alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ORRIN D. KINNEY v. EMIL MUNCH and Others.1

August 4, 1911.

Nos. 17,118, 17,132—(202, 204).

Case followed.

Action of ejectment in the district court for Pine county, and to abate a dam- and stop the overflow of the premises, and for $2,440 damages. The ease was tried! before Wright, J., on the same evidence as that in Simons v. Munch, supra, page 360. From the judgment in favor of defendants, entered pursuant to the findings, and order for judgment, plaintiff and the allied interveners appealed. Reversed on-appeal of plaintiff and allied interveners.

Affirmed on appeal of intervener Taylor.

*537*J. W, Reynolds,*for appellants.

*Durment, Moore & Sanborn*and *J. N. Searles,*for respondents.

1

 Reported in 132 N. W. 326.

Per Curiam.

The’ decision in the case of Simons v. Munch, supra, page 360, 132 N. W. 321, controls this case.

Judgment reversed on appeal of plaintiff and allied interveners, and case remanded, with directions to the trial court to amend its conclusions of law in accordance with the opinion in the case of Simons v. Munch, and to order judgment accordingly.

Affirmed on appeal of intervener Taylor.

Lewis, J., absent, took no part.
EXHIBIT 12

SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY CONSOLIDATED Computation of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges(in thousands except ratio data

|                                            | Year Ended December 31, | TwelveMonthsEnded
|------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | -----------------
|
|Fixed Charges:                              |                        
|Interest on Long-term Debt                  |                         | $38,380          
|Interest on Short-term Debt                 |                         | 13,800           
|Distributions on Trust Preferred Securities |                         | 8,662            
|Interest Portion of Financing Leases        |                         | 335              
|Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals |                         | -                
|                                            |                         |                  
|Total Fixed Charges                         |                         | $61,177          
|                                            |                         |                  
|Earnings:                                   |                         |                  
|Net Income Before Extraordinary Item        |                        
|And Cumulative Effect of                    |                        
|Accounting Changes                          |                         | $86,205          
|Plus Federal Income Taxes                   |                         | 49,180           
|Plus State Income Taxes                     |                         | 6,162            
|Plus Provision for Deferred Income Taxes    |                         | (17,347          
|Plus Deferred Investment Tax Credits        |                         | (4,565           
|Plus Fixed Charges (as below)               |                         | 61,177           
|                                            |                         |                  
|Total Earnings                              |                         | $180,812         
|                                            |                         |                  
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges          |                         | 2.95             
|                                            |                         |                  
|                                            |                        

* Certain amounts have been reclassified between interest on short-term and long-term debt compared to periods prior to January 1, 2002. This reclassification had no effect on the ratio.

* Certain amounts have been reclassified between Distributions on Trust Preferred Securities and Interest on Long-term Debt due to the implementation of FIN 46R "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" effective March 31, 2004, on a prospective basis. This reclassification had no effect on this ratio.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          10,620
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  351,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     71,440
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               601,086
<PP&E>                                       8,457,665
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,818,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,108,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,327,190
<BONDS>                                      1,100,591
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       111,388
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,231,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,108,495
<SALES>                                      2,505,024
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,908,772
<CGS>                                        2,142,088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,260,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,314,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (849,801)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (304,039)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (545,762)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (545,762)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (4.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (4.96)
        

</TABLE>
1

Filed 9/11/24 P. v. C.G. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.G.,

Defendant and Appellant. E082795

(Super.Ct.No. FELSB23000071)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kawika Smith,

Judge. Dismissed.

Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.2 INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant C.G

. was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code 1 , § 211 ) and

was sentenced to prison

. T he Board of Prison Terms (BPT) determined that s he met the

criteria for being committed as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) and required her to

accept treatment as a condition of parole

. Defendant filed a petition pursuant to section

2966 challenging the BPT’s determination that she be committed. The court found

defendant met the criteria of an MDO and ordered her to remain committed to the State

Department of Mental Health and continue receiving treatment.

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders )

, setting

forth a statement of the case and a statement of the facts , and advising that he has found

no arguable issues

. Counsel argues that due process requires this court to undertake an

independent review of the appellate record to determine whether this appeal presents any

arguable issues. (

Anders

, supra , 386 U.S. 738; Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) {AOB 8,

37

- 42} However, we have no obligation to independently review the record for error.

