alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Walter Crane v. The Secretary of State.

*University lands*— Issue *of patents.*

Mandamus to the Secretary of State will not lie to compel him to issue patents to State lands; that is the duty of the Governor. Comp. L. § '3824

Mandamus.

Submitted June 19.

Denied July 2.

*Henry A. Chaney*for relator.

Attorney General *Jacob J. Van Riper*for respondent.

Graves, C. J.

The relator in 1853 purchased certain University land, and received the usual certificate, and a few days since he obtained a further certificate from the Commissioner [of the Land-office] that he had paid the principal and interest, and.was entitled to a patent. He then applied for a patent to the Secretary of State, who •declined to issue it. And the sole object of this proceeding is to obtain a mandamus to compel that officer to do what he refused, namely, to issue the required patent.

We gather from the record that a controversy exists concerning back taxes. But there appears to be a question beyond it, which demands to be first considered. The respondent objects that the power to issue the patent does *196not reside in the Secretary of State, bat in tlie Governor y and, if this is true, a discussion of tbe other question would be mere dicta, and without any force in regard to relator’s title to the writ. The application would have to be denied, whatever the conclusion about the taxes; and, on examination, the objection that the Secretary has .not the power appears to be well taken. The matter is regulated by statute, and the language'is clear. Comp. L. §3824. The Governor is to sign the patents and cause them to be issued.

But admitting, says the counsel for relator, that the law has lodged the authority and duty with the Governor, and not with the Secretary, it is still matter of usage; or, in other words, a practice which the Governor has tolerated,, for the Secretary to issue these patents. This view cannot aid the relator. It amounts to a concession that the Secretary neither holds the power nor is subject to the duty. He has voluntarily acted for the Governor, who has adopted his acts. 'Whether in any given case the same course shall be pursued must depend on their will. The law cannot-compel it.

The writ is denied, but without costs.

The other Justices concurred.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-19

James D. Baxter, Jr. 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 28) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment,

and he is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. The court will

defer the decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until

the sentencing hearing.

Date: July 2, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY C. DEBRILL, Case No. 3:17-cv-00431

Plaintiff, (JuDGE THOMAS M. Ross)

DISMISSAL ORDER

i

i

i
-vs- i
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., i
i

Defendant.

Upon stipulation of Plaintiff Jeffrey C. Debrill, by and through his attorneys, and

Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., by and through its attorneys, advising the

Court of the following:
1: The parties having reached an agreement seek dismissal of this action, with
prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that ws er is hereby DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.
a
Date: Iu | v | 16
t ‘\—ThomasM. Rose
HAVING SEEN AND AGREED:
/s/ H. Toby Schisler /s/Rosemary E. Scollard
H. Toby Schisler, Esq. (0068306) Rosemary E. Scollard, Esq. (0040927)
DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP Pro Seniors, Inc.
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 7162 Reading Road ~ Suite 1150
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Cincinnati, Ohio 45237
Phone: (513) 977-8200 Phone:(513) 458-5524
Fax: (513) 977-8141 Counsel for Jeffrey C. Debrill

toby.schisler@dinsmore.com
Counsel for Defendant Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
#### Andrew Jackson ROWE *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5303

419 S. W. 2d 806

Opinion delivered October 30, 1967

*Phillip D. Hout,*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Attorney General; *Don Langston,*Asst. Atty. General, for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

This is a proceeding under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, 239 Ark. 850a. Appellant’s conviction, resulting in consecutive sentences of 21 years for robbery and 7 years for burglary, was originally affirmed by this court in 1955. See *Rowe*v. *State,*
      *376224 Ark. 671, 275 S. W. 2d 887 (1955). In this post-conviction procedure appellant offered no additional proof, but relied on the record previously made. For reversal of the trial court’s order refusing him any relief, he relies on the following points.

I. The petition for writ of habeas corpus should have been granted because, in the original trial, the court erroneously permitted the state to introduce evidence of appellant’s previous convictions in the state’s case in chief.

