alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted July 20,

affirmed August 29, 1990

#### Leslie D. MORRIS, *Appellant, v.*FRED MEYER, INC., *Respondent.*

(88-3560; CA A61997)

795 P2d 1115

Ivan J. Vesely, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Deborah L. Sather, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Cooney, Moscato & Crew, P.C., Portland.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*237PER CURIAM

Plaintiff brought this action for damages resulting from a fall at defendant’s store. At trial, defendant introduced medical testimony to the effect that plaintiffs symptoms were feigned. On rebuttal, plaintiff sought to introduce testimony of a psychiatrist who had examined him. The trial court excluded the psychiatrist’s testimony pursuant to ORCP 44D(2), because plaintiff had failed to respond timely to defendant’s request for production of a report “from any psychologist or psychiatrist who has seen or treated Plaintiff.” Plaintiff appeals from the judgment for defendant, entered on a jury verdict, and assigns error to the exclusion of the evidence. He presents no reason that comes close to demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion. *See Barry v. Don Hall Laboratories,*56 Or App 518, 642 P2d 685 (1982).

Affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RONALD A. BAKER
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3989

[ July 12, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael A. Usan

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12

- 5496 CF10A

.

Ronald A. Baker, Indiantown, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Ronald Baker challenges the trial court’s partial denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part for resentencing on five counts.

Baker was sentenced on more than twenty

- five counts associated with various sexually

- based offenses. The trial court imposed four life sentences and terms of years on the other counts.

Through his rule 3.800(a) motion, Baker argued the sentencing scoresheet erroneously included victim injury points and that other terms were illegal. In responding to Baker’s motion in the trial court, the State agreed that resentencing was required with a corrected scoresheet to eliminate victim injury points. The S tate cautioned Baker that resentencing with a corrected scoresheet could result in a lengthier term on one of the challenged counts, and the same life sentences on the other

counts. State v. Jimenez , 173 So. 3d 1020, 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).2 The trial court partially granted the motion and summarily resentenced

Baker before it received a corrected scoresheet from the state. The court increased a term on one count and reimposed the life term s. Baker was neither present nor represented by counsel during the resentencing.

Baker now appeals

, arguing that de novo resentencing was required with a corrected scoresheet and with him present with counsel. We agree. Consequently, we reverse and re mand for the trial court to resentence Baker on counts one, two, three, eleven and twelve, with a corrected scoresheet. Further, Baker is to be present at the resentencing and represented by counsel. Jordan v. State , 143 So. 3d 335, 339 (Fla. 2014);

Bowe n v. State , 196 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Affirmed in part, R eversed in part, and R emanded with instructions

.

G ERBER
, C.J., T AYLOR and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statements No. 333-74616 each on Form S-8, of our report dated March 15, 2007 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Sierra Bancorp and Subsidiary and managements assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP
|                                   
|Rancho Cucamonga, California       
|March 15, 2007                     



-1-
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.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

# TIME AND DATE: 

9:30 a.m. EDT, December 10, 2024.

# PLACE: 

NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594.

# STATUS: 

The one item is open to the public.

# MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

73721 Pipeline Investigation Report—UGI Utilities Inc. Natural Gas Pipeline Explosion and Fire, West Reading, Pennsylvania, March 24, 2023

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Candi Bing at (202) 590-8384 or by email at                         *bingc@ntsb.gov.*

*Media Information Contact:*                         Keith Holloway by email at                         *keith.holloway@ntsb.gov*                         or at (202) 314-6100.                    

                        The public may view it through a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “Upcoming Events” on the NTSB home page at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

                        Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

The National Transportation Safety Board is holding this meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b).

Dated: Friday, November 15, 2024.

Candi R. Bing,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2024-27524 Filed 11-20-24; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
No. 91-5993.

#### Sutton *v.*Indiana.

Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.
No. 86-5950.

#### Baker *v.*University of Alabama at Birmingham et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Hughes, Appellant, vs. Tax Commission and others, Respondents.

*February 17*—

March *15, 1938.*

*275For the appellant there was a brief by *S. W. Jensch*of Hudson, attorney, and *A. B. Christoff'erson*of St. Paul, Minnesota, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Jensch.*

For the respondents there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Harold H. Persons,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Persons.*

Wickhem, J.