( People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 312

- 314 ( Taylor ) [ Wende and Anders

procedures do not apply in appeals from orders committing MDO’s]; see , People v.

Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4 th 1226, 1236

- 1237; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40

Cal.4th 529, 543

- 544 ( Ben C. ) [ Wende procedures do not apply to

Lanterman

- Petris

- Short Act conservatorship proceeding].)

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise

indicated.3

We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. She has

not filed one. Defendant asks us to exercise our discretion to retain the appeal

( S ee Ben C.

, supra , 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 7), yet s he offers no legitimate reason for us

to do so. Under the circumstances, we shall dismiss the appeal

. ( Taylor

, supra

, 160

Cal.App.4 th at pp. 313

- 314.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORT

FIELDS

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

McKINSTER

J.
#### Ex parte MEEKS et al.

No. 24731.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1950.

Fryer & Milstead, El Paso, for appellant.

William E. Clayton, District Attorney, El Paso, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Relators were both charged with the unlawful killing of one, Enrique Tercero, a carpenter; and upon the hearing and granting of a writ of habeas corpus before the late lamented Judge W. D. Howe, they were both refused bail and were remanded to the custody of the sheriff.

The facts presented by the State show that these men, after some kind of a difficulty with some Mexicans at a town called Dell City in Hudspeth County, each relator being armed, one with a pistol and one with a shotgun, entered the tent house in which the deceased and his wife were living on a ranch about a mile from such town. Several shots were fired by them, and the body of the deceased was soon found with two fatal wounds thereon, one from a bullet and another from a shotgun, either wound being fatal.

No testimony was offered by the rela-tors.

We think the testimony here shown justified the careful trial judge in refusing bail.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5005 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5005

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,6-Dichloroaniline.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

Mr. Burton of Indiana (for himself and Mr. Young of Indiana) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,6-Dichloroaniline.

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

SECTION 1. 2,6-DICHLOROANILINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.29.17 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2,6-Dichloroaniline) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (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>
```
#### Joseph J. Wilson et al., Respondents-Appellants, v International Harvester Company, Inc., Appellant, Saulsbury Fire Equipment Company, Inc., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, Glen and Dave’s Automotive, Inc., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendant. Village of Cleveland Volunteer Fire Department, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Hurlbutt, J. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Hurlbutt, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59257-59258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25489]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Research and Development Cooperative Studies Evaluation 
Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 
92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) as amended, by section 5(C) of 
Public Law 94-409, that a meeting of the Research and Development 
Cooperative Studies Evaluation Committee will be held at The Madison 
Hotel, 15th & M Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, October 11-12, 2000. 
This session is scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. The 
meeting will be for the purpose of reviewing the following three new 
proposals: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Cognitive-Behavioral 
Treatment for PTSD in Women Veterans, Heart Failure in Patients with 
Preserved Systolic Function, and Tri-National Study--Optimal Management 
of Patients with HIV Infection of Whom 1st and 2nd Line Highly Active 
Anti-Retroviral Therapy Has Failed (OPTIMA).
    The Committee advises the Chief Research and Development Officer

[[Page 59258]]

through the Director of the Cooperative Studies Program on the 
relevance and feasibility of the studies, the adequacy of the 
protocols, and the scientific validity and propriety of technical 
details, including protection of human subjects.
    The meeting will be open to the public from 7:30 a.m. to 8 a.m. to 
discuss the general status of the program. Those who plan to attend 
should contact Ms. Carla DeSpain, Coordinator, Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Washington, DC, at (202) 273-8274.
    The meeting will be closed from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. This portion of 
the meeting involves consideration of specific proposals in accordance 
with provisions set forth in 10(d) of Public Law 92.463, as amended by 
sections 5(C) of Public Law 94-409, and 5 U.S.C. 552b(C)(6). During the 
closed session of the meeting, discussions and recommendations will 
deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, staff and 
consultant critiques of research proposals, and similar documents, and 
the medical records of patients who are study subjects, the disclosures 
of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 
privacy.

    Dated: September 28, 2000.

    By Direction of the Acting Secretary.
Marvin R. Eason,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-25489 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
EE-RM-TP-99-500 COMMENT 28C

I 

#~C 

Having published on December 18, 2002, a final rule for dishwashers to improve the reliability 

of testing, change the definition of compact and standard models, and reduce the number of use 

cycles per year to 264, the Department of Energy is now working to develop a new test procedure 

for soil-sensing dishwashers. We received on December 12,2001, a report from Arthur D. Little 

evaluating available survey data on consumer dishwasher use. Based on that report, we are 

considering the following elements as part of a new test procedure proposal. It is anticipated that 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, based on a soiled test method, will be published this spring. 

1. For conventional dishwashers, to maintain the current clean load test method. 

2. For soil-sensing dishwashers, to develop a soil-based test to approximate the varied soil 

loads that consumers run. Requiring that, 

• the energy consumption be measured for three soil tests of decreasing soil level to 

represent "heavy", "medium", and "light" soil loads, where the level of soil is 

determined from data on consumer dishwasher use and the method of soiling is 

based on the AHAM test method. (e.g., simulating a "light" soil load with one 

AHAM soiled place setting plus seven clean place-settings and 6 clean serving 

pieces) 

• the overall energy consumption value for the dishwasher be obtained by means of 

a weighted average of the three test values, based on the percentage of time 

consumers run "heavy", "medium", and "light" soil loads. 

the Estimated Annual Operating Cost be obtained in the same method as 

conventional dishwashers 

• both current and future soil-sensing models be tested using the soil-based test 

procedure. 

3. For all dishwashers, to revise the estimated annual dishwasher use based on more recent 

survey results. 

4. For all dishwashers, to require the measurement of the stand-by power and incorporate 

this form of energy consumption into the annual energy use, rather than measuring and 

reporting stand-by power as a separate value.
Placeholder: confidential business information item

CBI Memo from ICF International on 1-10-12

For more information please contact Da vid Donaldson by phone at 202-343-9086 or by email at donaldson.david@epa.gov

.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officer of Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. ("Enbridge Management"), hereby certifies that the Enbridge
Management's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and that information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Enbridge Management.

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 Enbridge Management and will be retained by Enbridge Management and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:
February 21, 2008

|/s/STEPHEN J.J. LETWINStephen J. J. Letwin Managing
Director
(Principal Executive Officer) |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### Ex parte RYTER.

No. 25709.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is an application for the writ of habeas corpus by which relator seeks his discharge from the penitentiary.

*265When the application for the writ was presented to the judges of this court, it appeared from the allegations contained’ therein that relator had been permitted to plead guilty before the court and waive trial by jury in a capital case without the benefit of counsel. Upon those allegations we granted the application to file, and directed that certified copies of the indictments, judgments, and sentences in the cases referred to be obtained and filed herein— which has been done.

It now appears from said documents that the plea of guilty and waiver were entered in an ordinary felony case, and that relator was represented upon the trial by counsel.

The allegations of the application not being supported by the facts, the writ of ha-beas corpus is refused.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### FLINT v. STATE.

No. 26927.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Possession and transportation of whisky and beer for the purpose of sale in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $500 and thirty days in jail.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
1

King, Melanie

From: Higgins, Cortney <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:35 PM

To: King, Melanie

Cc: Wayland, Robertj; Culligan, Kevin; Adams, Darryl; Elman, Barry; Balserak, Paul

Subject: Concluded Review of RIN 2060-AR33

Hi Melanie,

We have concluded review of RIN 2060‐AR33, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources:

EGUs in Indian Country and U.S. Territories.

It was nice working with you again.

Regards,

Cortney
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5164 

To suspend temporarily the duty on nonenumerated footwear with textile 

uppers for women, other than house slippers, valued $13/pair or higher. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mrs. MALONEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on nonenumerated footwear 

with textile uppers for women, other than house slippers, 

valued $13/pair or higher. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NONENUMERATED FOOTWEAR WITH TEXTILE 

4 UPPERS FOR WOMEN, OTHER THAN HOUSE 

5 SLIPPERS, VALUED $13/PAIR OR HIGHER. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5164 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Nonenumerated footwear 

with textile uppers for 

women, other than house 

slippers, valued $13/pair or 

higher (provided for in 

subheading 6405.20.90) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS