alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### POLLY BIRD v. A. M. CRUSE.

*Deed*— Construction *of Reservation in Deed.*

A widow convoyed the portion of a tract of land allotted to hev.as dower by a deed purporting .to be in fee-simple; the guardian of the heir, 1 having procured an order of Court for the purpose, sold and executed a deed to the purchaser for the entire tract, embracing the dower portion, but with a reservation as follows: “Reserving the right of dower of the widow, etc., which has heretofore been sold and conveyed”: *Held,*that the reservation in the deed by the guardian of the doner right “already conveyed” was a reservation only of what interest the widow had legally conveyed and was not a reservation of the fee-simple in the dower portion.

Civil actiox for the recovery of land, tried before *¡VhitaJcer J.,*at November Term, 1893, of Rowax Superior Court, ou a case agreed, the material facts of which appear in the opinion of Associate -Justice Clark. There was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

*Messi's. Lee 8. Overman*and *T. F. Kluttz,*for plaintiff (appellant).

No counsel *contra.*

Clark, -J.:

In 1829 John Bird died seized and possessed of a 200-acre tract of land. Dower therein, consisting of 664 acres, was allotted to his widow. On October 8, 1831, she conveyed the 66-1- acres to Michael Corl in fee. The guardian of Polly Bird, the only child and heir at law of John Bird, having procured an order of Court to sell the land descended to ¿ns ward, and having sold the same publicly, executed title on August 22,1832, to said Michael Corl. This deed embraced the whole 200 acres left by John Bird, with a reservation as follows: “Reserving the right of dower *436of the widow of the late John Bird, which has heretofore been sold and conveyed to said Michael Corl.” The plaintiff, Polly Bird, contends that by virtue of this reservation the reversion in the 66-|- acres of dower was not conveyed, and she now sues for the same, the widow having died in 1889. Unfortunately for the plaintiff the deed executed by her guardian, by order of the Court upon a sale of the land descended to her, embraced in its boundaries the whole 200 acres, including the dower. Michael Corl had bought of the widow her dower right, and he bought of the guardian under sale by order of Court the infant’s interest in the whole tract subject to the dower. It is true the widow’s deed for the 66§ acres purported to convey a fee-simple therein, but she could legally convey only her life estate. The reservation in the deed by the guardian of the dower right “already convejied” was a reservation only of what interest the widow had legally conveyed, and was not a reservation from the guardian’s conveyance of the fee-simple in the 66J acres. Affirmed.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 67

AN ACT

To designate the headquarters building of the Department

of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Robert C. Weaver Federal

Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 67 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT C. WEAVER FED2 ERAL BUILDING.

3 In honor of the first Secretary of Housing and Urban

4 Development, the headquarters building of the Depart5 ment of Housing and Urban Development located at 451

6 Seventh Street, SW., in Washington, District of Columbia,

7 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert C. Weaver

8 Federal Building’’.

9 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

10 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

11 paper, or other record of the United States to the building

12 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

13 to the ‘‘Robert C. Weaver Federal Building’’.

Passed the Senate March 23, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 67

AN ACT

To designate the headquarters building of the Deert C. Weaver Federal Building’’. Washington, District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Rob- partment of Housing and Urban Development in
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 168 (Thursday, October 23, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 Senate

Thursday, October 23, 2008

(Legislative day of Wednesday, September 17, 2008)

  The Senate met at 2 and 18 seconds p.m., on the expiration of the 
recess, and was called to order by the Honorable Christopher J. Dodd, a 
Senator from the State of Connecticut.

                          ____________________
```
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

February 12, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00978-CV

TOMAS VILLEGAS, Appellant

V.

DENISE LONG, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1024891

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 8, 2014. On January 5, 

2015, appellant informed this court the parties have reached a settlement 

agreement and appellant no longer desires to pursue an appeal. We construe 

appellant’s notification as a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted. 
2

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby and Brown.
###                                 EXHIBIT 23

```

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-3713, 33-39720, 33-51651, 33-58905, 333-55687 and 333-55282 of Airborne,
Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our report dated February 9, 2001,
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Airborne,
Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2000.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 29, 2000
```
#### Landmann and another, Respondents, vs. Milwaukee Automobile Insurance Company, Limited, Mutual, Appellant.

For the appellant: *D. J. Regan*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents : *David Besnor*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
S. 869

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

For the relief of Mina Vahedi Notash.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MINA VAHEDI

NOTASH.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of

section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mina Vahedi

Notash shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for

adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for

permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of

an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment

of status to lawful permanent resident.

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Mina Vahedi Notash enters

the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection

(c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and remained

lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment

of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance

of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status

is filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of

the enactment of this Act.
S. 869—2

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—Upon the

granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Mina

Vahedi Notash, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper

officer to reduce by 1, during the current or next following fiscal

year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available

to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total

number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives

of the country of the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such

Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Wm. Stommel, Appellant.

.Appeal: record : tb.ansce.ipt: evidence.

*Appeal from Mahaska District Court.*— Hon. J K. Johnson, Judge.

Friday, May 27, 1892.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of nuisance committed by keeping for sale and selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law. From the judgment rendered on the verdict, he *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*Liston McMillan,*for appellant.

*Byron W. Preston,*County Attorney, for the state.

Per Curiam.

This cause is submitted on transcripts of the record which do not show the evidence submitted on the trial, nor the charge of the court. It does not appear that the defendant objected to anything done on the trial, and there is nothing to show what he relies upon for a reversal or modification of the judgment. We have read the transcript submitted with care, but have discovered no error in the proceedings or judgment of which defendant can complain. The judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

January 22, 2016 

# Order

January 22, 2016

151679 ( 25 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

JAMES RODNEY PERNA

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. SC: 151679

COA: 325132

Crawford CC: 2013

- 003572

- FH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the Court

ordered time for filing an answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED.

The answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitt ed on or before January 25, 2016.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          30,221
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         325,711
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           188,360
<LOANS>                                        191,956
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 752,798
<DEPOSITS>                                     575,509
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,930
<LONG-TERM>                                     37,912
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 752,798
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,708
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,358
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,066
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,722
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,291
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,775
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       10
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,377
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,553
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.16
<LOANS-NON>                                        692
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,024
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,034
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,034
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 803

To make the International Olympic Committee subject to the Foreign Corrupt

Practices Act of 1977, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 14, 1999

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs

A BILL

To make the International Olympic Committee subject to

the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, 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. AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN CORRUPT PRAC4 TICES ACT.

5 Section 104(h)(2)(B) of the Foreign Corrupt Prac6 tices Act of 1977 (15 U.S.C. 78dd–2(h)(2)(B)) is

7 amended—

8 (1) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as

9 clauses (ii) and (iii), respectively; and
2

•S 803 IS

1 (2) by inserting before clause (ii), as redesig2 nated, the following:

3 ‘‘(i) the International Olympic Com4 mittee;’’.

5 SEC. 2. CERTAIN PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES NOT AVAIL6 ABLE.

7 Section 2 of the International Organizations Immuni8 ties Act (22 U.S.C. 288a) is amended—

9 (1) by inserting after ‘‘International organiza10 tions’’ in subdivision (b) the following: ‘‘(other than

11 the International Olympic Committee)’’;

12 (2) by inserting after ‘‘organizations’’ each

13 place it appears in subdivisions (c) and (d) the fol14 lowing: ‘‘(other than the International Olympic Com15 mittee)’’.

16 SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

17 The Congress finds that currently the International

18 Olympic Committee embargoes the minutes of its general

19 session meetings for 10 years and its executive session

20 meetings for 20 years. It is the sense of the Congress that

21 the Internationl Olympic Committee should make every

22 effort—

23 (1) to open its meetings; and
3

•S 803 IS

1 (2) to release the minutes of its meetings in a

2 timely fashion.

Æ
Exhibit 23.1
    Registration Number
    
    Date Filed333-55864
    
    February 20, 2001333-82642
    
    February 21, 2002333-113218
    
    March 15, 2004
  Name
    
    Registration Number
    
    
    Date FiledAmended Directors Stock Plan
    
    
    333-74145
    
    
    March 9, 19991999 Stock Option Plan
    
    
    333-74145
    
    
    March 9, 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan
    
    
    333-39832
    
    
    June 22, 20002001 Stock Option Plan
    
    
    333-67238
    
    
    August 10, 20012002 Non-Executive Stock Incentive Plan
    
    
    333-103538
    
    
    February 28, 20032004 Stock Incentive Plan
    
    
    333-117774
    
    
    July 30, 2004Deferred Compensation Plan
    
    
    333-138685
    
    
    November 14, 20062004 Stock Incentive Plan
    
    
    333-150744
    
    
    May 8, 2008
Exhibit 99G

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference, in the Registration Statement (Form F-10/A No. 333-120043), of our report
dated February 24, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited as at December 31, 2003 and 2002, and for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2003, included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F/A) for 2003 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

|Toronto, Canada
January 14, 2005 |  | (signed) Ernst & Young LLPChartered Accountants
|-------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 672 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 672

  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend the higher 
  Federal medical assistance percentage for payment for Indian Health 
 service facilities to urban Indian health programs under the Medicaid 
                                Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 19, 1999

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend the higher 
  Federal medical assistance percentage for payment for Indian Health 
 service facilities to urban Indian health programs under the Medicaid 
                                Program.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENDING HIGHER MEDICAID FMAP FOR PAYMENT FOR URBAN INDIAN 
              HEALTH PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--The third sentence of section 1905(b) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or program'' after ``Indian Health 
        Service facility'';
            (2) by striking ``or'' and inserting a comma; and
            (3) by inserting ``, or by an urban Indian health program'' 
        before the period.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
medical assistance for items and services furnished on or after October 
1, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
Argued and submitted June 29,

reversed and remanded July 20, 1983

#### PADDACK et al, *Appellants, v.*McDONALD, dba Jess E. McDonald, Jr., Contractor, *Respondent.*

(223493; CA A24973)

666 P2d 299

David S. Pauli, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Thomas J. Barnett and Bailey & Pauli, Portland.

Douglas A. Harrison, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were William J. Howe, III and Howe & Harris, Portland.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*6PER CURIAM.

The parties agree that the issue presented on appeal was decided by the United States Supreme Court on April 27, 1983, in *Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd,*461 US 260, 103 Sup Ct 1753, 75 L Ed 2d 830 (1983), and that the case must be reversed and remanded for trial.

Reversed and remanded.
#### GEORGE W. LOGAN v. J. C. L. HARRIS.

*Appeal*— Judgment *of Record.*

An appeal will be dismissed where the transcript fails to show a judgment of record from which the same was taken.

*(Davis*v. *Shaver,*Phil., 18; *Jones*v. *Cali,*89 N. C., 188, cited and approved).

Civil Actiom tried at Spring Term, L882, of Rutherford Superior Court, before *Gudger, J.*

The defendant appealed.

*Messrs. Hoke & Hoke-,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. W. S. Mason*and *Hinsdale & Devereux,*for defendant.

MerrimON, J.

The original process and the pleadings appear in the record. It likewise appears that sundry issues were submitted to a jury, and a verdict was duly rendered upon them; that thereupon the defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was denied by the court, and he then moved in arrest of judgment, which motion was also denied; and the defendant took an appeal to this court. No judgment, nor any minute or memorandum of a judgment, appears in the record.

An appeal can be taken in a case like the present one only from a judgment, in the cases allowed by Ti-ie Code, §548, *entered of record.*The entry of a judgment on the record is essential to its completeness and efficiency. It is this that gives it life and certainty, and perpetuates it as an established memorial. It is'not sufficient' that the court had taken its resolution as to what judgment it would enter — this is only in the mind of the judge. To make his purpose a judgment, it must be entered of record, and until this shall be done, there is nothing to appeal from.

*8This court has gone very far in supporting imperfect entries of judgment, but it has always held that thei’e must, at least, be some memorandum or minute from which it can be seen what was intended by the court. If there is an entry implying, with reasonable certainty, enough from which the judgment can be drawn out in proper form, this will be upheld as sufficient. *Davis v. Shaver,*Phil., 18. But this court cannot infer or conjecture that a judgment was given by the court below. It acts upon the record, and what is in and of it — not what the court making it intended to put upon it, but through inadvertence or neglect, failed to do so.

It is probable that, in this case, the court intended to enter a judgment, and the parties and their counsel so understood, but what judgment, does not appear; nor is there any minute from which we can ascertain what it was intended to be. It is said in the case upon appeal there was “judgment,” but none appears in the record proper.

This is only another illustration of the loose and careless practice too generally tolerated, and if the plaintiff suffers from it, he can justly complain only at himself and his counsel.

The appeal was improvidently taken. There was no judgment to appeal from. It will be sufficient for the defendant to appeal when a judgment shall be entered of record,-if he shall be so advised.

This court must see that cases come to it according to law, in order that it may get jurisdiction, and as well with the view to uphold a whplesome practice. *Jones*v. *Call,*89 N. C., 188.

The appeal must be dismissed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.