alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R. H. & C. C. LYON v. J. L. McMILLAN.

It is error to set aside a judgment obtained at a regular term of the Court upon motion, without notice so the adverse party.

*{Sutton*v, *McMillan,*decided at this term, cited and approved.)

MotioN to set aside a judgment heard before *Bussell, J.,*at Chambers.

The judgment was obtained at Spring Term, 1872, Bladen Superior Court, on a note under seal, made by the defendant to one Julia Callahan, which note had been transferred to the plaintiff, for value received.

The plaintiff filed a complaint demanding judgment for four hundred and five dollars, with interest from May 24th, 1870, and for cost, $900. The defendant failing to file an answer, and no attorney’s name being marked on the docket for him, on the last day of the term the plaintiff moved for -and obtained judgment by default, for the amount demanded.

E. W. Kerr, an attorney at law, who was the partner of A. A. McKay, who was the attorney of the defendant, but failed to attend Court at that time, was in attendance upon the Court during the whole term, at which said judgment was rendered, but was unknown to the defendant as an attorney or in any other way. The defendant was personally present in Court several times during the term at which said j udgment was rendered.

On the 27th April, 1874, before Judge Russell, the defendant moved for and obtained an order to set aside the judgment in said action.

No notice was ever given to the plaintiff's or either of them, of the said motion, and they did not know that such order had been made until September 21st, 1874, when the order was shown by the Clerk of said Court, at which time they caused an appeal to be entered.

*R. II.*& *O. G. Lyon,*for appellant.

*E. W. Kerr,*contra.

*393Settle, J.

A judgment obtained at a regular term of the Court was set aside by his Honor at Chambers, on motion of the defendant. No notice of such motion having been given to the plaintiff. See *Sutton*v. McMillan, at this term.

There is error. Let this be certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 5116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    The meeting announced below concerns ``Comprehensive High-Impact 
HIV Prevention Projects for Community-Based Organizations'', Funding 
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) PS15-1502, initial review.
    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

    Times and Dates: 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. EST, Panels 1-7; February 
24, 2015 (Closed), 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. EST, Panels 8-14; February 
25, 2015 (Closed), 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. EST, Panels 15-19; February 
26, 2015 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial 
review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in 
response to ``Comprehensive High-Impact HIV Prevention Projects for 
Community-Based Organizations'' FOA PS15-1502.
    Contact Person for More Information: Lisa R. Williams, Public 
Health Analyst, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E07, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-1877.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-01769 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
# C_2004273EN.01000401.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 16 September 2004

in Case C-382/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret): Cimber Air A/S v Skatteministeriet (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 15(6), (7) and (9) - Exemption of exports outside the Community - Meaning of ‘aircraft used by airlines operating chiefly on international routes’ - Exemption for fuelling and provisioning of domestic flights)

(2004/C 273/06)

Language of the case: Danish

In Case C-382/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark), made by decision of 9 October 2002, received at the Court on 23 October 2002, in the proceedings between Cimber Air A/S and Skatteministeriet — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on16 September 2004, in which it has ruled:

| 1. | Article 15(6), (7) and (9) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the supplies of goods and services referred to in those provisions to aircraft which operate on domestic routes but are used by airlines chiefly operating for reward on international routes are exempt from VAT. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 15(6), (7) and (9) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the supplies of goods and services referred to in those provisions to aircraft which operate on domestic routes but are used by airlines chiefly operating for reward on international routes are exempt from VAT.

| 2. | It is for the national courts to assess the extent of the international business and the extent of the non-international business of such companies. In doing so, they may take account of all information which indicates the relative importance of the type of operations concerned, in particular turnover. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the national courts to assess the extent of the international business and the extent of the non-international business of such companies. In doing so, they may take account of all information which indicates the relative importance of the type of operations concerned, in particular turnover.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.

