alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Ethel McCloskey et al., as Trustees of a Trust for Minnie G. Ray.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 15, 1957.

*McLaughlin, Stickles, McKean & Hayden*for petitioners.

*James Wilson Young*for Buth Burdin, as executrix.

Arthur G. Klein, J.

This is a motion to judicially settle and allow the intermediate account of the trustees. In their petition the trustees seek also a construction of the provisions in the amendment of the trust indenture which added a new paragraph 17 to the trust deed. By this paragraph the trustees are directed to pay from the principal of the trust to the legal representative of the settlor’s estate the sums certified by such representative as the equitable proportion, chargeable to the trust, of any and all estate, transfer, inheritance or other similar taxes due as a result of the death of the grantor. The amendment in question clearly evidences the settlor’s intention that the trust be liable for the payment of its proportionate share of the estate taxes and such intention should be given effect. Such construction is accordingly adopted and the trustees are *655directed to pay over to the executrix from the principal such sum as shall be certified in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 17 as added to the trust deed. The account is allowed and settled as presented.

Settle order.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10827

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES DAVID DANIEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:92-CR-98

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant James David Daniel appeals the district

court’s revocation of his supervised release, which had been

imposed following his conviction of attempted possession of a

listed chemical with intent to manufacture a controlled substance.

Daniel contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the

district court did not give adequate reasons for sentencing him

above the advisory guidelines range. We need not decide the

appropriate standard of review for a sentence imposed on revocation

of supervised release in the wake of United States v. Booker, 543
2

U.S. 220 (2005), because Daniel has not shown that his sentence was

either unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. See United States v.

Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

1804 (2006). Although it is in excess of the recommended range,

Daniel’s sentence is within the statutory maximum sentence that the

district court could have imposed. Furthermore, a review of the

record demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant

sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707

(5th Cir. 2006). Daniel’s sentence was neither unreasonable nor

plainly unreasonable. 

AFFIRMED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5435 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lightweight digital camera lenses 

measuring approximately 55 mm or more but not over 200 mm. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lightweight digital camera lenses measuring approximately 55 mm or more but 

not over 200 mm. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIGHTWEIGHT DIGITAL CAMERA LENSES MEAS4 URING APPROXIMATELY 55 MM OR MORE BUT 

5 NOT OVER 200 MM. 

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 5435 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Lenses designed for digital 

cameras, the foregoing 

with a focal length measuring approximately 55 

mm or more but not over 

200 mm and weighing between 329 grams to 339 

grams (provided for in subheading 9002.11.90) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2014 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

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

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### GREATHOUSE v. STATE.

No. 26227.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1953.

*388No attorney on _ appeal, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for drunk driving, with punishment assessed at a fine of $100.

No statement of facts or bills of exception accompany the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### James F. ALEXANDER v. STATE.

No. 26101.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 15, 1952.

No attorney on appeal.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is embezzlement; the punishment, two years confinement in the penitentiary.

Accompanying the record is an affidavit in proper form, executed by appellant, requesting the dismissal of the appeal.

The request is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PATHMARK
STORES, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 33 WEEKS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 16, 2000 AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-16-2000
<CASH>                                          74,508
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,003)
<INVENTORY>                                    178,796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               366,145
<PP&E>                                         488,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,812,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          268,672
<BONDS>                                        448,139
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           301
<OTHER-SE>                                     666,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,812,808
<SALES>                                      2,348,186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,348,186
<CGS>                                        1,688,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,688,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (99,131)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (56,189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (88)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (56,277)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                331,928
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   275,651
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1900** 
In re: LEMOYNE VENEY, a/k/a Victor Demaris Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. (Nos. 1:11

- cr - 00691

- RDB

- 1; 1:14

- cv - 02324

- RDB)

Submitted : October 20, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.

Le m oyne Veney, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Le m oyne Veney petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would n ot aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2921 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the taxation of 

hard cider. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself and Mr. COLLINS of New York) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the taxation of hard cider. 

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 ‘‘Cider Industry De5 serves Equal Regulation Act’’ or the ‘‘CIDER Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF HARD CIDER DEFINITION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5041 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following new subsection: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2921 IH

1 ‘‘(g) HARD CIDER.—For purposes of this section, the 

2 term ‘hard cider’ means any wine— 

3 ‘‘(1) the carbonation level of which does not ex4 ceed 6.4 grams per liter, 

5 ‘‘(2) which is derived primarily from apples, 

6 apple juice concentrate and water, pears, or pear 

7 juice concentrate and water, 

8 ‘‘(3) which contains no fruit product or fruit 

9 flavoring other than apple or pear, and 

10 ‘‘(4) which contains at least one-half of 1 per11 cent and less than 8.5 percent alcohol by volume.’’. 

12 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (6) of 

13 section 5041(b) of such Code is amended by striking 

14 ‘‘which is a still wine’’ and all that follows through ‘‘alco15 hol by volume’’. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to wine removed after September 

18 30, 2014. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 15 

Superior Uniform Group, Inc. 

10055 SeminoleBlvd. 

Seminole, FL 33772 

We havereviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended March 31, 2010 and2009, as indicated in our report dated April 23, 2010; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 isincorporated by reference in Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 33-105906, effective June 6, 2003). 

We also are awarethat the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Tampa, Florida

April 23, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-272]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-172-0205A; FRL-6519-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision South Coast Air Quality Management 
District; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for a proposed rule 
published December 17, 1999 (64 FR 70652). On December 17, 1999, EPA 
proposed a disapproval of revisions to the California State 
Implementation Plan concerning federal recognition of variances in the 
South Coast Air Quality Management District. In response to requests 
from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the San Diego Air 
Pollution Control District, and the Regulatory Flexibility Group, EPA 
is extending the comment period for 14 days.

DATES: The comment period is extended until January 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to: Ginger Vagenas, Permits 
Office (AIR-3), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas at (415) 744-1252.

    Dated: December 21, 1999.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-272 Filed 1-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Louis Halle, Relator, against Harry T. Ashworth, as Warden of the Penitentiary of the City of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

January 13, 1944.

*Louis Halle,*relator in person.

*Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Stanley H. Fuld*and *Alan J. Elliot*of counsel), for respondent.

Behjamiu P. Schreiber, J.

This writ of habeas corpus tests whether a parolee, in this case under a life sentence, may be sentenced to an indeterminate term upon conviction of a misdemeanor (Correction Law, §§ 203, 204). It appears that, upon separate misdemeanor convictions, two consecutive indeterminate sentences may not simultaneously be imposed *(People ex rel. Gordon*v. *Ashworth,*290 N. Y. 285), and in consequence it has been held that a parolee under an indeterminate term may not be sentenced, upon another misdemeanor conviction, to another indeterminate term until the expiration of the first such term *(People ex rel. Bernard*v. *Ashworth,*43 N. Y. S. 2d 366).

In my opinion, however, it is clear that a parolee under a fixed term may, in such case, be sentenced to an indeterminate term as a matter of law *(People ex rel. Pellicano*v. *Ashworth,*265 App. Div. 853). Loss of civil rights (Penal Law, § 510) or civil death (Penal Law, § 511) cannot reasonably be said to preclude such sentence (cf. *Matter of Lindewall,*287 N. Y. 347; *Avery*v. *Everett,*110 N. Y. 317; *People*v. *Feolo,*284 N. Y. 381) and, under the authorities, the possibility of benefit by such sentence is to be conclusively presumed from the very sentence, however incongruous *(People*v. *Thompson,*251 N. Y. 428; *People ex rel. Standik*v. *Ashworth,*9 Misc 2d 444, affd. 266 App. Div. 775; *People ex rel. Pastore*v. *Ashworth,*9 Misc 2d 445).

Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos.333-20905, 333-20907, 333-32201, 333-32203, 333-40065, 333-63895, 333-72237, 333-91493, 333-50030,333-101961, 333-106124 and 333-106572) pertaining to various employee benefit plan filings and inthe Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-72643, 333-88794, 333-103347, 333-123486 and333-126547) of AmerUs Group Co. and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated February 17,2006 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of AmerUs Group Co.,AmerUs Group Co. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of AmerUs Group Co.,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.                                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLPDes Moines, Iowa
<PAGE>




                                                                   Exhibit 10.16

                               Cybershop.com, Inc.
                                116 Newark Avenue
                          Jersey City, New Jersey 07302




                                                          March 30, 2000


Mr. Jeffrey Leist
61 Lower Shad Road
Pound Ridge, New York 10576

                   Re:  Employment Term

Dear Jeff:

                   Reference is made to the Employment Agreement between you and
Cybershop.com, Inc. (formerly known as Cybershop International, Inc.) dated
February 7, 1999 (the "Employment Agreement"). The purpose of this letter is to
reflect our agreement modifying the terms of the Employment Agreement as
follows:

         1. Your services under the Employment Agreement will be terminated at
the close of business on April 11, 2000 (the "Termination Date").

