alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Will of Ainsworth: Britton, Contestant, Appellant, vs. Estate of Ainsworth, Respondent.

For the appellant: *R. H. Fischer*of Shawano and *Martin & Martin*of Fond du Lac.

For the respondent: *Eberlein ■& Larson*of Shawano.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-01-1997
<CASH>                                           8,447
<SECURITIES>                                    29,222
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,746)
<INVENTORY>                                    142,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               255,654
<PP&E>                                         161,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                (87,296)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 387,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          161,531
<BONDS>                                        114,829
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        58,845
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,737
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   387,364
<SALES>                                        973,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               973,448
<CGS>                                          889,601
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  957,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,803
<INCOME-TAX>                                       617
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,186
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Hanson, Respondent, vs. Hanson and others, Defendants and respondents: Phillipson and others, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Lafayette county dated December 29, 1926: S. E. Smalley, Judge.

Action to foreclose. Intervention by creditors of some of the defendants. Judgment against intervenors, from which they appeal.

For the appellants: *J. D. Da-rrow*of Argyle and *John J. Boyle*of Darlington.

For the respondents: *W. A. Loveland*of Monticello, *Conley & Conley*of Darlington, and *Kopp & Brunckhorst*of Platteville.

*By the Court.-*— Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2255 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2255

  To clarify that nonprofit organizations may accept donated mortgage 
                  appraisals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2017

  Mr. Trott introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify that nonprofit organizations may accept donated mortgage 
                  appraisals, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Housing Opportunities Made Easier 
Act'' or the ``HOME Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM TRUTH IN LENDING ACT.

