alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20570 Summary Calendar

__________________ KENNETH B. COTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.; SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.; BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD; HOUSTON BELT & TERMINAL RAILWAY CO., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-94-4268
- - - - - - - - - - February 5, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kenneth B. Cotton appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, and the defendant railroad companies. Cotton's attempted arguments fail to challenge the district court's order. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). In light of the well-reasoned memorandum opinion by the districtNo. 95-20570 -2- court, see Cotton v. Metropolitan Transit Auth. , No. H-94-4268 (S.D. Tex. June 20, 1995), we AFFIRM.
#### JOHN N. DAVIS v. DRURY MORGAN.

An endorsement in blank by the payee of a note, is presumed to have been intended as a transfer thereof; but this presumption may be rebutted, *ex. gr.,*by parol proof that it was intended to show a receipt of the money, from an agent of the maker.

*(Runyon*v. *Clark,*4 Jon. 52, approved.)

Civil action, tried before Buxton, .7., at Spring Term 1870, of Union Court.

*571The plaintiff brought the action upon an endorsement on a note, made by the defendant in blank, and filled up as payable to the plaintiff, previously to the trial. The defendant introduced parol evidence, going to show that when the plaintiff paid to the defendant the money due upon the note, he did so in behalf of its *maker,*to take it up for him, and not as a purchaser, and that the endorsement was understood by the parties not to bind the defendant for its payment.

His Honor left it to the jury to find what the understanding of the parties was, when the endorsement was made,, telling them, if the latter was meant only as a receipt, to find for the defendant.

Yerdict for the defendant; Eule, &c.; Judgment, and Appeal.

*Doted,*for the appellant.

*Battle & Sons, contra.*

Eea'de, J.

It was submitted to the jury, as a question of fact, whether the plaintiff paid off the note as the agent of the maker, and for him, or whether he purchased it for himself, and took the endorsement of the defendant as a transfer for value; and the jury found for the defendant. The question for our consideration is, whether that was a question for the jury, or, whether the legal effect of the endorsement was not to transfer the note, with the defendant’s liability, to the plaintiff.

. Unexplained, the legal effect of the endorsement was to transfer the note, with the defendant’s liability, to the plaintiff, but the endorsement was subject to explanation, and parol evidence was competent to *explain*it. If the note had been paid off by the maker, the endorsement would have amounted only to a receipt for the money, and the note *572would liave been without vitality for any purpose. It is tbe same if paid off by the agent of the maker, and parol evidence was competent to prove the agency: *Runyon*v. *Clark,*4 Jon. 52.

There is no error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
Motion Granted and Order filed November 19, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00360

- CR

____________ ANTHONY D

. ALFORD , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1386895



### ORDER
The State filed a motion to seal or strike appellant’s brief because it discloses the name of a child victim of family violence under the age of 17. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 57B.02( h). The motion to strike is GRANTED. Accordingly, appellant is ordered to file a brief that does not contain the name of a child victim of family violence under the age of 17.
Appellant’s brief is due within 10 days of the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
#### State, Plaintiff, vs. Peck, Defendant.

*January 10*

April *18, 1941.*

*597For the plaintiff there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *William A. Plats,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Plats.*

For the defendant there was a brief by *Henry J. Lockney,*and oral argument by *J. K. Lowry,*both of Waukesha.

Per Curiam.

The questions certified for answer by the municipal court in this case involved the question whether sec. 101.40, Stats., was constitutional and valid. Mr. Justice Fowler, Mr. Justice Fritz, Mr. Justice Fairchild, and Mr. Justice Martin are of the view that sec. 101.40 is unconstitutional and void. Mr. Chief Justice Rosenberry and Mr. Justice Martin are of the view that sec. 101.40 is unconstitutional and valid. Since prior to the preparation of a formal opinion in the matter it has come to the attention of the court that the legislature has repealed sec. 101.40, it is considered unnecessary and inadvisable to give an extended statement of the conflicting views of the court concerning the validity of this law.

Each question certified by the court is answered “No.” The record is remanded to the municipal court.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 22, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request To Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 510 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-127, K2025-125.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25263 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              955419
<SECURITIES>                                          7125
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    962544
<PP&E>                                              245313
<DEPRECIATION>                                       26457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1323989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               211075
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             20493
<OTHER-SE>                                         1064034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1323989
<SALES>                                              11167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     11167
<CGS>                                                  999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       909148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (2869)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (882681)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (882681)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (882681)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.04)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 610 Referred in House (RFH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 610

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 6, 2000

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land under 
 the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management in Washakie County 
  and Big Horn County, Wyoming, to the Westside Irrigation District, 
                    Wyoming, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE.

    (a) In General.--On completion of an environmental analysis under 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the 
Bureau of Land Management (referred to in this Act as the 
``Secretary''), shall convey to the Westside Irrigation District, 
Wyoming (referred to in this Act as ``Westside''), all right, title, 
and interest (excluding the mineral interest) of the United States in 
and to such portions of the Federal land in Big Horn County and 
Washakie County, Wyoming, described in subsection (c), as the district 
enters into an agreement with the Secretary to purchase.
    (b) Price.--The price of the land conveyed under subsection (a) 
shall be equal to the appraised value of the land, as determined by the 
Secretary.
    (c) Land Description.--
            (1) In general.--The land referred to in subsection (a) is 
        the approximately 16,500 acres of land in Big Horn County and 
        Washakie County, Wyoming, as depicted on the map entitled 
        ``Westside Project'' and dated May 9, 2000.
            (2) Adjustment.--On agreement of the Secretary and 
        Westside, acreage may be added to or subtracted from the land 
        to be conveyed as necessary to satisfy any mitigation 
        requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
        1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
    (d) Use of Proceeds.--Proceeds of the sale of land under subsection 
(a) shall be deposited in a special account in the Treasury of the 
United States and shall be available to the Secretary of the Interior, 
without further Act of appropriation, for the acquisition of land and 
interests in land in the Worland District of the Bureau of Land 
Management in the State of Wyoming that will benefit public recreation, 
public access, fish and wildlife habitat, or cultural resources.

            Passed the Senate July 27, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR THURSDAY,

                            OCTOBER 2, 2008

        (Committee meetings are open unless otherwise indicated)

                                 Senate

  No meetings/hearings scheduled.

                                 House

  No committee meetings are scheduled.
```
----

                                                                                                                                                                **Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT FROM INDEPENDENT REIGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated March 25, 2008 included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Envirokare Tech, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as the same may be amended from time to time, into the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed on March 8, 2000 (File No. 333-31966) and the Company's Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed on September 27, 2000 (File No. 333-31966).

/s/ PMB Helin Donovan    PMB Helin Donovan*Certified Public Accountants*    San Francisco, CA    March 28, 2008
Exhibit 99.4











March 28, 2018








Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm








We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual
Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2017 of Denison
Mines Corp. of our report dated March 8, 2018, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, which is filed as an Exhibit to,
and incorporated by reference in, this Annual Report.





We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-48174, No. 333-148915
and No. 333-190121) of Denison Mines Corp. of our report dated
March 8, 2018 referred to above. We also consent to the reference
to us under the heading “Interests of Experts,” which
appears in the Annual Information Form included in the Exhibit
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F, which
is incorporated by reference in such Registration
Statements.











(Signed)
"PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP"





Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public
Accountants


Toronto,
Ontario, Canada














PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 PwC Tower, 18 York Street, Suite 2600, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J
0B2
 T: +1 416 863 1133, F: +1 416 365 8215, www.pwc.com/ca
 
 “PwC”
refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability
partnership.
#### HUGH J. LOVIC v. THE PROVIDENCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.

*Appeal*— Record.

Where there is no statement of case on appeal, or assignment of error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Civil ACTION, tried at February Term, 1891, of CraveN Superior Court, before *Connor, J.*

*Mr. O. H. Quion,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. M. I)eW. Stevenson,*for defendant.

Davis, J.:

There is no statement of the case on appeal, and no exceptions or assignment of- error appear in the *303record, nor is there anything in the voluminous transcript sent to this Court to show that either party was dissatisfied with anything that occurred in the progress of the trial, or that any appeal was taken, except the following entry at the close of the judgment: “ From the foregoing judgment the plaintiff and defendant appeal; notice waived; bond fixed at $25;” and, “it is agreed that either party have until May 1st, 1891, to file case on appeal and perfect appeal. April 4th, 1891.” This agreement is signed by counsel for both sides. Only one transcript is sent up, and there is nothing to indicate whether it is the appeal of the plaintiff or defendant, •except the Clerk’s certificate of deposit of $25 in cash made by the defendant in lieu of an appeal bond. No appeal has been perfected as required by *The Code,*or in accordance with the agreement of the parties, and the judgment must be affirmed. *Mitchell*v. *Tedder,*108 N. C., 266; *State*v. *Henry,*104 N. C., 914.

•Affirmed.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  LODGIAN, INC.By:
    /s/ PETER T. CYRUSPETER T. CYRUSInterim President and Chief Executive Officer By:

/s/ JAMES A. MacLENNANJAMES A. MacLENNANExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE COFFEE
PEOPLE, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             2,597
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        377
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                          565
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   3,914
<PP&E>                                            12,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                     5,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    16,802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              4,632
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          14,574
<OTHER-SE>                                          (308)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      16,802
<SALES>                                            5,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   5,626
<CGS>                                              2,773
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      2,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2,981
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (225)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (225)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (225)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.07)

        

</TABLE>
#### The Iowa Central Building & Loan Association v. The Merchants & Bankers Fire Insurance Co., Appellant.

.Insurance: . payment of loss: waxyer: rights of mortgagee. The assured cannot waive the effect of an arbitration of a losa under a policy of insurance whereby the company elects to pay the loss rather than replace the property, so as to bind a mortgagee to whom the- loss was payable.

*Appeal from Polk District Court.*— Hon. Chas. A. Bishop, Judge.

Wednesday, May 20, 1903.

Action on insurance policy. The defendant appeals.

*—AMrmed.*

*Bead c& Bead*for appellant.

*Maxwell <& Maxwell*for appellee.

Ladd, J.

On the- former appeal it was held that a demand for an appraisement of damages occasioned by the fire was under the terms.of the policy an election to make payment in money, rather than to rebuild. As that conclusion is irrevocable in this case, and has -since been - imbedded in legislative enactment, reargument by appellant’s counsel seems not only entirely useless, but of doubtful propriety. The original answer averred that “a disagreement occurred as to the value of the property alleged to have been destroyed, and as to the amouht of the loss and *531damages; and this defendant, under the terms and provisons of said policy, requested that said matter should be submitted to arbitration in the manner provided for by said policy,” and that thereupon appraisers were selected. When the cause was remanded an amendment thereto was filed, in which a separate written agreement of Elliott and defendant to arbitrate was set up, containing this stipulation : “It is expressly understood that this agreement and appraisement is for the purpose of ascertaining and fixing the amount of said loss and damage only to the property hereinafter described, and shall not determine, waive, or invalidate any other right or rights of either party to this agreement. ” Appellant contends this obviated the waiver of the right to rebuild, resulting from the insurer’s demand for an appraisement. Perhaps this is so as to Elliott. The entire loss, however, was payable to the Iowa Central Building Association, as mortgagee; and, regardless of what the assured might do under the provisions of- the policy, he was not authorized, after the company had elected to make payment in money, to bind the mortgagee by an agreement relieving the insurer from such obligation. The liability of the company had attached, and the entire controversy related not to the essence of, but the performance of, its contract. At the outset.it was bound to satisfy the loss in one of two ways; that is, by payment or replacing the property. It chose the former, and thereupon the mortgagee immediately acquired the right to-such payment. This it has never abandoned. While the policy may have authorized the assured to arbitrate the extent of the loss, it nowhere conferred on him the power fco surrender any of the rights acquired by the mortgagee-in the course of the adjustment. — AeíTRMED. -

Bishop, 0 J., took no part.