alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Title Guarantee & Trust Company, as Assignee Trustee of the Rents, etc., of the Premises of the Real Estate Board of New York Building Co., Inc., at 10-12-14 East 41st Street, New York City, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

Argued May 20, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*911
      *Harold J. Treanor, Hugh B. Archer*and *James W. Scott*for appellant.

*Robert H. Schaffer, Acting Corporation Counsel (Raymond Herzog*and *Sol Charles Levine*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher. J.
#### Fields *v.*The State.

Bell, Justice.

1. On a prosecution for the offense of rape, after a plea of not guilty had been entered on an indictment, and after the voir dire questions had been propounded to a panel of twelve jurors, but before any of the jurors had been sworn in chief (Code, § 59-709), the solicitor-general stated to the court that the clerk had handed to him the wrong indictment, and that he wished to withdraw the one on which *643such plea' had been entered and to substitute a different indictment in which a different female was named as the “alleged victim;” whereupon the attorney for the defendant moved for a mistrial and a continuance, “on the ground that, under the statement made here by the solicitor in front of this jury, he had made a pointed inference that there is another case against this defendant, which is extremely prejudicial.” The motion was overruled, and the case proceeded to trial upon the substituted indictment. *Held:*

No. 13277.

July 13, 1940.

*Russell G. Turner,*for plaintiff in error.

*Ellis G. Arnall, attorney-general, John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, J. ~W. LeCraw, E. A. Stephens, Quincy 0. Arnold, Duke Davis*and *O. E. Gregory Jr., assistant attorneys-general,*contra.

*(a)*The motion appears to have referred to the first indictment only, as tó which the ease was in effect continued. Accordingly, nothing appears of which the defendant may complain.

*(b)*Even if the motion should be taken as relating to the substituted indictment, no reversible error appears. *Smith*v. *State, 7 Ga. App.*252 (2) (66 S. E. 556); *Martin*v. *State,*10 *Ga. App.*798 (2) (74 S. E. 306). .

2. The court did not err in refusing to disqualify, the entire panel of jurors merely because of the statement of the solicitor-general. The proper method of objecting would have been by challenge to the poll if the jurors qualified upon their voir dire. *Humphries*v. *State,*100 Ga. 260 (2) (28 S. E. 25); *Coleman*v. *State,*141 *Ga.*731 (82 S. E. 228) ; *Ford*v. *State,*164 *Ga.*638 (3) (139 S. E. 355); *Bradberry*v. *State,*170 *Ga.*870 (4) (154 S. E. 351).

3. Except as dealt with in the preceding notes, the special grounds of the motion for a new trial are controlled adversely to the defendant by the rulings in the companion case, *Barkley*v. *State,*ante, 641.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
|   | (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: May 4, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Pin Huang                              |
|-------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|              |   | Pin Huang                                  |
|              |   | Principal Financial and Accounting Officer |
|              |   | Qingdao Footwear, Inc.                |

----
Special considerations for Economic Ana lysis (Use thisfleltlio explai11 rmy1hing in lire Eslimwetl Cosrs ruble 

r/J(// ll'as assumed or miglrt Jml hi! obvious. T!tis}ii!ld can also be usl!d 10 explainwarranly cost.1): Sec 74 7-

53/\2682Rl and 747-53!\2852 RO 

Executi ve Onle r 12866: 

Could the /\0 be considered a ··signi tlcant regu latory ti on ~ 

YES* 0 NO [g) 

*Explanation: 

DOT RegulatOt')' Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD signi ficant? @ 

YES* 0 ~ 

*Exp lnnntion: 

Reg ulato ry Flcxihility Act: 

Will the J\0 have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small emitics? L.:xplain lor 

either a Yes or No answer. @ 

YES0 NO~ 

L.:xp lnnation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alasl<a: 

This AD co11ld nllcct intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it approprintc to include spcc ilic req uirements for 

aircrart opcrntcd in /\Iaska where avint ion might be the <)n ly mode or tmnsportat ion? ~ 

YES* 0 NO [g) 

.. Explanation: 
I 

.{,,If<:. ,f1t.'/. 

