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 333 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4285 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Post-

‘Billy’ Johnson Post Office Building’’. Mullica Hill, New Jersey, as the ‘‘James C. al Service located at 123 Bridgeton Pike in 

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 

Reported without amendment 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YENNY MARITZA SILVA-ISAIS DE 

RAMIREZ, AKA Jenny Marissa Silva 

Ramirez, AKA Yenny Mariza Silva-Isais de 

Ramirez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73384 

Agency No. A075-749-110

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Yenny Maritza Silva-Isais de Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order granting

her motion to reopen for the purpose of reinstating her voluntary departure period. 

* 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

SEP 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73384 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 

BIA’s decision on the motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. See

Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We grant the petition for 

review. 

The BIA erred and abused its discretion by not treating Silva’s motion as a 

motion to reopen and remand to apply for adjustment of status, and by instead 

reinstating the voluntary departure period, which Silva did not request. See 

Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“IJs and the BIA are 

not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner”); Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 

F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The BIA abuses its discretion when it acts 

‘arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law.’” (citation omitted)). We remand 

for the BIA to consider whether to reopen to allow Silva to apply for adjustment 

status.

Silva’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 of Premier Development & Investment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, J. Scott Sitra, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of this
18th day of May, 2006.



/s/ J. Scott Sitra
--------------------------------------
J. Scott Sitra
President and Chief Executive Officer
Premier Development & Investment, Inc.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Frank P. Giaramita, as Executor of Giacomina Di Dia, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

August 12, 1959.

*Frank P. Giaramita*for petitioner.

*Fink S Pavia*for Antonio Di Dia.

Maximilian Moss, S.

In this executor’s accounting a construction is sought of article *“*Eighth ” of the will and declaring the legacies provided therein abated in favor of the alternative legatee.

*210By the terms of said article one half of the residuary is bequeathed to each of the two named legatees in trust “to be paid over to them at such time as they emigrate to the United States to become residents.” It provides further for an abatement in favor of a son in the event of the lapse of five years without the condition being conformed with by the legatees. One may impose conditions to a gift providing the purposes are not unlawful or against public policy *(Matter of Engelking,*185 *M*i*sc*. The court construes the condition in question' as not being unlawful or against public policy. Inasmuch as more than five years have elapsed and the said two named legatees have failed to come to the United States and establish residence, the legacies to them have abated in favor of the alternative legatee, Antonio Di Dia. The account will be settled as filed.

Settle decree on notice.
# C_2020068EN.01004002.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/40

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo no2 de Ourense — Spain) — FA v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

(Case C-240/19) (1)

(2020/C 68/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JAN 22, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS
F O RT H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11968

________________________ D

. C

. D ocketN o. 00 -014 95 -C V -W B H -1
T .C . W O O D W O R T H , K A T H L E E N A . W O O D W O R T H , L T W P A R T N E R S H I P , L P ,

P la in tif f s - A p p e lle e s ,

v ersu s W I L L I A M P A R K E RH A T H C O C K , J R ., e t a l.,
C r o s s - D e f e n d an ts

- A p p e llan ts , H A R M U T ( H A R D Y ) T H E O D O R E R O S E , J A M E S P A T R E E D Y , G E O S E C U R I T I E S , I N C ., G E O

- C H E V R O N O R T I Z R A N C H # 2 , ajo in t v e n tu r e , T H E G E O C O M P A N I E S O F N O R T H A M E R I C A , I N C ., G E O

- C H E V R O N O R T I Z R A N C H # 4 , ajo in t v e n tu r e , D e f e n d an ts

- A p p e llan ts , JU D I T H W I S E M A N , D e f e n d an t,2

G E O N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E S , I N C .,

D ef endant -C ross -C l ai m ant A p p e llan t, G E O C H E V R O N O R T I Z R A N C H # 3 ,

I n te r e s te d

- P arty

- A p p e llan t.

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

_______________________ N o. 06- 11988

________________________ D

. C

. D ocketN o. 02 -003 69 -C V -W B H -1
K E N N E T H L E I P M A N , K A T H L E E N L E I P M A N , K I M C . H O D G E S , R . S T A N H O D G E S , J R .,

P la in tif f s - A p p e lle e s ,

v ersu s W I L L I A M P A R K E RH A T H C O C K , J R ., e t a l.,

C r o s s - D e f e n d an ts

- A p p e llan ts , JU D I T H L . W I S E M A N ,

D e f e n d an t- C r o s s - C la im an t,Honora ble Virginia M. Herna

ndez Covington, United States District Judg e for the * Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

3 J A M E S P A T R E E D Y , G E O S E C U R I T I E S , I N C ., G E O

- C H E V R O N O R T I Z R A N C H # 3 , ajo in t v e n tu r e , G E O

- C H E V R O N O R T I Z R A N C H # 4 , ajo in t v e n tu r e , T H E G E O C O M P A N I E S O F N O R T H A M E R I C A , I N C ., H A R M U T ( H A R D Y ) T H E O D O R E R O S E ,

D e f e n d an ts

- C r o s s - C lam a in ts

- A p p e llan ts , G E O N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E S , I N C .,

C r o s s - C la im an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 22, 2007)
B ef ore B IR C H and P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O V IN G T O N , D i stri ctJudg e. *
P E RC U R I A M:
H avi ng care ful l y c on si dere d the re cord and b ri ef s of the part i es and aft er h av in g e n te rta in e do r a l ar g u m e n t b yc o u n s e l f o rth e p artie s , w e f

in dn o r e v e r s ib le

e rr o r . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I R ME D.
or updated in Regulation (EU) 2016/429 


“Certified Semen Services (CSS) Minimum Requirements for Disease Control 

of Semen Produced for AI,” Appendix I, website 

paragraph 2
#### In the Matter of the Application of A. L. LEWIS for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12689.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 13, 1959.

*800A. L. Lewis, petitioner, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BRETT, Judge.

This is an original petition for habeas corpus brought by A. L. Lewis, an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, wherein he complains he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty. He alleges the cause of his restraint is a conviction out of the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma, on a charge of passing a bogus check. The judgment and sentence is not attached or pled in the petition. It appears to have been entered on or about October 25, 1957.

The petition raises no jurisdictional questions, but pleads that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, an alibi, and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

On the issue of the statute of limitations, that is a matter of defense and does not constitute a ground for discharge on habeas corpus either preliminary to trial or after judgment. 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 22, p. 473, note 27; Martin v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 16 F.2d 118; Martin v. United States, 8 Cir., 33 F.2d 1022, and other cases.

On the question of alibi, that too cannot be raised on habeas corpus. People ex rel. Stevens v. Meyering, 349 Ill. 198, 181 N.E. 620; Ex parte Germain, 258 Mass. 289, 155 N.E. 12, 51 A.L.R. 789; 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 22, p. 473, note 24.

 On the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, this was a question that can only be reached by appeal, and habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal. In re Goff, Okl.Cr., 312 P.2d 902.

The writ of habeas corpus is denied.

POWELL, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.