    Section 129E(i) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639e(i)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Rule of construction related to appraisal 
        donations.--For purposes of paragraph (1), if a fee appraiser 
        voluntarily donates appraisal services to an organization 
        described in section 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986, such voluntary donation shall be deemed customary and 
        reasonable.''.
                                 <all>
```
, 

i; ~) ~rl ;~J ~c~ ;i; [.j t J ~U! ~~lf( 1MB· 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 CO,51 067621 

Iii} ~~J~tr. .... hi. "-I iii lev 

IJU& I CONTROL SYSTEM 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

SUBJECT: Anti-Satellite Capability 

\\1111111111111111111111111111\1 1111111111111\\111\1111 1400 0 

~ JUN 1%8 

A subject frequently treated at ExCom and PSAC is 

satellite vulnerability. We have over the vears maintained 

a relatively low level activity related tol 

I 

Since the Soviets may have the ability to disable our 

satellites, it may be desirable to consider methods of 

deterring this possibility. One method considered by some 

people is to develop an anti-satellite capability ourselves. 

The two Safeguard sites which we might deploy as "research 

and development" sites would give us such a capability. 

On the other hand, other people feel that the best 

assurance we have 1s that the Soviets, like us, are very 

happy with the present arrangement and don't want to upset 

the balance or risk escalation by molesting our satellites~ 

P:rhaps t~e.pres:nt si;uatio~,i~~ :;." :::=;1~: o~e; neverthe\ less, 1.n my op1.n1.on, 1. t wOu ..... d be \fCr..... d,,: •. · ,., . .: 1f we had at 

least a minimal capability to shoo',:; thE ... ~" That way we 

would all be kept honest, since they :~=_:.. _ ,, ... .:In shoot ours / 

down. 

11./j/ ' • f (; "__ 

John L. McLucas 

lmnrnn 111111'1 1111111111111" II II II " III 1111111111111 

fx.Je OICJ.9Il . ~9 

<,.,'; ..... L,,, 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 06762 

-

4
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 05-0186 Focus Ready Draft 2/14/05

ENGINEER: Jon \ AMO PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Label: No

Gen Eqpt: Respirator:

Health Effects:

TLV/PEL:

CRSS (02/03/2005):

Chemical Name:

S-H20:

VP:

MW: Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:

Consumer Use:

SAT (concerns) (02/04/2005): Migration to groundwater: negligible to rapid Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 10 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 05/27/2004 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

P2 Claim:

### EPA SANITIZED

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 05-0186

Number of Sites/ Location:

Days/yr:

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE S ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same

medium.

RELEASE TOTAL

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers: Days/yr:

Inhalation:

Dermal:
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60094 Summary Calendar

**Arturo Espino** 

**- Martinez**  **,**

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,**
Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 261 764

Before **Jolly, Willett,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *

Arturo Espino

- Mart inez , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions us to review the Board of Immigration Appeal’s denial of his motion to reconsider. He argues that we can review the determination that he committed a crime of moral turpitude and he argues that the incorrect

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 15, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60094 Document: 00516056952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2021No. 20

- 60094

2 ana ly tical standard was applied to this claim. We lack jurisdiction to consider the discretionary denial of the claims in this case. See INS v. Rios

- Pineda , 471 U.S. 444, 449 (1985) ; Peralex v. Casillas , 903 F.2d 1043, 1051 (5th Cir. 1990 )

.
**DISMISSED.** Case: 20-60094 Document: 00516056952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2021
t

•

b- /

...!14111111111V---

7L. . 044.4e.A

(/tes-

.AfttAdw

/444.ezigot, —

t

deaccpeo).?

47,41 :14

4

s: 1.4e410‘4- 0-4 4

44.4v alts,r40,

•

4.-4,4P

Yfielel6

.• 1n1

.• :
em-ZAZte,.:

-
*March 7, 1939.*

#### Will of Cleveland: Scheid and others, Appellants, vs. Makoben, Respondent.

For the appellants: *Beyer, Powers & Arnold,*attorneys, and *John J. Sullivan*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the *respondent: R. J. Schimmel,*attorney, and *Martin R. Paulsen*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Order and judgment affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 60271 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee

v.
J AMES ALLEN MORRIS , Defendant

- Appell ant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:02

- CR

- 74

- 1

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Allen Morris, federal prisoner # 11614

- 042, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal . He challenges the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion s . Morris argues that he was not sentenced as a career offender, but rather his sentence was determined based upon the quantity of crack cocaine that was involved in his offense. He therefore

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 11, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-60271 Document: 00512436877 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2013No. 13

- 60271
contends that amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that govern crack cocaine offenses should apply in his case and his sentence should be reduced. By moving to proceed IFP, M orris is challenging the district court’s certification decision that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). “An investigation into the [IFP] movant’s objective good faith, while necessitating a brief inquiry into the merits of an appeal, does not require that probable success be shown.” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Rather, this court’s inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Id . (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). T he district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an ab use of discretion. United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Morris’s assertion that he was not sentenced as a career offender is incorrect. The calculations in the presentence report , which the district court adopted at sentencing , ref lect that Morris qualified as a career offender and that his offense level was derived from t he career offender guidelines. “ The crack cocaine guidelines amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career offenders.” See United States v. Anderson , 5 91 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by den ying § 3582(c)(2) relief. See Evans , 587 F.3d at 672

. As Morris has failed to demonstrate that his appeal involves legal points that are not frivolous, his IFP motion is DENIED. Se e Howard , 707 F.2d at 220 . Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24 ; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-60271 Document: 00512436877 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2013
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 53]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

[Docket No. BOEM-2014-0077]

Extension of Comment Period on the Environmental Assessment for 
Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advancement Project on the Atlantic 
Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Virginia

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: BOEM is extending the comment period on an Environmental 
Assessment (EA) that considers the reasonably foreseeable environmental 
consequences associated with approval of wind energy-related research 
activities offshore Virginia as proposed by the Virginia Department of 
Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME). BOEM is seeking public input on the 
EA, including comments on the completeness and adequacy of the 
environmental analysis. BOEM will consider public comments on the EA in 
determining whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI), or conduct additional analysis under the National 
Environmental Policy Act.

DATES: Comments on the EA will now be accepted until January 16, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Morin, BOEM Office of 
Renewable Energy Programs, 381 Elden Street, HM 1328, Herndon, Virginia 
20170, (703) 787-1340 or Michelle.Morin@boem.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please refer to the notice published in the 
Federal Register (79 FR 71446) on December 2, 2014, for further 
information. The notice and the EA can be found at: http://www.boem.gov/VOWTAP/.
    Comments: You may submit your comments by one of two methods:
    1. Electronically: http://www.regulations.gov. In the entry 
entitled, ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter BOEM-2014-0077, and then click 
``search.'' Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view 
supporting and related materials for this notice.
    2. In written form, delivered by hand or by mail, enclosed in an 
envelope labeled ``Approval of the Virginia Offshore Wind Technology 
Advancement Project on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
Offshore Virginia'' to: Program Manager, Office of Renewable Energy, 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 381 Elden Street, HM 1328, Herndon, 
Virginia 20170-4817. Comments must be received or postmarked no later 
than January 16, 2015. All written comments received or postmarked 
during the comment period will be made available to the public. 
Comments already submitted in response to the December 2, 2014, notice 
do not need to be resubmitted.

    Authority:  This notice is published pursuant to 43 CFR 46.305.

     Dated: December 22, 2014.
Walter D. Cruickshank,
Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
[FR Doc. 2014-30767 Filed 12-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
```
1:- I'; 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE TOP SEGR" 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART T-- ----1;1" 

...... aw •• 

BYEMAN 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 __ SVIT." 