1

---
HomeRadioactive WasteHigh-Level Waste DisposalKey DocumentsDOE's License Application for a High-Level Waste Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain

# Location of Yucca Mountain

The map to the left shows the location of Yucca Mountain, in relation to major highways; surrounding counties, cities, and towns in Nevada and California; the Nevada Test Site; and Death Valley National Park. Yucca Mountain is located on Federal land in Nye County in southern Nevada, approximately 160 km (100 miles) northwest of Las Vegas.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, August 08, 2017
#### Estate of Hamilton: Kelly and others, Appellants, vs. Berger, Respondent.

For the appellants: *Thomas F. Millane*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Milton Reik,*attorney, and *Lecher, Michael, Whyte & Spohn*and *Daniel K. Hopkinson*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
Conservation Practice Overview 

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

October 2017

Natural Resources Conservation Service

CPS Woody Residue Treatment (Code 384) 

Woody residue treatment reduces or otherwise 

addresses the management of woody plant residues 

created during forestry, agroforestry or horticultural 

activities, or resulting from natural disasters.

Practice Information

This practice applies on areas with quantities of woody 

slash and debris requiring treatment.

Conservation benefits include but are not limited to— 

• Reduced wildfire hazard. 

• Reduced risk of smoke. 

• Reduced risk of harmful insects and disease. 

• Improved access to forage for grazing and browsing animals. 

• Improved soil organic matter retention. 

• Improved site conditions for natural or artificial regeneration.

Treatment options include burning, chipping, shredding, and offsite disposal. When determining the 

method and timing of woody material treatment, considerations will include air quality regulations, 

burning regulations, available resources, ability to use woody biomass as biofuel, and future 

regeneration objectives. Long-term negative impacts to soil quality may occur with offsite removal of 

woody material.

Common Associated Practices

Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Woody Residue Treatment (Code 384) is commonly applied 

with CPSs such as Access Control (Code 472), Critical Area Planting (Code 342), Firebreak (Code 

394), Forest Stand Improvement (Code 666), Integrated Pest Management (Code 595), Prescribed 

Burning (Code 338), Prescribed Grazing (Code 528), Sediment Basin (Code 350), and Structure for 

Water Control (Code 587). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
# t:ltY ()f__.. 

# 1\ekhlkan January 23, 2013

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and DomesticAnalysis Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 RE: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova, Gustavas, Petersburg, Wrangeil, and Yakutat, Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 Dear Mr. DeVany: I am writing to express my strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to continue to provide essential air service to the above referenced communities. Ketchikan and the entire Southeast Alaska panhandle rely on Alaska Airlines jet service for passenger access to these communities as well as for large volumes of freight and mail cargo, at a capacitythat any othercarriersimply could not provide. Alaska's current service connects Southeast Alaska passengers to one or more major communities of interest, with single plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan or Seattle. From these hubs, our region can access the airline's extensive route system and benefitfrom its marketing relationshipswith othercarriers. Alaska Airlines aircraft are equipped with Required Navigation Performance technology, which enables the airline to access the airport during frequent periods of inclement weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and productsto dependably reach the community. Therefore, I respectfully urge the Department to select Alaska Airlines to continue to provide essential airserviceto SoutheastAlaska, as the airline as successfully doen for the last35 years. Thankyou foryourconsideration.

cc: Tim Thompson - Manager, PublicAffairs forAlaska Airlines 334 Front Street

## I Ketchikan, AK 99901 

## I PH: 907-225-3111 

## I FX: 907-225-5075
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,747
<SECURITIES>                                       636
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,053
<PP&E>                                         223,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 150,061
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,702
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,068
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,729
<SALES>                                          6,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,251
<CGS>                                            5,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,344
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,957
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,981)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,142)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,161
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,161
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-3005

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Paula Cole

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

 Submitted: February 10, 2021

Filed: February 16, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Paula Cole appeals after she pleaded guilty to perjury and the district court1

imposed a sentence that varied downward from the advisory sentencing guideline

1The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.
range. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the four-month prison sentence and

four-month home detention as unreasonable. 

Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard

of review, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), we conclude that the

district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The court properly

considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that

the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or

irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. 

See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see

also United States v. Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 694 (8th Cir. 2019); United States v.

Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, we have independently

reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no

nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the

judgment. 

______________________________

-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6963

SAMMY JUNIOR MORGAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK, Secretary of North Carolina

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,

District Judge. (CA-03-849)

Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sammy Junior Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

In his informal brief Morgan seeks to raise, for the first

time, a claim pursuant to the recent Supreme Court case of Blakely

v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Even if properly before this

court for consideration, Blakely would offer Morgan no relief,

because, inter alia, the Supreme Court has not made its ruling in

Blakely retroactive to cases on collateral review. See In re Dean,

375 F.3d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir. 2004); see also United States v.

Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding that the rule

announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the

precursor to Blakely, is not retroactively applicable to cases on

(continued...)

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sammy Junior Morgan seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Morgan that failure

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Morgan failed to object to

the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Morgan has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper

notice.* Accordingly, we deny Morgan’s motion to proceed in forma
*

(...continued)

collateral review).

- 3 -

pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the

appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
FIRST                                                  NBD Bank
CHICAGO                                                611 Woodward Avenue
NBD                                                    Mail Suite MI1-8074
                                                       Detroit, MI 48226
                                                       Telephone: (313) 225-2531
                                                       Fax: (313) 226-0855

Thomas A. Gamm
Vice President

                                   EXHIBIT 4.1
                      SECOND AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT


April 1, 1999


Mr. Michael Yeager
Chief Financial Officer
Childtime Childcare, Inc.
38345 West 10 Mile Road
Suite 100
Farmington Hills, MI  48335

Dear Mike:

This letter serves to confirm that Childtime Childcare, Inc. has requested a
$5,000,000 reduction in the Revolving Credit that NBD Bank provides to Childtime
as described in the February 1, 1996 Credit Agreement. This reduction will
become effective on April 5, 1999 and will reduce the commitment amount to
$5,000,000. We will eliminate the unavailable tranche of the facility.

The $5,000,000 Revolving Credit will continue to include a sub-limit for letters
of credit in amounts not to exceed $1,275,000 in aggregate. The Revolving Credit
shall continue to have a maturity date of January 31, 2002.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Otherwise, please
acknowledge your agreement to the terms stated above by signing below and
returning this letter to my attention, first by fax and then by mail.

Sincerely,

/s/ Thomas A. Gamm
------------------------


Acknowledged and Agreed to this 2 day of April, 1999

CHILDTIME CHILDCARE, INC.

By:  /s/ Michael M. Yeager
     --------------------

Its: CFO
     --------------------                                                    E-1
#### Christiansen, by guardian *ad litem,*Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Thompson, Myers & Helm*of Racine.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *James E. Finnegan,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

For the respondents Jorgenson Construction Company and others: *Quarles, Spence & Qttarles,*attorneys, and *Arthur Wickham*and *Jefferson Burrus*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
p130044.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0044 Focus Ready Draft 11/19/2012 ENGINEER: Choudhary \ JAS PV (kg/yr): SUBMITTER: USE:

OTHER USES:

Page 1p130044.eng

Consumer Use: SAT (concerns) (11/06/2012): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox Related Cases: Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P2B3T2 Linear: P1B2T2 // Branched: P2B3T2. Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb.) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 2p130044.eng

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

Page 3p130044.eng

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0044

Page 4p130044.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0044

Page 5p130044.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0044

Page 6p130044.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0044 Page 7p130044.eng

Page 8p130044.eng

Page 9
March 23 , 2015

Mr. Donald R. White, Jr.

142 Chimney Lane

Wilmington, NC 28409

Dear Mr. White :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your J anuary 1 2 , 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0100 ) , but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect saf ety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exempti on.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure