alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 31, 2017

a0123

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2017

152927(41)

SUSANA E. NARVAEZ TERAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152927

COA: 322016

Otsego CC: 10-013744-DP

MICHAEL R. RITTLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 18, 

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07308]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE


SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, April 
13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at SJI Headquarters in 
Reston, Virginia. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant 
applications for the 2nd quarter of FY 2015, and other business. All 
portions of this meeting are open to the public.

ADDRESSES: State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, 
Reston, VA 20190.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Mattiello, Executive 
Director, State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, 
Reston, VA 20190, 571-313-8843, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4b7bbbaa0b5b7a094a7bebdfab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d5e5253495c5e497d4e5754135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>.

Jonathan D. Mattiello,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-07308 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40069 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JORGE ALBERTO OLGUIN-LOZANO, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-165-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jorge Alberto Olguin-Lozano raises arguments that he concedes are fo r e c l o s e d by United States v . Newson, 515 F.3 d 3 7 4 , 3 78-79 (5th Cir. 2008), and United States v. Morales-Mota , 704 F.3d 410, 4 12 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 133 S. C t. 2374 (2013). Newson held that the Government may decli n e t o m o v e f o r a n a d ditional one-point reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) based o n the defendant’s refusal to waive his right to appeal. 515 F.3d at 378-79. In Morales-Mota , 7 04 F.3d at 412, this c o urt, relying upon U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-40069 Document: 00512347248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013No. 13-40069

its holding in U

nited States v. Joslin , 487 F. App’x 139, 141-43 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied , 133 S. Ct. 1847 ( 2013), rejected the argument that the Texas offense of ? burglary of a habitation” i s outside t he generic, contemporary definition of

? burglary of a dwelling” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because i t d efines the

? owner” of a habitation as a person with a ? greater right to possession.” The appellant’s mot i o n for summary disposition i s GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-40069 Document: 00512347248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
                                      CODE)

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland, a
corporation incorporated in Ireland (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such
officer's knowledge, that:

         The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2003 (the
"Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: July 22, 2004                        /s/ JOHN O'DONOVAN
                                            ____________________________________
                                            Name: John O'Donovan
                                            Title: Group Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) as an exhibit to the Report.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Corey Rinker
 
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Corey RinkerCorey RinkerChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant
Secretary  34
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000659

27-JUN-2014

08:56 AM
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 18, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60584

Summary Calendar

 

JOSE DAVID MORALES-GUERRA, 

 

 Petitioner, 

versus 

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondent. 

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 314 975

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

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose David Morales-Guerra (Morales), a citizen of El

Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ)

denial of Morales’s application for withholding of removal under

the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

This court usually reviews only the BIA’s decision, not that

of the IJ, except to the extent that the IJ’s decision influences

the BIA. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, however,
No. 04-60584

-2-

the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for judicial

review. Id.

To obtain withholding of removal under the INA, an applicant

“must show that it is more likely than not that his life or

freedom would be threatened by persecution,” based on his

political opinion, race, religion, nationality, or membership in

a particular social group. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906

(5th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted). We review for

substantial evidence the determination that an alien is not

entitled to withholding of removal. See id. at 905-06.

Morales contends that the IJ erred by determining that he

had not shown it was more likely than not he would be subjected

to persecution because of his former employment as a police

officer, if he returned to El Salvador. The record does not

compel a finding that Morales met his burden to show that he was

entitled to withholding of removal under the INA. See Roy v.

Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138-39 (5th Cir. 2004). Thus, Morales

has failed to show that the IJ’s decision was not supported by

substantial evidence. See Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 302.

The petition for review is DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERRENCE TONYAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

JOSEPH STUSSY,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16189

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01021-JJT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Terrence Tonyan, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fourth

Amendment excessive force claim arising from his arrest. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp.

