alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION *v.*V. C. LUGAR et ux

74-75

511 S.W. 2d 157

Opinion delivered July 8, 1974

*Thomas B. Keys*and *George 0.*Green, for appellant.

*Catlett &*Henderson, for appellees.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

At the trial of this condemnation suit the landowner, on direct examination, mentioned an offer that he had had for the purchase of the property. The court admonished the jury not to consider the testimony. The appellant contends that the error was so prejudicial that a mistrial should have been granted. We do not agree.

The landowner testified that he bought the property in 1956 and considered it to be a good investment. The record then continues:

> Q. And you intended to hold it. Is that the reason you held on to that after you moved away from here to go to Alabama to live?

> *880A. Oh, yes, sir. I had many opportunities, you know, to sell it. In fact, people wrote to me quite often wanting to buy this property, and well, I even had a return of fifty thousand dollars. . .

Upon objection the judge and the attorneys went into chambers, where the judge denied the condemnor’s motion for a mistrial and stated that the jury would be instructed to disregard the statement. The court promptly gave this admonition to the jury:

> Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know whether any of you heard the remarks the witness made or not, I didn’t hear it, but I am told what he said, and what he said, of course, is not at all admissible in this trial and not to be considered by you as evidence at all; so if any of you heard it, you will please totally and completely and absolutely disregard it. It is not evidence in this case. Does everybody understand that? Proceed.

We find the court’s admonition to have been sufficient to cure the error. In a situation such as this one the trial judge must be given broad authority, for he is in the best position to assess the possibility of prejudice. See *Ark. State Highway Commn.*v. *Shepherd,*239 Ark. 1010, 395 S.W. 2d 743 (1965). That the answer was not responsive to the question is important, *Ragon*v. *Day,*228 Ark. 215, 306 S.W. 2d 687 (1957), since that fact shows that there was no deliberate effort to bring in inadmissible testimony. Moreover, the court’s admonition was prompt, clear, and emphatic.

The appellant’s most persuasive argument rests upon the amount of the jury’s verdict, $50,000, which is the identical amount of the inadmissible offer mentioned by the landowner. We are not persuaded, however, that the jury disregarded the court’s admonition and seized upon one sentence in the testimony as the basis for its verdict. If the verdict had coincided with an inadmissible figure ending in odd dollars and cents, counsel’s argument would be practically unanswerable. But here the amount, $50,000, is not only a convenient round number, but it lies fairly near the middle point between the maximum value of $68,350 fixed by *881one of the landowners’ expert witnesses and the minimum value of $24,000 fixed by the condemnor’s expert witness. We conclude that prejudicial error is not shown.

Affirmed.

Jones. J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             793
<SECURITIES>                                    31,565
<RECEIVABLES>                                      546
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,526
<PP&E>                                           5,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,439
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,501
<BONDS>                                         10,584
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,793
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,433
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,415
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,477)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,477)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,477)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)


</TABLE>
Timothy ALLEN, DOC #Y12379, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5662

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### People v Hughey,

No. 90731;

reported below: 186 Mich App 585.

Reconsideration denied November 25,1991.
Sarah RADFORD, f/k/a Sarah Houghtaling, Appellant, v. Ryne Joseph VICICH, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-778

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RE G ION 5 77 WE S T JAC KSON BOU LE V ARD C H ICAG O, IL 60604 -3590 

# FEB 2 8 2012.

Ms. Amber A. Westerbur Program Manager Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources 1568 Highway 2 Two Harbors , Minnesota 55616 Re: Request for 15 Day Extension Dear Ms. Westerbur: REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF WN

- 161

In accordance with 15 C.F.R. 

### § 930.41(b), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approves your request for a 15 day extension to submit your consistency determination. EPA has documented that our request letter was received by your agency on December 27, 2011. As such, we now expect to receive your determination by March 11, 2012, and ifnecessary, conditions, based on specific enforceable policies, that would permit the Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources to concur with EPA's consistency determination. Please provide a current copy ofthe enforceable policies for your state with your response. Ifthe Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources fails to furnish a reply within this time period, EPA will presume your concurrence. Ifyou have any question, please contact Sean Ramach ofmy staff, at 312-886-5284 or rarnach.sean@epa. gov.



# ~ Tinka G. Hyde Director, Water Division

Recycled/Recyclabl e • Printed w1th Vegetable Oil Based In ks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: K.V.B.

CASE NO.: SC18-679

Supreme Court of Florida.

MAY 9, 2018

The Joint Stipulation to Extend Probation is approved and the probationary period imposed against K.V.B. in *Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: K.V.B.* , 177 So.3d 607 (Fla. 2015), is extended until May 9, 2023, under the existing terms and conditions with the added conditions that K.V.B. immediately obtain an AA sponsor and do the step work involved in the AA program, effective immediately.

*The filing of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date of this probation*.

A True Copy

Test:

John A. Tomasino

Clerk, Supreme Court
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02261]



[[Page 6137]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-179-2021]


Approval of Subzone Status; Valbruna Stainless, Inc.; Pompton 
Lakes, New Jersey

    On November 19, 2021, the Acting Executive Secretary of the 
Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by 
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 49, 
requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of 
FTZ 49, on behalf of Valbruna Stainless, Inc., in Pompton Lakes, New 
Jersey.
    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and 
Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public 
comment (86 FR 67435, November 26, 2021). The FTZ staff examiner 
reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for 
approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board 
Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to 
establish Subzone 49X was approved on January 31, 2022, subject to the 
FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and 
further subject to FTZ 49's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: January 31, 2022.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02261 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
Consolidated  Balance Sheet and  Consolidated  Statements of  Operations,  ended
August 31, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                    2,202,573
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                28,203
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  9,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          2,227,396
<PP&E>                                      790,095
<DEPRECIATION>                             (530,825)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            2,542,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       363,954
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     16,995
<OTHER-SE>                                2,135,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              2,542,171
<SALES>                                     157,838
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            157,838
<CGS>                                        85,082
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                85,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          1,271,767
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           45,182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,216,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             (1,216,887)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 7:53 AM

To: 'Anton@antonewing.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha 

(FAA)

Subject: Request for Information: Video Solutions, LLC

February 2, 2015 

Mr. Anton Ewing 

Video Solutions, LLC 

2175 Cowley Way 

San Diego, CA 92110 

Dear Mr. Ewing: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0880). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Provide information regarding the proposed Loss Link Procedures. This information can be located in 

the aircraft manual. 

 Provide information regarding the proposed Flight Termination System (FTS). This information can be 

located in the aircraft manual. 

 Your petition references the material listed below, however the material was not submitted for the 

record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials: 

o Operator’s Manual 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by February 16, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 
2

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
Conference Call Record for the proposed Clean Power Plan

Date: June 11, 2014 EPA Participants:

 Reid Harvey  Chris Sherry  Julia Miller  Ryan Sims  Denise Mulholland RGGI Participants: CT Jaimeson Sinclair, Wendy Jacobs DE Pam Knotts, Morgan Ellis, Valerie Gray ME John Brautigam, Eric Kennedy MD Chris Beck, Scott Zacharko, Danielle Schwarzmann, Kevin Lucas, Diane Franks, Kristen Ahearn, Miles Mitchell, Luke Wisniewski, Marissa Paslick, Kathy Kinsey MA Rachel Evans, Bill Lamkin, Will Space, Seth Federspiel, Paul Lopes NH Joe Fontaine, Craig Wright NY Lois New, Jon Binder, Jim Austin, Dave Coup, Jared Snyder RI Frank Stevenson, Dena Gonsalves VT Brian Woods, Kevin Fink, Mary Jo Krolewski Georgetown Climate Center Gabe Pacyniak, Kate Zyla RGGI, Inc. Nicole Singh, Katie Ho, Lisa DeVito, Anna Ngai
Topic: How state goals were calculated; how to convert from rate to mass in a region; state plan process; and what happens when new sources come online. Material: No material was provided.
Adventure Awaits: National Park Historic Travel Posters
Yellowstone National Park
Lassen Volcanic National Park
The Colorado Rockies
Rocky Mountain National Park
The Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone River
Zion National Park
What makes a geyser “geyse.”
Bryce Canyon – Cedar Breaks, Zion National Park
Pullman National Monument
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

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.

 

August 26, 2016

Order 

Clerk

August 26, 2016

153593(50)

CITY OF PONTIAC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 153593

v COA: 324548

Oakland CC: 2014-139761-CC

OTTAWA TOWER II, L.L.C., and CHARLES R.

STEPHENS, as Trustee of NORTH BAY

DRYWALL, INC., PROFIT SHARING PLAN &

TRUST,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY, f/k/a THE

DETROIT EDISON COMPANY,

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY,

MANAGEMENT & BUDGET, and

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the County of Oakland to file a brief

amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on August 24, 2016, is

accepted for filing.
**CLAIMS MANAGEMENT PORTAL IS NOW LIVE!**

## Quick Links

                    - CLJA Home
                    - Claim Eligibility
                    - Claims Submission Process
                    - Claims Validation / Settlement Process
                    - Difference Between CLJA and VA claims
                    - Elective Option
                    - Help Me Find My Military Records

## Help me find my military records

                        - How do I obtain copies of my military personnel or employment records to file my CLJA claim? 
Click here: Veterans' Service Records | National Archives

https://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records

To expedite the claims process, the Department of the Navy will not require claimants to provide military personnel and/or federal employment records at the time of the initial filing of the CLJA claim. Substantiating records may be requested on a case-by-case basis following the Navy’s evaluation of the claim.

If substantiation is needed, claimants or their designated representatives will be notified via the Claims Management Portal to provide substantiating documents to the Department of the Navy. The claimant can then work with National Archives and Records Administration to obtain records as needed to substantiate their claim. For information on requesting military records, please visit the National Archives at the link above.
 