-taJ.. NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 

THE NRO STAFF 23 August 1972 

HEXAGON 

IYEMAN 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: (A) CHARGE 4390 Dated 14 August 1972 

(B) HEXAGON 

On 15 August, Dr. Naka spoke to OP 967 regarding the 

article appearing in the pub1ication''Under Seas Technology" 

page 25, dated July 1972. The article apparently refers to 

the Navy's attempt to recover bucket No. 3 of the first 

HEXAGON mission. 

Dr. Naka was advised that OP 967 did not authorize 

release of the article and is attempting to trace the 

source of the article. Dr. Naka was advised he would be 

contacted again by OP 967. 

T8P SESRET nCWDa. '11011 .Untll.1IC U ....... 

DOD Dlucnn II ••. '. DOUNO'."LV 

_NO Internal C .. V_....-_D'·_-.r_C_ U 

.... 1., 1, ....
EXHIBIT (32)

South Street Financial Corp.

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of South Street Financial Corp. (the Company) certifies that the Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                            
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2006 |  | /s/ R. Ronald Swanner      
|                      |  | R. Ronald Swanner          
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer    
|                      | 
|Dated: March 31, 2006 |  | /s/ Christopher F. Cranford
|                      |  | Christopher F. Cranford    
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2005070EN.01001102.xml

| 22.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3579 — WPP/Grey)

(2005/C 70/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 January 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3579. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3579. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
sontimppint

25 October 1973

MDORANDOM FOR DR. McWCAS

SURRICT: Congressional Record Item of October 12, 1973

Lt Col researched and prepared this package

in response your 'question.

At Tab A is an extract from the proceedings Of the

Special Congressional Cosedsttee studying questions related

to classified government documents, dated October 12, 1973.

As you are oars this document publis hed, as unclassified,

the term "liationh Reconnaissance Office." We found out

about this it after publication and therefore there was no

practical means of deleting it. Since this credible document

divulges the existence of the IMO, the question arises as to

what--if any be done.

The 1110 Staff determined that Senator McClellan had

requested the DCI to provide budget totals for the organisations mentioned in the Record for use in the Senate. We

understand that the DCI responded in • ammorandum classified

SWART and that the IMO was included in this MOT document.

While Senator Cranston is not a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, it is conceivable that be would see this

SICRU document. In any event it is a setter of conjecture

as to whether or not the DCI t s letter was the source of the

present compromise.

As a result of the item in the Cosgressiensl Record

Mr. Mark Sender (leaser ?) from the Congressional Quarterly

staff has mode inquiries regarding the MO. Re has called

ASD(PA) and the CIA Legislative Staff. Prom both he received

the sane "we have no comment" reply .. Re reportedly remarked

that the no comment reply may be more interesting than the

IMO. We are now researching Mr. Solder to determine his background and his past treatment of items of this =tura. At the

•
2 .2

•

•

present time we recommend no action in connection With Mr. Under go inquisies. V. mill continue to closely monitor

developments.

This situation is. ens more sounple of a continuing problem

of exposure of what is still formally designated as a covert

progros. For some tins now, vs have beim reacting to leaks

such as this--leaks which I am sore are aide more through

carelessness or inedveiVent action rather than ley intent.

They are serving, betrayer, to take as Imordinate . osount of

tins in Now of follow-up Staff action and merely closes

the door rather than prevents more disclosures. The Staff is

ot in the position to develop and implement as overall covert

security orvizoomment for the 1010. That is the DCli s province

nder the provisions of the National Security Act of 1947.

Therefore, ye have prepared. the n at the right asking

that the DC1 -evaluate the impact security compromise'

and determine dime me. should go. . •

..

•

John Z. Kap*, • Jr. -

Brigadier General, USAF
# C_2005132EN.01001001.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-335/03: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(EAGGF - Beef premium - Monitoring - Representativeness of sampling - Transposition of monitoring results to the preceding years - Reasons)

(2005/C 132/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case C-335/03 Portuguese Republic (Agent: L. Fernandes, assisted by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Alves Vieira and L. Visaggio, assisted by N. Castro Marques and F. Costa Leite) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 25 July 2003, — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka,, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 04.10.2003.

1

---