FILED

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001). We reverse and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment on Tonyan’s Fourth

Amendment excessive force claim after concluding that a reasonable officer could

have concluded that Tonyan’s bulky clothing concealed a weapon. This finding,

however, is unsupported by the record. Further, in Tonyan’s verified amended

complaint, Tonyan stated that he was unarmed and never threatened any officer by

word or action. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Tonyan,

Tonyan raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant used

excessive force by striking Tonyan’s bike with his patrol car while Tonyan fled the

scene of a burglary. See Lal v. California, 746 F.3d 1112, 1115, 1117 (9th Cir.

2014) (setting forth framework for analyzing an excessive force claim under the

Fourth Amendment). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings

on this claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 15-16189
# C_2016094EN.01000101.xml

| 10.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 March 2016

(2016/C 94/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0973 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,63 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4614 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77135 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2920 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0978 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3964 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,047 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,62 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3149 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4637 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,1902 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4650 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4705 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5216 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6192 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5171 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 329,63 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,8748 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1466 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5620 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 452,27 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5147 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,417 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 78,7670 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,724 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0740 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,5511 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,6840 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0973

JPY

Japanese yen

123,63

DKK

Danish krone

7,4614

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77135

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2920

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0978

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3964

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,047

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,62

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3149

RON

Romanian leu

4,4637

TRY

Turkish lira

3,1902

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4650

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4705

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5216

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6192

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5171

KRW

South Korean won

1 329,63

ZAR

South African rand

16,8748

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1466

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5620

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 452,27

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5147

PHP

Philippine peso

51,417

RUB

Russian rouble

78,7670

THB

Thai baht

38,724

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0740

MXN

Mexican peso

19,5511

INR

Indian rupee

73,6840

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07453]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (15-019)]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for 
licensing.

DATES: April 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert H. Earp, III, Patent Attorney, 
Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Code 21-14, Cleveland, OH 44135; 
telephone (216) 433-3663; fax (216) 433-6790.

NASA Case No.: LEW-19240-1: Advanced Protective Coatings for Graphite 
Substrates;
NASA Case No.: LEW-19132-1: The Vibration Ring;
NASA Case No.: LEW-19098-1: High Temperature, Flexible Composite Seals 
for Aeronautics and Space Environments Incorporation Aerogel 
Insulation;
NASA Case No.: LEW-19121-1: Propellant Distributor/Anode with 
Downstream Plenum Chamber for the Hall Thruster;
NASA Case No.: LEW-19148-1: High/Low Temperature Contactless RF Probes 
for Characterizing Microwave Integrated Circuits (MICs) and Devices;
NASA Case No.: LEW-18844-2: Electrospun Nanofiber Coating of Fiber 
Materials: A Composite Toughening Approach;
NASA Case No.: LEW-18928-1: Pt-Ti-Si Simultaneous Ohmic Contacts to N- 
and P-Type Silicon Carbide.

Sumara M. Thompson-King,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-07453 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: JOHN HENRY GREEN, JR., 

Indiv. and as Trustee of the 

Testamentary trust formed for the 

benefit of WILLIAM CASEY 

ELLISON and GAYLA JAN 

TIBBITTS; as former controlling 

stockholder of NATIONAL FOUNDRY 

& MANUFACTURING COMPANY 

and as principal shareholder and 

President of PATRIOT STEEL 

FABRICATION, INC.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00233-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

against the Honorable Martin Muncy, Judge of the 109th District Court of Crane County, Texas, 

and concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be conditionally granted. We 

therefore direct the trial court to withdraw the order denying the motion to transfer venue and 

awarding attorney’s fees to the Real Parties in Interest, and it is further directed to enter an order 

granting Relator’s motion to transfer venue and transfer the case to Ector County, in accordance 

with the opinion of this Court. The writ of mandamus will issue should the trial court fail to 

comply.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-27973 of Weider Nutrition International, Inc. on Form S-8 of our
report dated August 13, 1999, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Weider Nutrition International, Inc. for the year ended May 31, 1999.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedule of Weider
Nutrition International, Inc., listed in Item 14. This financial statement
schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
August 27, 1999
EXHIBIT 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of API Electronics Group Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Claudio Mannarino, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 for the period ended May 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                           
|/s/ Claudio Mannarino                                      
|Claudio Mannarino Chief Financial Officer November 22, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07460]