Google Translation Disclaimer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cr-109-11

v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

JESSICA MARTIN,

Defendant.

CRIMINAL MINUTES: SENTENCING

AUSA Matthew Singer and Megan Gaffney Painter appeared for the Government

Defendant appeared with counsel Richard Goldberg

Defendant sentenced as follows:

Time Served

One Year Supervised Release

Conditions: 

Must not commit another federal, state, or local crime

Shall be prohibited from possessing a firearm, ammunition, destructive device,

or dangerous weapon

Shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance

Must refrain from the unlawful use a controlled substance

Must cooperate in the collection of his DNA

Shall comply with the standard conditions of supervised release that have been 

adopted by this Court

Must not incur new credit charges, or open additional lines of credit without the 

approval of the probation officer

Must provide the probation officer with access to any requested financial 

information and authorize the release of any financial information. The 

probation office may share financial information with the U.S. Attorney's Office

Special Assessment: $100 Fine: $0 Restitution: TBD

Judge: Douglas R. Cole

Courtroom Deputy: Scott Lang

Court Reporter: Sue Lopreato-Official

Date: March 29, 2023

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 293 Filed: 03/29/23 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 2075
Justin M. NEUBURGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-19

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jose ARIAS, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES and Sedgwick/CMS, Appellees.

No. 1D17-2037

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2018

Toni L. Villaverde of Toni L. Villaverde, PLLC, Coral Gables, for Appellant.

Derek V. James and Kimberly D. Proano of Jones, Hurley and Hand, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Ray, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
#### WESTLUND v. BOND.

No. 3539-A.

First Division. Juneau.

June 4, 1934.

A. W. Fox and Henry Roden, both of Hyden, for plaintiff.

H. D. Stabler, of Juneau, for defendant.

ALEXANDER, District Judge.

On plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s answer, as to der fendant’s first affirmative defense and counterclaim, plaintiff’s demurrer is overruled.

The real question raised is whether or not attorneys’ fees can be pleaded as a counterclaim here and be recovered as a counterclaim.

The courts hold that attorneys’ fees are recoverable where there is fraud, malice, or bad faith shown.

The general rule is stated in 17 C.J. § 135, p. 809.

The case of Hickman v. Craig, 6 Mo.App. 583, is exactly in point, holding, as it does: “As a part of the damages for a builder’s breach of a covenant against mechanics’ *528liens, costs and attorney’s fees in defending lien suits may be recovered.” Century Digest, Damages, § 152. And this rule is supported by the courts in a large number of our states.

2. Plaintiff’s demurrer as to defendant’s second affirmative defense and counterclaim was waived by plaintiff at the argument.

3. Plaintiff’s demurrer to third affirmative defense and counterclaim confessed by defendant at the argument.

Let an order be entered accordingly.
Austin Jeremy BOBO v. STATE

CR-15-0960

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. William G. Ross Jr. Chairman National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Permsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460

On behalf of everyone at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I wish to thank you and your colleagues on the National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology for your second advisory letter on sustainability. Please be assured that we at the EPA are now incorporating principles of sustainability more fully into our ongoing regulatory and nonregulatory work. We very much appreciate your helpful recommendations on setting direction and creating alignment on the EPA's path to sustainability, engaging stakeholders in the EPA's commitment to sustainability and demonstrating the EPA's leadership in sustainability. As you are aware from recent conversations, we are already implementing some of your recommendations. For example, I recently established a committee of senior career deputies to work with me in guiding our sustainability efforts. That group has been working to embed sustainability principles into our strategic-planning process and documents. We have also begun discussions about bolstering our work on sustainability metrics. Finally, with additional encouragement from the release of the National Academy of Sciences' new report, Sustainability for the Nation: Resource Connections and Government Linkages, we are evaluating the EPA's leadership role in sustainability in the context of the federal government at large, and we appreciate your confidence. We also are grateful for your recommendations on potential breakthrough objectives. The idea of our setting these, as both you and the National Academy of Sciences recommended, remains a topic for thoughtful discussion. In establishing such objectives, we will, of course, carefully consider the scientific bases for evaluating achievement of the objectives as well as the resource implications in pursuing them. Further, we are pleased to begin working with a subcommittee of your members to explore the EPA's role within the social pillar of sustainability. This effort follows up on your recommendation that the EPA should link sustainability, community engagement and environmental-justice approaches

Internet Address (URL) • http://wwwepa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperagencywide. As we move forward on sustainability, we might ask you and your advisory-council

colleagues for additional advice. In the meantime, I thank you once more for the hard work you devoted to your thoughtful and informative advisory letter. Sincere)i,

Bo Perciasepe
cc: Cynthia Jones-Jackson
## FAA-2011-0478
Rodney Milton COX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3748

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Justin Anthony DELHOMME v. STATE

CR-15-1124

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.