alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ARCHER et al. v. JENKINS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 26, 1954.

Robert J. Watson, R. R. Maddox, Mid-dlesboro, for appellants.

Hubert White, Middlesboro, Grant F. Knuckles, W. R. Lay, Pineville, for appellees.

SIMS, Chief Justice.

In this action appellants contested the will of J. W. Archer on the sole ground the paper was not duly executed. The jury found for the will and this appeal followed’.

The record shows the signature of testator was witnessed by Mrs. Elizabeth Capps and Roy Hammonds. On the trial Mrs. Capps testified that she did not sign the paper as a witness to testator’s signature. When confronted with the will and asked if that was her signature, she replied, “I don’t know whether it is or not.”

The other witness to the will, Roy Ham-monds, positively testified Mrs. Capps signed the instrument in his presence and in the presence of testator. Mrs. Martha Hammonds, who drew the will, testified to the same effect.

The case was submitted to the jury under proper instructions and no complaint is made of them in this court. Indeed, appellants’ attorney in brief with commendable frankness says he can advance no argument why the judgment should be reversed.

There is a contrariety in the testimony inasmuch as Mrs. Capps testified she did not sign the paper as a witness to testator’s signature. But the great preponderance of the evidence shows she did and there is no reason for this court to disturb the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | -1    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | -1     | 0      | 0      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 2      | 0      | -1    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | -1     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### Robert H. ALLPHIN, Chairman, Jess Thomas et al., Members of the Kentucky Tax Commission and Kentucky Department of Revenue, Appellants, v. DAVIESS COUNTY FISCAL COURT, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 24, 1954.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Squire N. Williams, Jr., M. B. Holifield, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.

George S. Wilson, Jr., Shelby Denton, Owensboro, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

There has come on to be heard the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal, which appeal was taken by the Kentucky Tax Commission and Kentucky Department of Revenue from a judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court. The judgment held that an order of the Kentucky Tax Commission equalizing the assessment of property for taxation in Daviess County was invalid because the commission did not grant the county officials an adequate hearing in accordance with KRS 133.160.

In KRS 133.170 it is provided that either party may appeal from a judgment in this character of case within 10 days after the entry Of judgment. The appellants here filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court, under CR 73.02, within 10 days from the date of entry of the judgment, but the record was not filed in this Court until 16 days after entry of the judgment.

It is provided in KRS 446.190 that where a statute limits the time for taking an appeal in a special kind of civil case, the ap*360peal must be docketed in the Court of Appeals within the time so specified, and in addition the appellant must file a notice .of appeal vvithin the time specified by the Civil Rules. This statute clearly was designed to meet the situation here presented. Since the appellants here did not cause the case to be docketed in this Court within the time required by KRS 133.170, .their appeal must fail. See Clay, CR 73.02, Comment 7.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained and it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,761,067
<SECURITIES>                                 1,024,419
<RECEIVABLES>                                  151,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,255)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,990,750
<PP&E>                                       2,093,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                 338,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,087,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          449,071
<BONDS>                                      4,346,613
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,635,727
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,212,069
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,594,859)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,087,916
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,498
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  563,063
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             215,664
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (215,555)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (215,555)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (215,555)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.98)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2354

CARLA T. LEWIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROY SMITH, AIC-VPIA; VIRGINIA PROPERTY INSURANCE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00546-MHL)

Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carla T. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Robert Reinhardt, KALBAUGH, PFUND & 

MESSERSMITH, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carla T. Lewis appeals the district court’s orders dismissing Lewis’ complaint 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denying reconsideration.* On appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

Lewis’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she

has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 

177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit 

rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the 

court’s orders. We further deny Lewis’ “motion to reintegrate appellate brief” and motions 

for entry of default judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* With respect to the first order, because the district court dismissed Lewis’ action 

“for procedural reasons unrelated to the contents of the pleadings,” we have jurisdiction 

over this appeal. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 

2015), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 611-

12 (4th Cir. 2020) (discussing factors courts consider in determining whether order is final 

and appealable).
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5045 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5045

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain coffee brewers with milk 
                           frothing capacity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