[[Page 17541]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9074]


Notice of Public Comments on FY 2016 U.S. Refugee Admissions 
Program

    The United States actively supports efforts to provide protection, 
assistance, and durable solutions for refugees. The U.S. Refugee 
Admissions Program (USRAP) is a critical component of the United 
States' overall refugee protection efforts around the globe. In Fiscal 
Year 2015, the President established the ceiling for refugee admissions 
into the United States at 70,000 refugees.
    As we begin to prepare the FY 2016 U.S. Refugee Admission Program, 
we welcome the public's input. Information about the Program can be 
found at http://www.state.gov/g/prm/. Persons wishing to submit written 
comments on the appropriate size and scope of the FY 2016 U.S. Refugee 
Admissions Program should submit them by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 14, 
2015 via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2152515354444d4d45406152554055440f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc8f8c8e89999090989dbc8f889d8899d29b938a">[email protected]</span></a> or fax (202) 453-9393.
    If you have questions about submitting written comments, please 
contact Delicia Spruell, PRM/Admissions Program Officer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5221222027373e3e36331221263326377c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f98a898b8c9c95959d98b98a8d988d9cd79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 25, 2015.
Simon Henshaw,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, 
and Migration, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-07460 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Reynoldsville Distilling Company’s License.

*Liquor law*— Distiller’s *license*— Refusal *of license*— Appeal.

A refusal of a distiller’s license will not be reversed where the order is in the following form: “After hearing and upon due consideration, this application is refused;” and this is the case although no remonstrance was filed, and the certificate and bond were in due form, and no reason was given on the record for the refusal.

Argued May 6, 1907.

Appeal, No. 217, April T., 1907, by the Reynoldsville Distilling Company, from order of Q. S. Jefferson Co., Jan. T.-, 1907, No. 47, refusing a distiller’s license.

Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.

Affirmed.

Application for a distiller’s license. Before Reed, P. J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was the order of the court.

*Clark §*Steioart, for appellant.

The order was erroneous: Pittsburg Brewing Co.’s Wholesale Dealer’s License, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 129 ; Schoenhofen Brewing Co.’s License, 8 Pa. Superior Ct. 141; American Brewing Co.’s License, 161 Pa. *270378; Pollard’s Petition, 127 Pa. 507; Johnson’s License, 156 Pa. 322; Snyder's App., 4 Pa. Superior Ct. 648; Alfonso’s License, 11 Pa. Superior Ct. 565.

October 7, 1907:

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from an order refusing the appellant’s application for a distiller’s license. The order is in these words : “ January 28, 1907. After hearing and upon due consideration this application is refused.” It is urged that as no remonstrance was filed, and the petition, certificate and bond were in due form, the court’s refusal of the application, without expressing of record its reasons for so doing, was reversible error. So far as the determination of this question is concerned, there is no difference between such a case and a case where no fact or objection is stated in the remonstrance which would justify the court in refusing the application. We had occasion to consider the question in a case of the latter kind in Black Diamond Distilling Company’s License, 33 Pa. Superior Co. 649, decided in May last, and there said: “ But although the court’s discretion is not so broad in such an application as in an application for a wholesale or a retail liquor license, and the reasons which may influence the discretion of the court are fewer in the former than in the latter cases, yet the same general principle upon which it is presumed on appeal, in the absence of anything to show the contrary that the license was refused for a legal reason, and not arbitrarily, applies as well in one case as in the other.” We also stated that Johnson’s License, 156 Pa. 322, as distinguished and explained in Gross’s License, 161 Pa. 344, is not authority for holding differently. There being nothing in this record to show the contrary, it must be presumed that the appellant’s application was refused for a legal reason and not arbitrarily.

The order is affirmed.