II. The petition for writ of habeas corpus should have been granted because the penitentiary commitment does not specify which of appellant’s consecutive sentences is to run first.

I

Appellant contends that we should give retroactive effect to our decision in *Miller*v. *State,*239 Ark. 836, 394 S. W. 2d 601 (1965). In *Miller,*reversing our former procedure, we held that the prosecuting attorney could not, on a trial of the primary charge, inform the jury of prior convictions for purposes, of invoking the additional penalties of the habitual criminal statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2328 (Repl. 1964). This holding has been applied retroactively to cases then in the ordinary appellate process. *Russell*v. *State,*240 Ark. 97, 398 S. W. 2d 213 (1966); *Francis*v. *City of Benton,*240 Ark. 738, 401 S. W. 2d 729 (1966). However, we do not feel that we should apply it retroactively to cases finally adjudicated and in which the appellate process has been completed. Other courts with the same problem have arrived at similar conclusions. *Linkletter*v. *Walker,*381 U. S. 618 (1965); *Tehan*v. *Shott,*382 U. S. 406 (1966).

The procedure under the habitual criminal statute is now controlled by Act 639 of 1967.

*377II.

We find appellant’s second point to be without merit. The commitment originally issued hy the trial court directed that appellant he “. . . delivered to the penitentiary authorities . . . and there confined at hard labor for the period of 21 years for robbery and 7 years for burglary, both sentences to run consecutively . . .” On this record we had no trouble on the original appeal in determining that the sentences were consecutive and that the 21-year sentence was to be served before the 7-year sentence. The determination of which sentence shall run first is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and we find no abuse of it in this case. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 43-2311-2312 (Repl. 1964).

Affirmed.
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/30/2010 11:05 AM

----- |------------> | From: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Cc: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Nagelhout/DC/USEPA/US@EPA | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |07/30/2010 10:44 AM | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |comment letters on using data for larger engines to set limits for smaller engines | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Cortney, The folks that commented on the issue were INGAA and API, see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008- 0708-0180 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0155. Melanie King Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541-2469 Fax: (919) 541-5450 king.melanie@epa.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4369 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4369

   To allow the United States-Canada Transboundary Resource Sharing 
   Understanding to be considered an international agreement for the 
     purposes of section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
                    Conservation and Management Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2009

 Mr. Frank of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Jones, and 
Ms. Pingree of Maine) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To allow the United States-Canada Transboundary Resource Sharing 
   Understanding to be considered an international agreement for the 
     purposes of section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
                    Conservation and Management Act.

    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 ``International Fisheries Agreement 
Clarification Act''.

SEC. 2. INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES AGREEMENTS.

    Section 304(e)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(B) The United States-Canada Transboundary Resource 
        Sharing Understanding and other related Understandings, and 
        decisions made under those Understandings, shall be taken into 
        account for purposes of paragraph (4)(A)(i). Paragraph 
        (4)(A)(ii) shall not apply to those portions of stocks covered 
        by such Understandings. Notwithstanding section 302(h)(6) of 
        this title, fishing level recommendations regarding rebuilding 
        in any given year for such stocks may be exceeded as long as 
        the fishing mortality level allows for progress toward 
        rebuilding affected fish stocks, and overfishing is ended 
        immediately according to the procedures set forth in this 
        subsection.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall apply with respect to 
fishing years beginning after April 30, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00812]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3472-024]


Aspinook Hydro, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental 
Assessment

    On April 30, 2020, Aspinook Hydro, LLC filed an application for a 
new major license for the 2.78-megawatt Wyre Wynd Hydroelectric Project 
(Wyre Wynd Project) (FERC No. 3472). The Wyre Wynd Project is located 
on the Quinebaug River in New London and Windham Counties, Connecticut. 
The project does not occupy federal land.
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on October 6, 
2021, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for 
environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the 
record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not 
anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 
Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on 
the application to license the Wyre Wynd Project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested 
parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and 
considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
    The application will be processed according to the following 
schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues EA...................  June 2022.\1\
Comments on EA.........................  July 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Kristine 
Sillett at (202) 502-6575 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b100912080f12151e55081217171e0f0f3b1d1e0918551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1279607b61667b7c773c617b7e7e77666652747760713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations 
under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that EAs be completed within 1 
year of the federal action agency's decision to prepare an EA. This 
notice establishes the Commission's intent to prepare an EA for the 
Wyre Wynd Project. Therefore, in accordance with CEQ's regulations, 
the EA must be issued within 1 year of the issuance date of this 
notice.