Reg ula tOr)' Evalua tion 

Docket No. FAA- '20/)-3'? [3 Directorate Identifier: -AD JO!S: Alki--1'-11-A D 

~/yu u makl! changes tv 1/w I'OIIIt'.\ in t/1(' Whll! he/ow. you mustensttre 1fte tow!s 1/fldale CtCconlin)!.!y. 1/ 

!Itt.!)' clo twt. click (nr J'ah) ill to oncl!llen /J ill of t/1<: changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs p<!r Produ ct (c ~ .• aircra ft , engine, 

(e.g .. Inspection, ,_Qropcllcr, appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Ports Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do 110 1 indudl! 011- (include cost (labor t- u.s. lor u.s. Fleet 

comlition c:o~ ~ ht>re access, testing, (@S85/h pflrtS) Registered 

and close·tlj.)) our) Products 

See 74 7-53/\2452 Vp 1& <Jgif RI 

~cc 747-5JA2852 

' ~0 Up te (,96 

-

~ 7'1'7- 5 Jll~ .J J.... f/ll t; sc}b 

·- i 

--- ·---- ---

1--

The known number of products i11 complianc:e: 

Total Costs of' comrliancc for U.S. fleet: s 0 - Cost~ vcred under warranty ((f'knmrn) s 1- .. 

On-Cond it ion Costs ~ ------

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cl'St per Product 

(e.g .. Inspection. (include access, (@S85/hour) 

rcplncement) testing. and doseup) ____ .. 

See 747-53A2452 /'vJ ~.f, "."f,v c. dr.._t 

RI I' 

See 74 7-53;-\ 28 52 M c:~-fi,.,.fw • t.lr•1•, RO 

- - -- -- - '- - - -- ··-
#### William C. Rowley, Appellant, *v.*Lauren C. Woodruff, Respondent.

(Argued December 19, 1872;

decided December 24, 1872.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the *701Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order denying motion for a new trial. The court upon the trial nonsuited the plaintiff and ordered the complaint to be dismissed, and ordered exceptions to be heard at first instance at special Term.

This action was brought to recover the last installment due upon a contract between one Farquharson and defendant, and assigned by the former to plaintiff.

Farquharson contracted to sell to defendant an interest in a patent right already in use for bleaching paper and pulp, and also an interest in *&■*patent right that had been applied for but not obtained for preparing the material and reducing it to pulp preparatory to bleaching, for a sum in gross.

Farquharson agreed to put “ the said process ” in operation at once in the mill of defendant, and did provide and put in successful and satisfactory operation the process for bleaching. Defendant paid a part of the purchase-price at the time of making the contract, and agreed to pay the balance by installments ; one installment as soon as the process should be put in successful operation and prove to be all that was claimed for it, and the residue say twelve or eighteen months from the making of the contract. All the payments but the last were made. The patent for preparing and reducing the material to pulp proved a failure. It was a condition of the payment of the several amounts that the *“*said process shall work successfully and practically, and shall perform with the economy and dispatch that is claimed for it.” *Held,*that the condition referred solely to the process for bleaching, and, as that did work as agreed by the condition, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

*George F. Dcmforth*for the appellant.

*Cyrus F. Demis*for the respondent.

Alleit, J.,

reads opinion for reversal and new trial.

All concur.

Judgment reversed.
#### Vansy CHAO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Department of Justice; Michael John Creppy, Board Member, Board of Immigration Appeals; Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Leon Rodriguez, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Kimberly Zanotti, Field Director, USCIS, Washington, D.C. Field Office, Defendants-Appellees.

*752No. 17-1173

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 29, 2017

Decided: October 12, 2017

Donald L. Schlemmer, DONALD SCHLEMMER LAW OFFICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Dennis C. Bar-ghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vansy Chao appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants summary judgment and dismissing Chao’s civil action, which was filed pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). *See*5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2012). We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, employing the same standard used by the district court. *Roland v. USCIS,*850 F.3d 625, 628 (4th Cir. 2017). Pursuant to the APA, a “reviewing court shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be [ ] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). On appeal, this court is limited to examining “whether the agency conformed with controlling statutes, and whether the agency has committed a clear error of judgment.” *Holly Hill Farm Corp. v. United States,*447 F.3d 258, 263 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” *Id.*(alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

We have considered Chao’s arguments on appeal in conjunction with the record and relevant authorities. We agree with the district court that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ denial of Chao’s 1-130 Petition for an Alien Relative benefiting his wife, which was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, is not arbitrary, capricious, contrary to established law, or otherwise an abuse of discretion, and that the dispositive factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. *See*5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (E).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its disposi-tive order. *See Chao v. Sessions,*No. 1:16-cv-00206-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### Welch *v.*The State.

No. 13164.

April 11, 1940.

Jenkins, Justice.

1. In this conviction for murder, with life imprisonment, the general grounds of the motion for new trial, being neither argued nor insisted upon, will be treated as abandoned.

2. The court did not err in refusing a continuance because of the absence of an alleged material witness for the defendant in support of his statement to the jury that he shot the deceased in self-defense, since it appears that a subpoena for the witness was not delivered to the sheriff until the day of the trial, although the defendant had full time and opportunity to procure the presence of the witness, and failed to show that he acted with due diligence. *Glover*v. *State,*89 *Ga.*391 (15 S. E. 496) *; Kidd v. State,*101 *Ga.*528 (28 S. E. 990); *Ivey*v. *State,*154 *Ga.*63 (113 S. E. *175); Blount*v. *Beall,*95 *Ga.*182 (22 S. E. 52) ; *Bone*v. *State,*8 *Ga. App.*373 (69 S. E. 37); *Edge*v. *State,*27 *Ga. App.*264 (2) (108 S. E. 69), and cit. Especially can the defendant not complain of the failure to grant a continuance, where, before the case went to the jury, the court twice offered to send an officer for the witness, but such offer was not accepted. *McRae*v. *State,*52 *Ga.*290, 297; *Brady*v. *State,*120 *Ga.*181 (2), 183 (47 S. E. 535) ; *Curtis*v. *State,*48 *Ga. App.*135 (2) (172 S. E. 99).

3. “Where a motion for new trial is based on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and there is a counter-showing, with conflicting evidence as to the truth of the alleged newly discovered facts, this court will not interefere with the grant or refusal of a new trial on that ground, unless there has manifestly been an abuse of the discretion which the law has vested in the trial judge, but not conferred on this court.” *Southwell*v. *State,*188 *Ga.*310 (2) (4 S. E. 2d, 26), and cit.; *Morris*v. *State,*177 *Ga.*365, 367 (170 S. E. 217), and cit. Since the truth of the alleged newly discovered testimony as to the finding of a knife alleged to have belonged to the deceased, about two hours after the homicide at the place where she fell, was contradicted in the counter-showing by the State, and since statements in the affidavits of the two witnesses, corroborating the alleged newly discovered testimony of the main witness, are in conflict with their testimony given at the trial, no abuse of discretion appears in the refusal of a new trial on this ground.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*164*D. E. Griffin*and *McDonald <& McDonald,*for plaintiff in error.

*Ellis G. Arnall, attorney-general, Allan G. Garden, solicitor-general, G. E. Gregory Jr.,*and *Dulce Davis, assistant*attorneys[ *general,*contra.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0280

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MIKEL STETSON LETHERMAN,

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 February 6, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 19 2022

12/19/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0280
#### Mayer Altmayer, Resp't, *v.*The New York El. R. R. Co. *et*al., App’lts.

Appeal from a judgment entered on the decision of the court after a trial at an equity term.

*Davies & Rapallo,*for app’lts; *Peckham & Tyler,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.—Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Benitez De Jesus and William Diaz, Appellants.