Plaintiff was a resident of Hudson, Wisconsin. He is employed by the Northern Pacific Railway Company as land commissioner with headquarters in St. Paul, Minnesota. He commutes daily between Hudson and St. Paul, and has done so for many years. He is concededly a resident of the state of Wisconsin. In addition to the contentions made by the taxpayer in *Dromey v. Tax Comm., ante,*p. 267, 278 N. W. 400, and there disposed of, he makes a contention based upon a slightly different fact situation.

Plaintiff has paid an income tax to the state of Minnesota to the extent of income derived from services rendered within the state of Minnesota, and under objection has paid an income tax to the state of Wisconsin upon the same income. He contends that the Wisconsin income tax cannot be assessed because it constitutes a double income tax upon the same economic interest. The matter was recently discussed by this court in *Newport Co. v. Tax Comm.*219 Wis. 293, 261 N. W. 884. The state of Wisconsin may tax its residents upon their net income from whatever source this may accrue. *Lawrence v. Tax Comm.*286 U. S. 276, 52 Sup. Ct. 556, 76 L. Ed. 1102. The state of Minnesota may tax residents of Wisconsin upon income derived from business or *276property located in Minnesota or services performed there. *Shaffer v. Carter,*252 U. S. 37, 40 Sup. Ct. 221, 64 L. Ed. 445; *Travis v. Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co.*252 U. S. 60, 40 Sup. Ct. 228, 64 L. Ed. 460. To this extent double taxation is permitted, and however objectionable or inequitable it may be argued to be, it cannot be upset upon constitutional or jurisdictional grounds.

*By the Court.*— Judgmexrt affirmed.
<PAGE>   1



                                   EXHIBIT 11

                            MITCHAM INDUSTRIES, INC.
                       Computation of Earnings per Common
                          and Common Equivalent Share
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Three months
                                                                       ended April 30,
                                                                 -------------------------
                                                                    1997           1996
                                                                 ----------     ----------
<S>                                                              <C>            <C>       
COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY EARNINGS PER
     COMMON SHARE:

     Net income ............................................     $1,723,000     $  505,000
                                                                 ----------     ----------

     Weighted average number of common shares
         outstanding .......................................      6,060,303      3,435,006

     Net effect of dilutive stock options and warrants,
         based on the treasury stock method, using
         average market price ..............................        178,245        589,023
                                                                 ----------     ----------

     Common shares outstanding .............................      6,238,548      4,024,029
                                                                 ==========     ==========

     Earnings per common share .............................     $     0.28     $     0.13
                                                                 ==========     ==========

COMPUTATION OF EARNING PER COMMON SHARE
     ASSUMING FULL DILUTION:

     Net income ............................................     $1,723,000     $  505,000
                                                                 ----------     ----------

     Weighted average number of common shares
         outstanding .......................................      6,060,303      3,435,006

     Net effect of dilutive stock options and warrants
         based on the treasury stock method, using the
         end-of-period market price ........................        178,245        723,757
                                                                 ----------     ----------

     Common shares outstanding assuming full dilution ......      6,238,548      4,158,763
                                                                 ==========     ==========

     Earnings per common share assuming full dilution ......     $     0.28     $     0.12
                                                                 ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
* 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. 96-30783

Summary Calendar

 

GLENDA RICE, individually and as administrator for her two minor

children; RICE CHILDREN TRUST on behalf of Rena Deslatte; RICE

ELECTRONICS INC.,; RICE ELECTRONICS OF TEXAS, INC.; DAVID P.

RICE, individually and as administrator for his two minor

children,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

JODY M. FELTERMAN, ET AL.,

Defendants,

DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1248 and 95-CV-1190

- - - - - - - - - -

May 28, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David and Glenda Rice, individually and as administrators

for their two minor children; Rice Children Trust, through its

trustee, Rena Deslatte; Rice Electronics, Inc.; and Rice
No. 96-30783

- 2 -

Electronics of Texas, Inc. (collectively the Rices) appeal the

memorandum ruling of the district court denying their motion

appealing the magistrate judge’s discovery order. The discovery

order is not appealable as a final judgment, has not been deemed

final under any jurisprudential exceptions, and has not been

certified for appeal by the district court. See Dardar v.

Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988). 

Because we are without jurisdiction, the appeal is DISMISSED. See

Texaco, Inc. v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 995 F.2d 43,

43 (5th Cir. 1993).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 90082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26332]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

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: November 14, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
418 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-213, K2025-211.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-26332 Filed 11-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 62 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 62

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection relating to prepaid accounts under the Electronic 
            Fund Transfer Act and the Truth in Lending Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2017

 Mr. Graves of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Loudermilk, and Mr. Huizenga) 
  submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection relating to prepaid accounts under the Electronic 
            Fund Transfer Act and the Truth in Lending Act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 
to prepaid accounts under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 
1693 et seq.) and the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (81 
Fed. Reg. 83934 (November 22, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force 
or effect.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                           2,369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,839)
<INVENTORY>                                     48,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,478
<PP&E>                                         243,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                (38,415)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 683,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          115,659
<BONDS>                                        160,786
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     41,754
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   683,415
<SALES>                                        384,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               384,084
<CGS>                                          286,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  343,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (367)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,382
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,158
<EPS-BASIC>                                      8,196
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    8,196


</TABLE>
(^^^^u^i^-'^ \^5f^^ , e^ ^<-^^.c 

S-^G, 

Mayor and 

Council Members 

Cheryl Viegas-Walker 

Efrain Silva 

Sedalia Sanders 

Jon A. Edney 

Benjamin James Solomon III 

% 

il 

October 19, 2010 

Dennis J. IDeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Waslilngton, D.C. 20590 

— ( 

'0 

en 

^-—^ o 1 

m^jnT* 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Thank you for your letter dated September 23, 2010 regarding the results 

of essential air service proposals received for El Centro/Imperial, California. 

At its meeting on October 5, the El Centro City Council unanimously 

expressed its support of the proposal submitted by SkyWest. Comments by 

council members indicated a preference for air travel to/from Los Angeles 

rather than San Diego. There was also some concern regarding the size of 

the aircraft proposed by SeaPort 

The City of El Centro values the available air services at the Imperial County 

Airport and appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposals. If 

you have any question, please 6o not hesitate to give me a call. 

Sincerely, 

^ *^«,^^-*^sC::ci§5«->s. 

Cheryl Viegas^ 

Mayor 

El Centro City Hall 

1275 Main Street, El Centro, CA 92243 (760) 337-4540 Fax (760) 352-6177
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-10*990412-005-113     171-3-054-CV

VeErRnNoOnN WhHiIpPpPlLeETHE CADLE COMPANY ANDVeErRnNoOnN WhHiIpPpPlLeE 	APPELLANTS

DANIEL C. CADLEVernon Whipple

	V.

DAVID B. LOBINGIER AND THER2 EeEnNtTeErRpPrRiIsSeEsS, IiInNcC. aAnNdD TtTeEdD RrReEeEvVeEsS 	APPELLEES

InN tThHeE InNtTeErReEsStT oOfF S.C.W., MiInNoOrR ChHiIlLdDE	APPELLANT

	V.

	R2 EeEnNtTeErRpPrRiIsSeEsS, IiInNcC. aAnNdD TtTeEdD RrReEeEvVeEsS	APAPPELLEEEELPEELLEsStTaAtTeE oOfF ThHuUrRmMaAnN HoOlLmMaAnN WaAtTkKiInNsS, DeEcCeEaAsSeEdD

STATE OF TEXAS

	----------

	FROM THE 158TH158TH DISCTTRICT THE     PROBATE COURT NO. 2 THE 48TH 158TH  393rRD393RD DISTRICT        158TH DISTRICT COURT OF     DETNTON TARRANT DETONTON            DENTON TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the “aapA“aaAppellant’s Joint “Motion tTo withd=Dismiss Withdrawa aAooe=ooeak==ppeal.”  Dismiss for Mootness.”  Appeal Due To Settlement.”  It is the court'’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(21), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellantparty incurring the same(/OR party incuriring the same), for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL DMDD:	mHOLMAN, CAYCE, C.J.; GARDNLIVINGSTON and dUAPDAUPHINOTER, ANand WALKER, and MCCOY, ANDand MMCCCOY, JJ.

MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 2430, 2005December 31, 2003 jUNEJune 1522, 2006May 1825, 2006