         2. Salary payable under the Employment Agreement through the
Termination Date shall be paid on the same periodic basis as currently in
effect.

         3. Disclosure of your termination shall be made at a mutually agreeable
time but in any event no later than the Termination Date.

         4. After February 18, 2000 you shall not be required to be present at
our offices to perform services but you shall make yourself available as
requested to provide transition services, as required.

         5. Through the Termination Date you shall have full access to your
office and voice mail.

         6. No additional amounts shall be payable to you with respect to
vacation.

         7. Your use of the corporate apartment in Jersey City shall end on
February 18, 2000.

         8. Your health coverage under our group health plan will terminate on
the Termination Date. Thereafter, you will be provided an opportunity to
continue health coverage for yourself and qualifying dependents under our group
health plan in accordance with the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act ("COBRA"). From and after the Termination Date, you shall not be entitled to
receive any further compensation or monies from us or to receive any benefits or
participate in any benefit plan or program, including but not limited to, our
401(k) Plan.

         9. Attached to this letter is a General Release to be executed by you
as well.

                   As you know the decision to terminate the Employment
Agreement is based upon the change in the overall business direction of the
Company. Your services have been of tremendous value to the Company. Please


<PAGE>



accept my thanks for your services. Will you please indicate your acceptance of
the terms of this letter by signing in the space indicated below and returning a
signed copy along with a signed copy of the General Release.



                                                     Sincerely,



                                                     Jeffrey Tauber, President
                                                     Cybershop.com, Inc.


Agreed and Accepted as of this
14th day of February, 2000.



______________________________
Jeffrey Leist
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PATRICIA WISHER, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § No. 563, 2016 § § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1506021466 § § § Submitted: April 12, 2017 Decided: May 9, 2017 Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VAUGHN , and SEITZ , Justices. O R D E R This 9 th day of May 2017, upon considera tion of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State’s respon se, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) In November 2015, a New Castle C ounty grand jury indicted the appellant, Patricia Wisher, fo r Assault in the Second Degr ee. On October 31, 2016, Wisher pled guilty to the lesser included offe nse of Assault in the Third Degree. The Superior Court sentenced Wisher to one y ear of Level V incarceration. This is Wisher’s direct appeal. (2) On appeal, Wisher’s counsel (“Couns el”) filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a2 complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Counsel informed Wisher of th e provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Wisher with a copy of the motion to w ithdraw and the accompanying brief. (3) Counsel also informed Wisher of her right to identify any points she wished this Court to consider on appeal. Wisher has not raised any issues for this Court’s consideration. The State has re sponded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has moved to affirm the Superi or Court’s judgment. (4) When reviewing a motion to wit hdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be sa tisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record a nd the law for arguable claims; and (ii) conduct its own review of the record and de termine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable i ssues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation. 1 (5) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Wisher’s appeal is wholly without mer it and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly de termined that Wisher could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.

1 Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State , 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996).3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The mo tion to withdraw is moot.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
#### TUNNELL v. STATE.

No. 26759.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1954.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The' offense is unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $200.

Officers Hanks and Noble testified that on August 1, 1952, they- observed appellant driving an automobile on the streets of Tyler, Texas, in excess of the speed limit and followed him until he stopped his. automobile; that they found a pistol on the floor board of appellant’s automobile. ■

*777Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he lived in Kilgore, Texas, and that at the time of his arrest he had several hundred dollars in money and some valuable jewelry with him; “that he carried a pistol with him for protection and that he was traveling at the time the officers arrested him, being enroute from his place of business in Gregg County, Texas, to his mother’s home in Van Zandt County, Texas.”

■The issue raised by this testimony was determined against appellant’s contention by the jury. Hutspeth v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 254 S.W.2d 130.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ■ . .'

Opinion1 approved by the court