alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SHEPPARD’S CASE. James Sheppard’s Executor *v.*The United States.

*On the Proofs.*

*In April,*1864, *six hundred bales of cotton belonging to the claimant are captured and sent to Little Lock to be used on the fortifications. Only one hundred and eighty-two bales arrive there. These are mingled with cotton of other parties and the mass is placed in the fortifications. Two hundred and seventy-three bales go into the fortifications, but only two hundred and forty-eight come out.*

Where captured cotton, belonging to A. is mingled with the *cotton of other '*persons, and the mass is used for fortifications, and only a portion thereof recovered subsequently, the proceeds derived from this portion will be a fund to answer to the several owners in the proportion to which they contributed to the mass.

*Mr. George Taylor*for the claimant.

*Mr. Alexander Johnston*for the defendants.

Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In April, 1864, there were about six hundred bales of cotton in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The evidence indicates, but is not conclusive, that all of this came from the plantations of the claimant. There were four hundred hales there which had been brought in from those plantations by Government contractors, and probably two hundred and fifty more which had been baled on tbe plantations before they were taken posses*457sion of by the Government, and had been sold by the overseer, without authority, to a Mr. Grace. But the weakness of the evidence receives strength from the fact that there has been no other claimant for the cotton, and, as we are informed by the Government counsel, there is no case remaining on the files of the court which seeks this fund.

These six hundred bales of cotton, in April, 1864, were sent to Little Bock, to be used on the fortifications; but only one hundred and eighty-two bales appear in the Treasury returns as arriving there. There was mingled with this the cotton of other parties, and the mass was placed in the fortifications. The mass which went into the fortifications was two hundred and seventy-three bales; but the quantity which came out was only two hundred and forty-eight bales. These two hundred and forty-eight bales are said by the Secretary of the Treasury to have brought $259.53 per bale net, which gives as the fund that must satisfy the owners of the mass the sum of $64,363.44. Dividing this fund by 273, the number of bales in the mass, fixes the rate per bale at $235.76.

The judgment of the court is, that the claimant recover the proceeds in the Treasury of one hundred and eighty-two bales of cotton, captured near Pine Bluff, being $235.76 per bale, amounting in the aggregate to $42,908.32.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         126,556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,927,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (756,767)
<INVENTORY>                                  9,487,798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,370,252
<PP&E>                                      18,640,103
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,289,343)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,207,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,631,036
<BONDS>                                      5,365,124
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,573,434
<OTHER-SE>                                (12,362,061)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,207,533
<SALES>                                      8,363,293
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,363,293
<CGS>                                        7,018,882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,887,614
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,288
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             419,873
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,977,364)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,977,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,977,364)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 8141** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. MAURICE EDWARD JACKSON, a/k/a Moe , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 5:93

- cr - 30025

- JPJ

- RSB

- 4; 5:12

- cv - 80538

- JPJ

- RSB )

Submitted : April 23, 2013 Decided: May 13, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNC AN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Maurice Edward Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Maurice Edward Jackson seeks to appeal the district

cour t’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that th e motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealab ility and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, in his informal brief, Jackson requests leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. In order to3 obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that
. . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases o n collateral review by the Supreme Court , that was previously unavailable
. 28 U.S.C. A. § 22 55(h ) (West Supp. 2012)
. Jackson ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
 
                                                                Exhibit 11.1


           HOME HEALTH CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

          Computation Of Primary and Fully-diluted Earnings Per Share

         For the three month periods ended September 30, 1996 and 1995

The following calculation is submitted in accordance with the Securities Act of 
1934:

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                             1995                          1996
                                 ----------------------------   ---------------------------
                                   Primary     Fully-diluted      Primary     Fully-diluted
                                 -----------  ---------------   -----------  --------------
                                       (amounts in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                              <C>          <C>               <C>          <C> 
Net income....................         $391             $391        $1,406           $1,406
Dividends on preferred stock             16               16           -                -
                                 -----------  ---------------   -----------  --------------
Net income available to common
   stockholders...............         $375             $375        $1,406           $1,406
                                 ===========  ===============   ===========  ===============
Weighted average number of
   maximum shares outstanding
   during quarter.............        3,567            3,567         8,024            8,024
Weighted average number of
   maximum shares subject to
   exercise under outstanding
   stock options and warrants.          136              136           513              513
Less treasury shares assumed
   repurchased from assumed
   exercise of outstanding 
   options and warrants.......          (38)             (38)         (355)            (338)
                                 -----------  ---------------   -----------  --------------
Weighted average number of
   common and common equivalent
   shares outstanding after 
   assumed exercise of stock
   options and warrants.......        3,665            3,665         8,182            8,199
                                 ===========  ===============   ===========  ===============
Net income per share..........        $0.10            $0.10         $0.17            $0.17
                                 ===========  ===============   ===========  ===============
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 24.1 - DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL PROCESSING, INC.
               ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
               POWER OF ATTORNEY

     The undersigned Directors of National Processing, Inc., an Ohio corporation
(the "Corporation"), which anticipates filing a form 10-K annual report pursuant
to Section 12(g) Securities and Exchange Commission Act of 1934 for the
Corporation's fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission hereby constitute and appoint David L. Zoeller, Carlton E.
Langer, David E. Fountain and Thomas A. Richlovsky, and each of them, with full
power of substitution and resubstitution, as attorneys or attorney to sign for
each of us and in our names, in the capacity indicated below, said Form 10-K,
and any and all amendments and exhibits thereto, or other documents to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission pertaining thereto, with full power
and authority to do and perform any and all acts and things whatsoever required
and necessary to be done in the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes
as I could do if personally present, hereby ratifying and approving the acts of
said attorneys, and any of them, and any such substitute.

     EXECUTED this 25th day of January, 2001.

   /s/ Paul G. Clark                            Chairman and Director
------------------------------
      Paul G. Clark

   /s/ Jeffrey P. Gotschall                     Director
------------------------------
      Jeffrey P. Gotschall

   /s/ Jon L. Gorney                            Director
------------------------------
      Jon L. Gorney

   /s/ Preston B. Heller                        Director
------------------------------
      Preston B. Heller

   /s/ Jeffrey D. Kelly                         Director
------------------------------
      Jeffrey D. Kelly

<PAGE>   2



   /s/ J. Armando Ramirez                       Director
------------------------------
      J. Armando Ramirez

   /s/ Robert G. Siefers                        Director
------------------------------
      Robert G. Siefers
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1692 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1692

  To require public employees to perform the inspection of State and 
  local surface transportation projects, and related essential public 
     functions, to ensure public safety, the cost-effective use of 
          transportation funding, and timely project delivery.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2015

Ms. Edwards (for herself and Ms. Norton) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require public employees to perform the inspection of State and 
  local surface transportation projects, and related essential public 
     functions, to ensure public safety, the cost-effective use of 
          transportation funding, and timely project delivery.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safety, Efficiency, and 
Accountability in Transportation Projects Through Public Inspection Act 
of 2015''.

SEC. 2. PUBLIC INSPECTION.

    Public employees shall carry out the construction inspection 
functions for all surface transportation projects receiving Federal 
funding.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act, the following definitions apply:
            (1) Construction inspection functions.--The term 
        ``construction inspection functions'' means construction 
        engineering, contract administration, quality control 
        inspection, materials testing, and resident engineer and 
        assistant resident engineer functions.
            (2) Public employee.--The term ``public employee'' means an 
        employee of a Federal, State, or local government.
            (3) Surface transportation project.--The term ``surface 
        transportation project'' means a project receiving assistance 
        under title 23, United States Code, a capital project (as 
        defined in section 5302 of title 49, United States Code), and 
        any other project related to surface transportation that the 
        Secretary of Transportation determines appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1555

NJOLI ROGER BOSUNG,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A97-201-448)

Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: April 3, 2006

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kell Enow, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Charles T.

Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Fred B. Westfall, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Njoli Roger Bosung, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Bosung contends that the

Board erred in denying asylum relief on the ground that he failed

to demonstrate that he filed his application within one year of the

date of his arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to

review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000),

even in light of the recent passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005,

Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231. See Chen v. United States Dep’t

of Justice, 434 F.3d 144, 150-54 (2d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases).

Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying

merits of Bosung’s asylum claim.

Bosung also contends that the Board erred in denying his

request for withholding of removal. “To qualify for withholding of

removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability

of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v.

Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on our review of the
- 3 -

record, we find that Bosung failed to make the requisite showing

before the immigration court. We therefore uphold the denial of

his request for withholding of removal.

We also find that substantial evidence supports the

finding that Bosung fails to meet the standard for relief under the

Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant

must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she

would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We find that Bosung failed to

make the requisite showing before the immigration court.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
17-296-cv 

McDonough v. Smith 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A 

SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY 

FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN 

CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE 

EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION 

“SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON 

ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 

the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 

York, on the 6th day of November, two thousand nineteen. 

 

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

 REENA RAGGI, 

 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 

Circuit Judges. 

________________________________________________ 

EDWARD G. MCDONOUGH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. No. 17-296-cv 

YOUEL SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF 

RENSSELAER, NEW YORK, AKA TREY SMITH, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

JOHN J. OGDEN, RICHARD MCNALLY JR., KEVIN 

MCGRATH, ALAN ROBILLARD, COUNTY OF 

RENSSELAER, JOHN F. BROWN, WILLIAM A.

MCINERNEY, KEVIN F. O’MALLEY, DANIEL B.

BROWN, ANTHONY J. RENNA, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________________ 

 
2

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: BRIAN D. PREMO, Premo Law Firm 

PLLC, Albany, NY. 

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: THOMAS J. O’CONNOR, Napierski, 

VanDenburgh, Napierski & O’Connor, 

LLP, Albany, NY. 

 On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. 

 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be VACATED and the cause be 

REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York 

for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United 

States. 

 This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which reversed our 

decision in McDonough v. Smith, 898 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2018), and remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. See McDonough v. Smith, 139 

S. Ct. 2149, 204 L. Ed. 2d 506 (2019). 

We now VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further 

proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.1

 FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 

1

 We express no view as to whether Smith has waived or forfeited the argument that absolute immunity 

bars McDonough’s fabricated-evidence claim. See Brown v. City of New York, 862 F.3d 182, 187-88 (2d 

Cir. 2017).
RULE 7.1 Page 1 of 1

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

email: carl@crowell-law.com

Drew P. Taylor, OSB 135974

email: drew@crowell-law.com

CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308

(503) 581-1240

Of attorneys for plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

COBBLER NEVADA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

USERS OF POPCORN TIME, et al,

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:15-cv-01991-ST

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, plaintiff states that other than ownership 

by Voltage Pictures, LLC, they do not have a parent corporation and no publicly held 

corporation owns 10% or more of their stock.

DATED: October 22, 2015.

Respectfully submitted, 

CROWELL LAW

/s/ Carl D. Crowell

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049

carl@crowell-law.com

Drew P. Taylor, OSB No. 135974

drew@crowell-law.com

503-581-1240

Of attorneys for the plaintiff

Case 3:15-cv-01991-ST Document 5 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
LUMISYS INCORPORATED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHETS AT MARCH 31, 1999 AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           13598
<SECURITIES>                                      3001
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5400
<ALLOWANCES>                                       682
<INVENTORY>                                       4599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 27930
<PP&E>                                             817
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   30540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5030
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                       28822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     30540
<SALES>                                           6730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  6730
<CGS>                                             3521
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2941
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (143)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    411
<INCOME-TAX>                                       159
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                252
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>