  Mr. Deutch introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain coffee brewers with milk 
                           frothing capacity.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN COFFEE BREWERS WITH MILK FROTHING CAPACITY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Coffee brewers      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          with milk                                                         12/31/2014
                          frothing capacity
                          with maximum
                          latte capacity of
                          0.71 liters and a
                          maximum unit
                          weight of 3.0 kg
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          8516.71.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 04-35435-PGH Document 373 Filed03/28/2008 Page 1 of 1CGFD30 (9/28/06)ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on March 28, 2008                                        /s/ Paul G. Hyman Jr                                        ----------------------                                        Paul G Hyman Jr                                        Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge                   United States Bankruptcy Court                     Southern District of Florida                       www.flsb.uscourts.gov                     Division: West Palm Beach                                                    Case Number: 04-35435-PGH                                                    Chapter: 11In re: (Debtor(s) name(s) used by the debtor(s) in the last 8 years, includingmarried, maiden, trade, and address)eCom eCom.com, Inc.8125 Monetary Dr #H4 Riviera Beach, FL 33404EIN:65-0538051                                                                   CLERK                                                                    USBC                                                                   SDFL                                                                   FILED                                                                   3/28/08                              FINAL DECREEA Final Report and Motion for Entry of Final Decree having been filed on behalfof the debtor, this chapter 11 case is closed.Michael D Seese is discharged as disbursing agent. Any future payments underthe plan of reorganization shall be disbursed by the reorganized debtor.Any money due to creditors pursuant to the plan of reorganization and remainingunclaimed must be held in accordance with 11 U.S.C. section 347(b) and 11 U.S.C.section 1143. If the plan provides for the complete liquidation of property ofthe debtor, any unclaimed funds shall be deposited with the court pursuant toLocal Rule 3011-1(B).Copies to:  Debtor            Attorney forDebtor            DisbursingAgent            U.S. trustee###
### I N THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 9

- 5 0 6 1 5 Summary Calendar

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Plaintiff

− Appellant

,

v ersus

BERRY AVIATION, INCORPORATED,

Defendant

− Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas

No. 6 :1 9

- CV

- 3 51

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We examine our appellate jurisdiction on our motion if necessary. Mejia

* 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
Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

October 9, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk Case: 19-50615 Document: 00515152397 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2019No. 19

- 50615

2 v. Wh itaker , 913 F.3d 482, 487 (5th Cir. 2019). The plaintiff claims patent

infringe ment. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) gives the Federal Circuit exclusive

jurisdiction over appeals in any action arising under an Act of Congress relat

ing to patents.

The ap peal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. Case: 19-50615 Document: 00515152397 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2019
CENRAP - EI - SUMMARY - 080107wv_c6e .zip

This type of file cannot be posted to the docket. This file is available upon request. For questions or requesting copies of available files , contact Michael Feldman via email at Feldman.michael@epa.gov or phone 214

- 665

- 9793.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 189 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24997]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Meeting; Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 2:11 p.m. on 
Monday, September 25, 2000, the Board of Directors of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's personnel, resolution, supervisory, and 
corporate activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director John D. Hawke, Jr. 
(Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Ellen S. 
Seidman (Director, Office of Thrift Supervision) and Chairman Donna 
Tanoue, that Corporation business required its consideration of the 
matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no notice 
earlier than September 21, 2000, of the meeting was practicable; that 
the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a 
meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be 
considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), 
(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the ``Government in the 
Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and 
(c)(9)(B)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: September 25, 2000.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-24997 Filed 9-26-00; 11:40 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

I, Bruce M. Eckert, Chief Executive Officer of Eastern Insurance Holdings,Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Eastern Insurance Holdings, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

(c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluationas of the Evaluation Date; 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identifiedfor the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

6. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of ourmost recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

Date: April 2, 2007
Exhibit 4.398

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 169795 dated April 17, 2018

 

For Rendering

 

local telecommunications services, except for local telecommunications services via coin-box telephones and multiple-access facilities

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

“Moscow City Telephone Network”

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027739285265

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7710016640

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

119017, Moscow, Bolshaya Ordynka St., 25, bld. 1

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until April 17, 2024.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated November 01, 2018 No. 754-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 3 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ A.A.   Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp   here

Official seal:

MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS COMMUNICATIONS

OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE

OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

AND MASS MEDIA

PSRN 1087746736296