alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peoples *v.*Garrison & Son.

April 20, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Patterson. Cobb superior court. June 18, 1914.

*William Atiaway*and *Charles H. Griffin,*for plaintiff.

*Mozley <& Moss,*for defendants.

Atkinson, J.

1. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

2. Under the Civil Code, §§ 4984, 4985, on the trial of civil cases, where counsel for plaintiff and defendant fail to agree to have the case reported by the official reporter, the trial judge may direct it to be done, — -the fee to be paid by the parties on such terms as may be prescribed by the judge; but it is not mandatory that every case should be reported. Where the counsel do not agree, it rests within the sound discretion of the judge whether he will order the case reported.

*(a)*Under the facts of this case, and the character and quantity of the evidence involved, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to require tlie evidence to be taken down by the official stenographer; and while the remarks of the judge in making the ruling may have been subject to some criticism, in view of the circumstances, including the fact that counsel for the plaintiff did not invoke any distinct ruling in regard to the statement of the court in the 'preliminary motion, but made counter-statements as to the facts involved, such statement by the court will not require a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.3

Eastern Division

Katherine Albrecht, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:03−cv−06472

Hon. Morton

Denlow

Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, March 9, 2005:

 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier :Settlement conference held and

continued to 3/18/2005 at 02:00 PM.Mailed notice(mmm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 59 Filed: 03/09/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:395
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               OCT-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1997 
<CASH>                                           503,715 
<SECURITIES>                                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,641,587 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     397,926 
<INVENTORY>                                            0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,747,376 
<PP&E>                                           238,735 
<DEPRECIATION>                                    84,130 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,369,544 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            882,440 
<BONDS>                                                0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0 
<COMMON>                                          39,450 
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,447,654 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,369,544 
<SALES>                                        5,674,201 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,674,201 
<CGS>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,588,189 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,381,700 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               430,726 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (726,414)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (370,100)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (356,314)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0 
<CHANGES>                                              0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (356,314)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Crop Bioprotection Research: Peoria, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NCAUR HomepageSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Peoria, Illinois National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research Crop Bioprotection Research People







Heather N Walker    Biological Science Lab Technician (Microbiology) /ARSUserFiles/33558/Heather-1.jpg
 **CONTACT** Phone: (309) 681-6087 Fax: (309) 681-6672 Room: 3107  USDA ARS NCAUR 1815 N University Peoria, IL 61604
 **EDUCATION** BS, Microbiology, Western Illinois University, 2002
 **LAB MEMBERS:** Currently working under Dr. Christopher Dunlap
 /ARSUserFiles/33558/IMG_7657-action-1.JPG
 PublicationsNo publications listed for this employee.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### In the Matter of Cartrell Brooks, Petitioner, v Commissioner of Special Housing Unit, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 221]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During the course of an investigation, which included the monitoring of petitioner’s telephone calls, correction officials determined that petitioner was attempting to bring drugs into the correctional facility through his wife. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling and conspiring to bring a controlled substance into the correctional facility. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charges and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Petitioner argues, among other things, that the determination at issue is not supported by substantial evidence. Based upon a careful review of the record, we agree. The evidence presented at the hearing included the testimony of the correction officer who prepared the misbehavior report and conducted the investigation, as well as a certified transcript of recorded telephone conversations between petitioner and his wife. The officer testified that, based upon his review of the telephone transcript, he ascertained that petitioner was conspiring with his wife to have drugs brought into the correctional facility for sale. Specifically, he stated that during one conversation, petitioner’s wife made mention of having bought “SVs ounces,” which he interpreted to mean marihuana, and that during another conversation, petitioner used the Spanish word for heroin. The certified transcript included in the record, however, does not substantiate the officer’s testimony, as the noted references are not contained therein. When the recorded telephone conversations were played during the hearing, petitioner maintained that he and his wife were arguing over money and that drugs were not involved. Petitioner’s defense is consistent *1318with the contents of the certified transcript before us. Consequently, the determination must be annulled *(see Matter of Brown v Fischer,*91 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2012]; *Matter of Booker v Ercole,*72 AD3d 1369, 1370 [2010]). However, petitioner’s request for reinstatement of his visitation privileges is more properly the subject of a separate proceeding as the revocation of such privileges is not part of the disciplinary determination at issue *(see Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*47 AD3d 987 [2008]).

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted, and the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision is directed to expunge all references to this proceeding from petitioner’s institutional record and to restore any good time taken from petitioner as a result thereof.
----

Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-49/06)

(2006/C 60/62)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by N. Yerrell, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementing Directive 1999/37/EC expired on 1 June 2004.

----

(1)OJ L 138 of 1.6.1999, p. 57

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                          45,081
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,000)
<INVENTORY>                                        112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,491
<PP&E>                                          18,204
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,666)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,791
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,219
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,481)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,812
<SALES>                                         19,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,116
<CGS>                                           10,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,936
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (477)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        82
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (559)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (565)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
02C3310 USA vs. Peter Rogan Page 1 of 1

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

John W. Darrah Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 02 C 3310 DATE 4/17/2006

CASE

TITLE

USA vs. Peter Rogan

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Bench trial held and continued to 4/18/06 at 9:45 a.m.

06:00

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

MF

Case: 1:02-cv-03310 Document #: 192 Filed: 04/17/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2082
# C_2022185EN.01004701.xml

| 6.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 185/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/47

---

Opinionof the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positionsat its meeting on 30 November 2021concerning a draft settlement decision relating toCase COMP/AT.40135 – FOREX (Sterling Lads) Rapporteur: Portugal

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 185/03)

1.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft settlement decision (i.e. information exchanges, standing down and the underlying understanding) constitutes agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

2.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft settlement decision participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, as spelled out in the draft settlement decision.

3.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

4.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.

5.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft settlement decision with the exception of the immunity applicant.

6.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the calculation of the proxy to the value of sales to enable the application to the case of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.

7.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the determination of the basic amounts of the fines and the overlap corrections applied.

8.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice and the 2008 Settlement Notice.

9.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

10.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1000

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 28, 1997

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse at 500 State

Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, as the ‘‘Robert J. Dole

United States Courthouse’’.

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

S 1000 RFH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT J. DOLE UNITED

2 STATES COURTHOUSE.

3 The United States courthouse at 500 State Avenue

4 in Kansas City, Kansas, shall be known and designated

5 as the ‘‘Robert J. Dole United States Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert J. Dole United States

11 Courthouse’’.

Passed the Senate July 25, 1997.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
#### Ivey *v.*Harris.

February 20, 1915.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Walker. Taliaferro superior court. August 25, 1913.

*Hawes Cloud*and *B. P. Davis,*for plaintiff.

*Samuel H. Sibley,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

No error of law is complained of, and the evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                           7,813
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                       451
<INVENTORY>                                     26,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               154,259
<PP&E>                                         182,444
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 355,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,229
<BONDS>                                        189,389
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   355,912
<SALES>                                        226,186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               226,186
<CGS>                                          187,937
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  187,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,135
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,549
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,586
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,662
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
#### HENRY HUBER CO., Appellant, v. RIKER BASIN SYSTEM, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 22, 1907.)

Action by the Henry Huber Company against the Riker Basin Sys: tern. C. G. Smith, for appellant. D. McLean, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs: Order filed.
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to the best of my knowledge; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and
results of operations for the Company for the period covered by the Report.
  /s/ Godfrey R. Sullivan

Godfrey R. SullivanChief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1109 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1109

   To make a minor adjustment in the exterior boundary of the Devils 
  Backbone Wilderness in the Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri, to 
        exclude a small parcel of land containing improvements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 1997

Mr. Bond (for himself and Mr. Ashcroft) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To make a minor adjustment in the exterior boundary of the Devils 
  Backbone Wilderness in the Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri, to 
        exclude a small parcel of land containing improvements.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, DEVILS BACKBONE WILDERNESS, MARK TWAIN 
              NATIONAL FOREST, MISSOURI.

    The boundary of the Devils Backbone Wilderness established by 
section 201(d) of Public Law 96-560 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 94 Stat. 
3273) in the Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri, is modified to 
exclude from the area encompassed by the Devils Backbone Wilderness a 
parcel of real property consisting of approximately 2 acres in Ozark 
County, Missouri, and containing a garage, well, mailbox, driveway, and 
other improvements, as depicted on a map entitled ``Devils Backbone 
Wilderness Boundary Modification'', dated June 1996. The map shall be 
retained with other Forest Service maps and legal descriptions 
regarding the Devils Backbone Wilderness and shall be made available 
for public inspection as provided in section 202 of Public Law 96-560 
(16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 94 Stat. 3274).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this annual report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Angela Chen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

September 20, 2007



By:

/s/ Angela ChenAngela ChenChief Financial OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation