alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stoddard Hubbell, Petitioner, &c. *versus*Calvin Hubbell *et al.*

Lands specifically devised are not liable to be sold for the purpose of paying specific legacies.

Whether in case of a deficiency of assets, the devisees are liable equally with the legatees to contribute, *qtuere.*

The petitioner, as executor of Calvin Hubbell, deceased, represents that the real estate of the- testator was appraised at *$*1938 ; that the amount of the personal estate, including the proceeds of a part of the real estate specifically appropriated to the payment of debts, is *$*4059 ; that the amount of ,the executor’s account for funeral charges, debts, and expenses of administration, is *$2616*; that the amount of specific legacies of personal estate is *$*1514 ; that the amount of debts now due is $ /l~9 ; and that it is necessary to sell real estate to the amo-"t *$*540 for the payment of debts and incidental .’haiges. The prayer of the petition is for leave to sell real esfate to that amount, for that purpose.

*572The real estate not applied to the payment ol debts, was devised specifically to certain persons named in the will.

*Dewey*and *Briggs,*for the petitioner.

*C. Hubbell, ppo se.*

Wilde J.

afterward drew up the opinion of ihe Court. The question submitted on this petition is, whether lands specifically devised can be sold for the purpose of paying specific legacies. The personal estate and lands appropriated to the payment of debts, not being sufficient for this purpose, after the payment of debts and the expenses of administration, the question is not affected by the rule laid down in the case of *Hays et al.*v. *Jackson et al.*6 Mass. R. 151, for marshalling assets ; and there seems to be no authority or reason for holding that lands specifically devised are liable to be sold for the payment of specific legacies. The most that the legatees can claim is, that they should be put on an equal footing with the devisees : and that the latter, in case of a deficiency of assets, should be held to contribute. But as to this we give no opinion, as the facts stated in the petition do not raise this question.

*Petition dismissed.*
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6651 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 603 West 3rd Street in Necedah, Wisconsin, 

as the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth E. Murphy Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6651 EH

1 SECTION 1. SERGEANT KENNETH E. MURPHY POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 603 West 3rd Street in Necedah, 

5 Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ser6 geant Kenneth E. Murphy Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth 

11 E. Murphy Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6651 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostE. Murphy Post Office Building’’. Necedah, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth al Service located at 603 West 3rd Street in
#### Rafael SANTOYO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73938

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 2, 2017

Rafael Santoyo-Garcia, Gadsden, AL, pro se.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rafael Santoyo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from *455an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Coronado v. Holder,*759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Santoyo-Garcia’s conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377(a), for possession of methamphetamine, constitutes a controlled substance violation that renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). *See United States v. Martinez-Lopez,*864 F.3d 1034, 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (holding that a similar California controlled substance statute is divisible with respect to the listed substances); *Coronado,*759 F.3d at 984-86 (holding that a § 11377(a) conviction for possession of methamphetamine was a controlled substance violation under the modified categorical approach).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion, where Santoyo-Gar-cia does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); *Planes v. Holder,*652 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissing petition challenging discretionary denial of cancellation of removal for failure to raise a colorable legal or constitutional challenge).

We deny Santoyo-Garcia’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 25 & 26).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0463 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JUSTIN DALLAS PETERSON,

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 August 8, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

July 1 2022

07/01/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0463
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04341]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP)--CE22-009, Rigorous Evaluation of Community-Level 
Substance Use and Overdose Prevention Frameworks That Incorporate ACEs-
Related Prevention Strategies; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, 
Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel 
CE22-009, Rigorous Evaluation of Community-Level Substance Use and 
Overdose Prevention Frameworks that Incorporate ACEs-Related Prevention 
Strategies; April 26-27, 2022, 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m. EDT, via Web 
Conference, in the original FRN. The meeting was published in the 
Federal Register on January 14, 2022, Volume 87, Number 10, page/s/
2439.
    The meeting is being amended to change the meeting date and should 
read as follows:
    CE22-009, Rigorous Evaluation of Community-Level Substance Use and 
Overdose Prevention Frameworks that Incorporate ACEs-Related Prevention 
Strategies: April 26, 2022.
    The meeting is closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aisha L. Wilkes, M.P.H., Scientific 
Review Official, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 
CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S106-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, 
Telephone (404) 639-6473, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d1c0a343136382e1d3e393e733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5e4f2ccc9cec0d6e5c6c1c68bc2cad3">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-04341 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
James S. MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2581

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
20120517 Exh 10.1


Exhibit 10.1


THIRD AMENDMENT
TO THE
PNM RESOURCES, INC. SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
OMNIBUS PERFORMANCE EQUITY PLAN
(SUBJECT TO SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL)


PNM Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) previously established the PNM Resources, Inc. Omnibus Performance Equity Plan, which was most recently amended and restated in its entirety effective as of May 19, 2009 by the adoption of the PNM Resources, Inc. Second Amended and Restated Omnibus Performance Equity Plan (the “Plan”).  The Plan was then amended by the First and Second Amendments.  By the adoption of this Third Amendment the Company wishes to further amend the Plan. 
1.    This Third Amendment is effective as of March 21, 2012, the date as of which it was approved by the Company's Board of Directors; provided, however, that this Third Amendment is subject to the approval of the Company's shareholders at the Company's 2012 Annual Meeting and shall be void in the absence of such approval.
2.    Section 2.1 (Definitions) is hereby amended by amending and restating Section 2.1(ff) to read as follows:
(ff)    “Performance Period” means the period of time selected by the Committee over which the attainment of one or more Performance Goals will be measured for the purpose of determining a Participant's right to and the payment of an Award granted pursuant to Sections 8, 9, or 12.  
3.    Section 12.7 (Maximum Award Payable) is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
12.7    Maximum Award Payable.  In accordance with Section 5.4, but subject to adjustment upon the occurrence of any of the events indicated in Section 5.3, the maximum Performance-Based Award (other than a Performance Cash Award) payable to any one participant during any fiscal year of the Company is five hundred thousand (500,000) shares of Stock or the equivalent cash value.  Subject to adjustment upon the occurrence







 of any of the events indicated in Section 5.3, the maximum Performance Cash Award payable to any one Participant during any fiscal year is five hundred thousand (500,000) times the Fair Market Value of a share of Stock on the first day of such fiscal year.
4.    This Third Amendment amends only the provisions of the Plan as noted above, and those provisions not expressly amended shall be considered in full force and effect.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Third Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this Third Amendment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, PNM Resources, Inc. has caused this Third Amendment to be executed this 28th day of March, 2012.
PNM RESOURCES, INC.






By:          /s/Patrick V. Apodaca                   
     Its:   Senior Vice President,
             General Counsel and Secretary



2
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0140**
#### John Oelerich, an Inf’t, Resp’t, v. The N. Y. Condensed Milk Co., App’lt.

*M. L. Towns,*for resp’t; *Wm. W. Niles, Jr.,*for app’lt.'

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 24 N. Y. State Rep., 699.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 11.1


                             ARTHROCARE CORPORATION
                                 
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
                                   (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three months ended:
                                                          March 29,                    March 30,
                                                           1997                          1996
                                                   ------------------              ----------------
<S>                                                <C>                             <C>              
Weighted average common shares                                  8,785                         3,739
   outstanding for the period                                                              
                                                                                           
Common equivalent shares pursuant to                                                       
   Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83                                 -                         3,117
                                                   ------------------              ----------------

Shares used in per share calculation                            8,785                         6,856
                                                   ==================              ================

Net loss                                           $           (2,167)             $         (1,743)
                                                   ==================              ================

Net loss per share                                 $            (0.25)             $          (0.25)
                                                   ==================              ================
</TABLE>
|  | (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. |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                   |                                    |
|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                   |
|                               |                              |                               |
| Date:                September 28, 2007 | By:                          | /s/                Gene Michael Bennett |
|                                    | Gene                Michael Bennett    |
|                                    | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
ACCEPTED 04-15-00268-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/23/2015 10:06:57 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 2096

_____________________________
K ELCEY J ONES ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ o f Habeas Corpus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

November 22, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. See Logan v. State , 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003)

.
R OWE , B ILBREY , and L ONG , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Kelcey Jones
, pro se, Petitioner

.2 No a ppearance for Respondent

.
Exhibit 31.3
 CERTIFICATIONS
 I, Thomas F. Lesinski, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of National CineMedia, Inc.;
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 Date:June 25, 2020/s/ Thomas F. LesinskiThomas F. LesinskiChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
#### Richard Eckert et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 100921.)

[771 NYS2d 132]

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from (1) a decision of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated February 6, 2003, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated February 25, 2003, which, after a trial on the issue of liability, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The claimants allege, among other things, that the State of New York was negligent in having its police officers fail to replace extinguished road flares at the scene of an accident, and failed to take other reasonable measures to warn drivers of the accident. However, traffic regulation, including the placement of road flares, “is a classic example of a governmental function undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to the general police powers” *(Balsam v Delma Eng’g Corp.,*90 NY2d 966, 968 [1997]; *see Respass v City of New York,*288 AD2d 286 [2001]; *Gonzalez v County of Suffolk,*228 AD2d 411 [1996]).

It is well settled that a municipality cannot be held liable for negligence in the performance of a governmental function unless a special relationship exists between the municipality and the injured party *(see Balsam v Delma Eng’g Corp., supra*at 967; *Cuffy v City of New York,*69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987]). Here, *471the injured, claimant failed to establish the existence of a special relationship between himself and the State. Accordingly, the claim was properly dismissed. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
COTELLIGENT,  INC. CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE
30,1999,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001004963
<NAME>                                         COTELLIGENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         617
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  67935
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1606
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               72210
<PP&E>                                         21109
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          39101
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       135
<OTHER-SE>                                     89525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168205
<SALES>                                        88566
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               88566
<CGS>                                          63708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  49009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               596
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8413)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16334)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16334)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.21)



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Edward McDonnell, Appellant, against Abram W. Skidmore, as Commissioner of the Police Department of the County of Nassau, et al., Respondents.

Argued January 4, 1944;

decided January 6, 1944.

*801
      *Saul B. Bradie, Leonard Acker, Philip Waters*and *Sidney S. Hein*for appellant.

*Marcus P. Christ, County Attorney*(J. *Oakey McKnight*of counsel), for respondents.

Appeal dismissed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lohghran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
H. R. 6750 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 501 Mercer 

Street Southwest in Wilson, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MILTON F. FITCH, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North 

Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Milton F. Fitch, 

Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Edward Schell, Trustee, etc.

(Argued February 27, 1872;

decided March 26, 1872.)

*Samuel Hand*for the appellant.

*B. H. Smith <& Sa/nford*for the respondent.

Order reversed on authority of *In re Livingston*(34 N. Y., 555).