    Dated: January 11, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00812 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4611 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4611

                  To provide dollars to the classroom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2010

  Mr. Pitts introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  To provide dollars to the classroom.

    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 ``Dollars to the Classroom Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE BY STATES OF FEDERAL FUNDS PROVIDED FOR 
              ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not less than 95 
percent of any Federal funds made available to a State or State 
educational agency by the Secretary of Education for a purpose relating 
to elementary or secondary education shall be used for--
            (1) academic purposes; and
            (2) classroom, or classroom-related, purposes or at the 
        school level.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0599 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DOUGLAS LYNN DUBLER,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 8 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 3 2024

10/03/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0599
SCPW-20-0000522

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

________________________________________________________________

GREGORY WILLIAMSON, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE JAMES H. ASHFORD, Judge of the Circuit Court of 

the First Circuit, Respondent Judge,

and

ALLIANCE PERSONNEL, INC., Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CIV. NO. 13-1-1840)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ. and 

Circuit Judge Johnson, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the “Emergency Supplement 

Notification Addition to the Emergency Third Supplement Mandamus 

Writ to the Emergency Non-Hearing Motion of August 25, 2020,” 

which was filed as a petition for writ of mandamus on October 

24, 2022, the documents attached and submitted in support, and 

the record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and 

indisputable right to relief from this court. See Kema v. 

Gaddis, 91 Hawaiʻi 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999). 

Moreover, Judgment in Civil No. 13-1-1840 was filed on 

December 15, 2015, and Petitioner did not file an appeal of that 

Judgment. The first petition for writ of mandamus in this 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-20-0000522

04-NOV-2022

01:58 PM

Dkt. 27 ODDP
2

original proceeding was denied by order filed on September 4, 

2020. Approximately nine months later, on June 15, 2021,

Petitioner submitted another document that was filed as a second 

petition for writ of mandamus in this same original proceeding. 

This second petition was denied by order filed on June 17, 2021. 

Approximately one year later, Petitioner filed the subject third 

petition for writ of mandamus, which this court denies by this 

order. This original proceeding is closed. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the appellate clerk 

shall process the petition without payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FINALLY ORDERED that the appellate 

clerk’s office shall not accept any further filings in this 

closed proceeding.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 4, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Ronald G. Johnson
No. 1069.

#### Hogg *v.*Pinckney.

April Term, 1881.

August 1st, 1881.

Motion to restore to the docket an appeal dismissed by the clerk March 1st, 1881, under Hule VII., as then of force, the appellant having failed after notice requiring it, to serve upon the respondent three copies of his case as prepared for argument. But as that rule required the three copies to be served within twenty days after the return was filed, and as the return had not been filed when the notice was given, and no demand had been made under Bule II., as then of force, to have the return filed within ten days after such demand, the notice was premature, and entailed no waiver upon the appellant for non-compliance. Motion granted. Opinion by

Simpson, C. J.,
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Premier Exhibitions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2014, (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that, to such officer’s 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Michael J. Little


Michael J. Little


Interim President and Chief Executive Officer


(Interim Principal Executive Officer)




/s/ Michael J. Little Michael J. Little


Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating


Officer (Principal Financial Officer and


Principal Accounting Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report of Organic Soils.com, Inc. a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending June
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Ray  L.  Smith,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief  Financial Officer of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C.  Section  1350),  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  (15  U.S.C.  78m  or  78o(d));  and

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


                                        By: /s/ Ray  L.  Smith
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Ray  L.  Smith
                                        Chief  Executive  Officer  and
                                        Chief  Financial  Officer
Date: August 10, 2004