Argued April 22, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*Abraham J. Gellinoff, George C. Norton, Dennis K. Keller*and *Rose Rothenberg*for Benitez De Jesus, appellant.

*Irving Tell, Alexander I. Rorke, Jose R. Quinones*and *Abraham J. Gellinoff*for William Diaz, appellant.

*Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Stanley H. Fuld*and *Richard G. Denzer*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgments of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
#### DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK; Maya Van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, Petitioners v. SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Respondents Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp, Intervenor Respondent New Jersey Conservation Foundation; Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association; Friends of Princeton Open Space, Petitioners v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp, Respondents

No. 15-2122, No. 15-2158

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued on October 29, 2015

Dated: March 24, 2017

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SCIRICA and ROTH, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Jane R. Roth, Circuit Judge

By letter dated February 14, 2017, the Clerk solicited comments from the Respondent and Intervenor Respondent with respect to the Court’s intention to replace references to “tree clearing”-contained in the opinion with the term “tree felling.” Upon consideration of the parties’ responses, the Court has determined that an amended opinion will be issued. The amendment does not alter the Court’s judgment previously entered on August 8, 2016.
GARY MCGEE,

Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00125-CR

Appeal from the

394th District Court

of Hudspeth County, Texas

(TC# 6070)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible 

error in the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD OF DECEMBER, 2020.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### Ronnie CLARKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PETERSBURG; W. Howard Myers, Mayor of the City of Petersburg; William Johnson, City Manager; Lorraine Adeeb, Human Resources Director for City; Brian Telfair, City Attorney for the City, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1530

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.*

*

 The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012).

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Clarke appeals the district court’s order dismissing, after a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012), Clarke’s complaint alleging Defendants retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R, 34(b). Because Clarke’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Clarke has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir, 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1027

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Silas Jefferson, Jr., *

* [Unpublished]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 2, 1997

 Filed: May 8, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Silas Jefferson appeals the 240-month sentence imposed by the

district court following his guilty plea to aiding and abetting

1

his co-defendants in the commission of an armed bank robbery, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d) and § 2. We affirm.

We reject Jefferson's argument that the district court clearly

erred in increasing his base offense level two levels for being "an

organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity"

involving one or more other participants. See U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) & comment. (n.2) (1995); United States

v. Horne, 4 F.3d 579, 590 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review),
-2-

cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1138 (1994). The record established that

Jefferson carried the firearm involved in the robbery, received a

greater percentage of the proceeds, and directed the actions of at

least one other co-defendant. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4) (1995) (factors court should

consider); cf. United States v. Pedroli, 979 F.2d 116, 118 (8th

Cir. 1992) (evidence supported organizing-role enhancement where

defendant recruited co-defendant, provided him with baseball hat,

sunglasses, and demand note, and organized bank robbery).

We further reject Jefferson's contention that the district

court clearly erred in denying him an acceptance-of-responsibility

adjustment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1995).

United States v. Evans, 51 F.3d 764, 766 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard

of review). Jefferson's conceded perjury before a magistrate judge

was inconsistent with an acceptance of responsibility. Moreover,

Jefferson does not contest the district court's assessment of an

obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 3C1.1 (1995). This is not an "extraordinary" case that

would warrant both an obstruction-of-justice enhancement and an

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. See U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4) (1995). Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### SHIRE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Shire Pharmaceutical Development, Inc., Cosmo Technologies Limited, Nogra Pharma Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED, DBA Zydus Cadila, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Defendants-Appellees

2017-1048

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 9, 2017

Edgar Haug, Haug Partners LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Andrew S. Wasson, Jason Aaron Lief, Angus Chen, Elizabeth Murphy.

Michael John Gaertner, Locke Lord LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Andy Joe Miller, James Thomas Peterka, Wasim K. Bleibel, Hugh S. Balsam, Timothy Flynn Peterson, David Brian Abramowitz; Andrea Lynn Wayda, New York, NY.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Mayer and Wallaeh, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.