alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dolske, Administratrix, Appellant, vs. Byram and others, Receivers, Respondents.

For the appellant: /. *E. O’Brien*of Fond du Lac.

For the respondents: *Bender, Trump, McIntyre & Freeman*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

Fowler, J., took no part.
#### Northern Chief Iron Company, Respondent, vs. Town of Vaughn and Another, Appellants.

*May 24*

June *21, 1916.*

*G-ertz v.*"Vaughn, *ante,*p. 557, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Iron county: G-. N. Risjord, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The briefs in the case of *Gertz v. Vaughn, ante,*p. 557, were by stipulation used in this case, and there were additional hriefs on the question of estoppel:

*A. L. Buggies,*attorney, and *Wm. F. Shea,*of counsel, for the appellants.

*662Eor tbe respondent there was a brief by *Lamoreux & Gate,*and oral argument by *Geo. 0. Foster*and *G. A. Lamoreux.*

RoseNberry, J".

Tbe issues in this case are tbe same as those in *Gertz v. Vaughn, ante,*p. *557, 158*N. *W. 298,*and this case is controlled by tbe decision in that case, and tbe mandate will therefore be tbe same.

*By the Gourt.*— Judgment affirmed.
### SERVED: MAY 28, 2015

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF JET MIDWEST TECHNIK, INC.

DOCKETNO. FAA-2015-0637 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014CE050039) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, andthe other persons onthe attached Service List. 

# <:'
... -.-/: (" 

# 2./-
..**··.,~--=---·-** /,.·'
· Ronnie A. Y

## q.cl:6; Chief

### Administrat~u e Attachment

- Service ListDocketNo. FAA-2015-0637 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWrightBuilding-Suite 2W10001 ONE COPY Patrick Kraus, President Jet MidwestTechnik, Inc., Respondent 9200 NW 112th Street Kansas City, MO 64153 TEL: 816-399-5096 FAX: 816-527-8096
Mark G. Camacho, Complainant's Counsel Federal AviationAdministration Central Region, ACE-7 901 Locust, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3765 FAX: 816-329-3771 Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel The Aviation Law Firm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 TEL: 301-294-8550 FAX: 301-294-2525

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service inperson or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM June 2022

Forest Farming (379)

 3. Canopy cover and 

vertical vegetative 

structure resulting from 

established plants

1. Mixed but compatible 

plants of different heights

2. Woody plant root systems, 

litter, and soil OM

D.3 (+) Infiltration of 

precipitation and soil 

moisture storage

D.5 (-) Sheet, 

rill, streambank 

erosion and 

sedimentation

I.1 (+) 

Denitrification of 

soil nitrates 

D.2 (+) 

Carbon 

storage

C.2 (+) Quality of 

receiving waters

C.8 (+) Income and 

income stability 

(individuals and 

community)

C.1 (-) 

Atmospheric 

CO2 and 

greenhouse 

effect

C.3 (+) Forest products 

and crops business and 

support infrastructure

D.6 (+) 

Shade

D.7 (+) Wildlife 

habitat; detritus 

and large 

woody debris

D.8 (+) Aesthetics

I.2 (-) 

Stream 

water 

temperature

I.3 (+) Stream fauna, 

e.g., fish, 

invertebrates

D.11 (-) 

Traditional 

cropland area

C.5 (+) Aquatic health for humans, 

domestic and wild animals

D.1 (+) Canopy 

cover and vertical 

vegetative structure 

of existing plants.

D.12 (+) 

Diversified 

landowner 

income; 

contractor 

income

Initial setting: Cropland or unmanaged forest with potential for 

growing trees or shrubs. Field concerns are organic matter 

depletion and lack of diverse tree and understory products and 

habitat.

I.6 (-) Windborne 

sediment 

and 

sedimentattached 

pollutants

C.7 (+) Air quality

I.7 (+) Tree and 

understory 

production

D.10 (-) Microclimate extremes

C.6 (+) Environmental quality

I.9 (+/-) Potential 

income

Start

D.4 (+) Uptake of 

soil nutrients and 

trapping of waterborne sediment

C.9 (+) Recreation business and 

support infrastructure

I.4 (+) 

Wildlife 

Diversity

I.8 (-) Traditional 

I.5 (-) crop production

Pesticide 

drift

D.9 (-) Wind 

velocity

C.4 (+) 

Soil 

quality

Tree/Shrub Site Preparation (490)

Tree/Shrub Establishment (612)

D. Direct effect

#. Created by practice

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

LEGEND

Mitigating practice

Associated practice
# C_2004251EN.01001703.xml

| 9.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/17

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 2 July 2004

in Case T-78/04 R, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc v Commission of the European Communities

(Interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 - Biocidal products - Admissibility of the application)

(2004/C 251/33)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-78/04 R, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc, represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, avocats, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for suspension of the operation of Article 5(1) and (2) of and Annexes II and V to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003 L 307, p. 1) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 2 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE
S AM G LASS C OCK III V ICE C HANCELLOR STATE OF DELAWARE C OURT OF C HANCERY C OURTHOUSE 34 T HE C IRCLE G EORGETOWN , D ELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: May 4, 2017 Date Decided: May 4, 2017
Stephen P. Norman, Esquire 30838 Vines Creek Rd., Unit 3 Dagsboro, D E 19939 E. Chaney Hall , Esquire Fox Rothschild L LP 919 N. Market Street, Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Stephen P. Norman v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.
, C ivil Action No. 12781

- VCG

Dear Counsel:

The Defendant moved to dismiss this mat t er, alleging failure to state a claim
and lack of both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The motion was briefed
and argued. At oral argument today, I found that Plaintiff’s Compla int failed to
establish subject matter jurisdiction in the Court of Chancery. Thus, the matter is

dismissed , subject to the Plaintiff’s election to transfer to the Superior Court within
60 days of this Order, pursuant to 10 Del. C. Section 1902.
At the end of the argument, the Plaintiff sought leave to amend h is Complaint
, only so as to establish equitable jurisdiction. I indicated such an amendment was
prohibi ted under Court of Chancery Rule 1 5 ( aaa ) . This was an error: Rule 15(aaa)
prohibits amendment after briefing a m otion to dismiss under Rules 12 (b)(6) and2

23.1. 1 Wh ile the Defendant did seek dismissal in part under Rule 12(b)(6), and

therefore the Plaintiff is foreclosed from amending his complaint to address

deficiencies under that rule at this stage of the proceedings , I granted the motion to

dismiss under Rule 12 (b)(1) , for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. Amendment
, for the purposes of establishing subject matter jurisdiction
, is therefore controlled by

Rule 15(a), and not prohibited under 15(aaa). To the extent my bench ruling of this
date is to the contrary, it is withdrawn. Accordingly, the matter is dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction . T he Plaintiff may transfer the matter to Superior Court
within 60 days, or may pursue amendment subject to Rule 15(a) , as he finds
appropriate.
To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO

ORDERED.
Sincerely
,
/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glasscock III

1 See Ch

. Ct. R. 15(aaa) ( “ Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Rule, a party that wishes to respond to a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) or 23.1 by amending its pleading must file an amended complaint, or a motion to amend in conformity with this Rule, no later than the time such party's answering b rief in response to either of the foregoing motions is due to be filed. ” ) (emphasis added).
# C_2005106EN.01001102.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/11

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 7 December 2004

in Case C-521/03 P: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeal - Admissibility of the action - Whether the action is out of time - Fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC - Merely confirmatory decision - Categorisation)

(2005/C 106/21)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-521/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 15 December 2003 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (lawyer: H. Kaltenecker), the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Wilderspin and S. Fries) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, acting for the President of the Fourth Chamber, N. Colneric and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General: R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 7 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The appellant shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The appellant shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.

1

---
Miscellaneous Documents

( Posted September 30, 2016)

Final PSD Permit Decision for

the MCU Facility
# C_2005069EN.01001502.xml

| 19.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/15

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 10 December 2004

in Case T-261/03 Euro Style 94 Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for figurative Community trade mark including the verbal element ‘GLOVE’ - National and international figurative and verbal marks ‘GLOBE’ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 - Action clearly devoid of legal foundation)

(2005/C 69/30)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-269/04, Euro Style 94 Srl, established in Baretta (Italy), represented by G. Pica, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. Laporta Insa and A. Folliard-Monguiral), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the OHIM being RCN-Companhia de Importacao e Esportacao de Texteis, LDA, established in Oeiras (Portugal); appeal against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 May 2003 (Case R 67/2001-2), concerning an opposition procedure between RCN-Companhia de Importacao e Esportacao and Eurostyle 94 Srl, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S.S. Papasavvas, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung, made an order on 10 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1 | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2 | The appellant is ordered to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2

The appellant is ordered to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keenan Ramsey, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 855]

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), imposed upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, after remittitur from this Court for resentencing *(see People v Ramsey,*288 AD2d 240 [2001]).

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

The defendant, a second violent felony offender, was initially sentenced in 1999 to the maximum term of *71⁄2*to 15 years’ imprisonment for his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, a crime he committed in 1992 *(see*Penal Law former § 70.04). Upon the defendant’s prior appeal, this Court modified the judgment by vacating the sentence on the ground that the trial court, in imposing sentence, improperly considered other charges of which the defendant had been acquitted. The matter was remitted for resentencing before a different justice *(see People v Ramsey,*288 AD2d 240 [2001]).

Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court resentenced the defendant to an indeterminate term of 6 to 12 years’ imprisonment. Under the facts of this case, the term of imprisonment imposed on resentencing was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]; *see also People v Delgado,*80 NY2d 780 [1992]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
# C_2004217EN.01002901.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/29

---

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-215/04)

(2004/C 217/51)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by M. Bethell, agent, assisted by D. Anderson QC and H. Davies, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicants costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant contests the Commission decision of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement with regard to the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform (1). In the decision, the Commission finds that the proposed tax reform constitutes state aid incompatible with the common market.

1

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission's conclusions as to regional selectivity are vitiated by material errors of fact and are wrong in law.

According to the applicant, Gibraltar, which is a colony whose self-government the United Kingdom is obliged to develop under the UN Charter, does not form part of the United Kingdom as a matter of domestic, international and Community law. Furthermore, the applicant states that Gibraltar is distinct from the United Kingdom and that it receives no subsidy or financing from the United Kingdom. The applicant also claims that the tax systems of the United Kingdom and of Gibraltar are entirely separate and unconnected and that the reform proposals do not constitute a tax reduction to the tax system applicable in the United Kingdom. The Commission's approach also infringes, according to the applicant, the principle of equal treatment in that measures adopted by a symmetrically devolved region are not to be treated as state aid whereas the same measures adopted by a asymmetrically devolved region are.

The applicant contends that the Commission's conclusions with respect to material selectivity are wrong in law and are insufficiently reasoned.

The applicant finally submits that the Commission has infringed the applicant's right to be heard in that it did not raise certain matters upon which it has sought to base its decision during the course of the procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

---

(1)  State aid C 66/2002 — Gibraltar government corporation tax reform.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTH
PERIODS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK>                         0001004317
<NAME>                        IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                             2,242
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     36,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (1,332)
<INVENTORY>                                          989
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  50,836
<PP&E>                                           207,617
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (56,996)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   451,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             44,175
<BONDS>                                          274,368
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             122
<OTHER-SE>                                       113,823
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     451,099
<SALES>                                          143,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 143,394
<CGS>                                             73,742
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    127,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                17,631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (2,156)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (346)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,810)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,810)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
Back to Contents

EXHIBIT 32.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Neutron Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations            of the Company.

/s/ Paul DenommeePaul DenommeeChief Financial Officer

April 15, 2005

----
I I ILi ,., i •5 11 I 

pproved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112167 ® CONTROL SYSHM 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 1111\1111111 ~1111111\lil~! 

0""1CIE OF THIE UNDER SECRIIICTAIIIIV 30 April 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. NAKA 

One of the items which I think we need to look at 

has to do with how to reduce the cost of bringing back 

pictures from space. The way we are operating now we 

build a high-priced camera, throw it into space, and dump 

it in the Pacific Ocean a few days later. 

There are at least three ways to avoid this waste of 

expensive cameras: (1) to bring the camera back and re-· 

launch it; (2) to leave the camera up and resupply it in 

orbit with expendables such as fuel, batteries, and film; 

and (3) to design a camera whose only required input is 

electrical power which we can get from solar panels and 

leave it there for a few years. I would like to se.e some 

analysis done on the merits and demerits of these three 

possibilities. 

We can stimulate such studies at Aerospace, Lockheed, 

etce, with just a little effort on our part • 

.,L 

John L. McLucas 

TOP·SECRET -- ; 

\l\111111\11111111 

-----·--. ~:.....,...,_, ~til..~~ii;ll. ili',ii.,T;:iii'&.r.;i;:o";ic.:;·· ::;:.,.;;;.;,.,:.. ..• ;;;;;3;;;;,;a::;;~llllll!ll----llllil;.;:.;,,:ttW~;;;z~---a•-!lilllllll'!AW!lllll!i'llll!~w••l!l'l"-r~· .. ~M-l~,'.i&!b'l!l':.~:.#Nk~ .• -#.t'l:l!W!%11111ill'!!".l!1⁄4i'!'!!"'",YH·· 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112167
# Delaware State Office

1221 College Park Drive, Suite 100DoverDE19904-8724

302-678-4160

1221 College Park Drive, Suite 100DoverDE19904-8724

Delaware

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Contact 
-  State Office Contacts 
-  Delaware 
-  Delaware State Office 

The Delaware State Office page provides a list of technical and administrative NRCS employees assigned to the State Office. 

## Key Contacts

### Kasey Taylor

                -    302-678-4199 
                -    kasey.taylor@usda.gov 

### Ivy McBride

                -    302-678-4175 
                -    ivy.mcbride@usda.gov 

----

##   Management & Strategy