alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Morris L. BURSTON, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant.

No. 30,156.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

July 11, 1975.

*77
      *Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Captain Barry J. Wendt,*and *Captain John R. Osgood*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain Joel M. Martel*and *Captain Allan A. Toomey*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The accused’s conviction for possession of heroin is marred by the failure of the staff judge advocate’s post-trial review to cover the defense of entrapment that was raised by the evidence presented at trial. This omission causes the review to be incomplete on an essential issue and, therefore, unacceptable. *United States*v. *Cruse,*21 U.S.C.M.A. 286, 45 C.M.R. 60 (1972); *United States*v. *Hooper,*9 U.S.C.M.A. 637, 26 C.M.R. 417 (1958).

The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the Court of Military Review. That court can disapprove the finding of guilty of possessing heroin and reassess the sentence on the remaining charge or order a new post-trial review and action by the convening authority.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001000686
<NAME>                          North American Resorts, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                               1
<CURRENCY>                                        US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                            1
<CASH>                                                     0
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0
<PP&E>                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          1700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                          1471583
<COMMON>                                              103294
<OTHER-SE>                                          (1573177)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            1700
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           1133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (1133)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (1133)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0



</TABLE>
734 A.2d 1271

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. David Lynn LOWANS, Respondent.

No. 185 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 27, 1999.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 1999, on certification by the Disciplinary Board that the respondent, DAVID LYNN LOWANS, who was suspended by Order of this Court dated April 24, 1996, for a period of thirty days, has filed a verified statement showing compliance with all the terms and conditions of the Order of Suspension and Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E., and there being no other outstanding order of suspension or disbarment, DAVID LYNN LOWANS is hereby reinstated to active status, effective immediately.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3164
ANDREW YOUNG, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALLIED SIGNAL TECHNICAL SERVICES CORPORATION, a/k/a Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-3634-AW) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Young, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stanley Mazaroff, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore, Maryland; Patricia Gillis Cousins, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in the Appellant's employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Young v. Allied Signal Technical Serv. Corp. , No. CA-94-3634-AW (D. Md. Dec. 1, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

AFFIRMED
PUEBLO RES RELEASE TO PUEBLO WESTLatitude: 38.268Longitude: -104.724Elevation: None

Pueblo Res release to Pueblo West

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Glen Cove Site Page...



Glen Cove

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Saint Elmo Site Page...



Saint Elmo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hayden Pass Site Page...



Hayden Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fremont Pass Site Page...



Fremont Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Independence Pass Site Page...



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Porphyry Creek Site Page...



Porphyry Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to South Colony Site Page...



South Colony

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Medano Pass Site Page...



Medano Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buckskin Joe Site Page...



Buckskin Joe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rough And Tumble Site Page...



Rough And Tumble
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David R. Bovee, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.



/s/  David R. Bovee
-------------------

David R. Bovee
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
March 27, 2003
#### Schmidt *v.*Steinway & H. P. R. Co.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Contributory Negligence—Question for Jury.

Where, in an action for personal injuries, the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence is fairly submitted to the jury, their verdict must control.

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Action for personal injuries, by Otto Schmidt against the Stein way & Hunter’s Point Railroad Company. Plaintiff was engaged in excavating a sewer which ran along-side of defendant’s car-track. A section of sewer-pipe was set up between the sewer and the track, for the purpose of making a guard around the excavation. One of defendant’s cars came by this piece of pipe, and knocked it into the sewer, on plaintiff, causing the injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. For former report, see 8 N. Y. Supp. 664, and 9 N. Y. Supp. 939.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt and Dykman, JJ.

*Foster <& Foster, (W. J. Foster,*of counsel,) for appellant. *M. L. Towns,*for respondent.

Dykman, J.

Upon the first trial of this action the complaint of the plaintiff was dismissed at the circuit, and appeal was taken to this court, and we decided that the case was a proper one for the determination of a .jury. Under such decision a new trial has now been had, and the jury has rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. The cause was tried without an error, and .the charge of the trial judge laid a heavy burden upon the plaintiff; but it was successfully sustained, and we cannot interfere. The judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J.

Most of the questions upon which this appeal depends were so fully considered on a former appeal as to require no further discussion. It is now urged that, as plaintiff himself adjusted the block upon which was placed the pipe whose fall caused the injury, he must be regarded as guilty of contributory negligence. One answer to this suggestion is that there is no reason to suppose the block was improperly placed. The plaintiff was at the bottom of the sewer, necessarily depending upon those above him for instructions how to place the block; and, plainly the block could not be so placed that a blow from the moving ear would not displace the pipe. Moreover, the question of contributory negligence was fairly submitted to the jury. Their verdict must control. The foreman does not testify that in this instance he gave orders to the driver to start his car. But, if he did, defendants cannot avail themselves of his negligence to defeat this action. Negligence of a fellow-servant is not defense except for the common employer. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 20 1 600 354

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### JONATHON D. FRAZIER Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge : Colonel Peter S. Rubin , USMC. Convening Authority: Commanding Office, 2d Reconnaissance Battalion, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, NC. Staff judge Advocate’s Recommendation : Major W.G. McMillan, USMC. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Derek C. Hampton, JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Decided 10 January 2017

_________________________ Before M ARKS , G LASER

- A LLEN , and E LLINGTON , Appell ate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S .C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
Petitions of

-- ) ) Framaco-Epik-Metis, JV ) ) ) ) Under Contract No. W912GB-10-C-0020 )
APPEARANCES FORTHE PETITIONER:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 60359-962, 60360-963 60361-964, 60362-965 60363-966

Robert M. Moore, Esq. Robert D. Windus, Esq.

Moore & Lee, LLP McLean, VA
Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney BrettR. Howard, Esq.

EngineerTrial Attorney U.S. Army Engineer District, Europe
DISMISSAL ORDER
The contractor filed, under Rule l(a)(5), a request for an order directing the contracting officer to render a decision on its five claims, all ofwhich were submitted between 3 October 2013 and 22 April 2015. In a conference call on 26 February 2016, petitioner's counsel informed the Board that the claim underlying the first ofits petitions, ASBCA No. 60359-962, had been withdrawn, and that the contracting officer had issued final decisions on the claims underlying the remaining four petitions, ASBCA Nos. 60360-963, 60361-964, 60362-965, and 60363-966. In light ofthese circumstances, neither party objected to the petitions being dismissed as moot. Accordingly, the Board dismisses the captionedpetitions as moot. Dated: 2 March 2016

# ~ 

# 7£/--m**MARKN.frt~** Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe OrderPursuantto Rule l(a)(5) of the Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCANos. 60359-962, 60360-963, 60361-964, 60362-965, and 60363-966, Petitions ofFramaco-Epik-Metis, JV, rendered in conformancewiththe Board's Charter.
Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
# C_2009066EN.01002301.xml

| 20.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/23

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5408 — Fortress/Unicredit/Torre)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 66/06)

On 12 March 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5408. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5408. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3579

___________________________

Dexter Harmon

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, State of Arkansas; Bourgon B. Reynolds,

Assistant Attorney General, State of Arkansas; Chris Piazza, Circuit Court Judge,

Pulaski County; Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction;

Arkansas Department of Correction, Trust Fund Centralized Banking; Vicki Rice,

ADC Trust Fund Centralized Banking Office

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: September 8, 2017

Filed: September 13, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Dexter Harmon appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We previously granted Harmon in forma pauperis

status, affirmed the dismissals of claims against all but Arkansas Assistant Attorney

General Bourgon Reynolds, and ordered briefing on those claims.

After careful de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th

Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal for failure to state claim

reviewed de novo), we conclude that the district court correctly determined that

Reynolds was entitled to absolute immunity in the circumstances presented here. See

Murphy v. Morris, 849 F.2d 1101, 1104-05 (8th Cir. 1988) (articulating factors to be

considered in deciding whether to extend absolute immunity to government attorney

who was representing state defendant in prisoner civil rights lawsuit). Accordingly,

we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe

J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
#### Smith v. Smith.

Appeal from Birmingham City Court, in Equity.

Heard before the Hon. W. W. Wilkerson.

Walker, Porter & Walker, for appellant.

J. G. Crews and -John Vary, for appellee.

Martha A. Smith, appellee, filed a bill on the chancery side of the city court of Birmingham, making appellants defendants, in which she sought to have certain deeds made by her husband, Henry G. Smith to T. H. Smith, and by said Henry G. Smith to T. IT. Smith and H. M. Courtney, and the deed by said T. H. Smith and H. M. Courtney to appellant, Aaron Smith, set aside, cancelled and held for naught; and the title to the lands set out in said deeds, which was owned by her busiband, said Henry G. Smith, revested in the estate of said Henry G. Smith, subject to her claim as widow to homestead and dower. She also alleges in her bill that while her name was signed to these deeds made by her husband, H. G. Smith, she 'believed that she was only making one deed, and that was the one to T. IT. Smith for forty acres. She also alleges that said Henry G. Smith was not of sound mind and not capable of attending to busi*714ness -or of making -contracts, 'and was not of siifficient mental capacity to execute tlie 'said deeds when they were ■executed, as she alleges, on the 12th day of June,-1883. She further -alleges that she was in possession of said land at the time of filing her bill.

On the final submission of the cause on the pleadings •and proof, the chancellor decreed that the complainant was entitled to the relief prayed for and ordered accordingly.

The decree of the chancellor is -affirmed.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.
1 – NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

J. MORGAN PHILPOT

morgan@jmphilpot.com

J. Morgan Philpot Attorney at Law

5201 S. Green St. Suite 225

Murray, UT 84123

Ph: 801-891-4499

Attorney for Ammon Bundy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMMON BUNDY et al,

 Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-CR-00051

NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF 

COUNSEL

The undersigned attorney, J. Morgan Philpot is admitted or otherwise authorized 

to practice in this Court, and shall be substituted in the place of Michael Arnold and Lissa 

Casey as counsel of record for Defendant, AMMON BUNDY pursuant to LR 83-11(d). 

Defendant, Mr. Arnold and Ms. Casey have consented hereto. 

DATED this 25th day of May, 2016.

/s/ J. Morgan Philpot

J. Morgan Philpot, OSB #144811

morgan@jmphilpot.com

I consent to the above-substitution. 

/s/ Lissa Casey /s/ Michael Arnold

Lissa Casey, OSB #086541 Michael Arnold, OSB #011873

lissa@arnoldlawfirm.com mike@arnoldlawfirm.com

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 610 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1 - Certification of Principal Executive Officer





CERTIFICATION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED BY


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet America, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the three months ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William
E. Ladin, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to my knowledge that:





(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.





/s/
      William E. Ladin, Jr.William
      E. (Billy) Ladin, Jr.Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:
      November 16, 2009
#### Anna B. Lavin et al. *v.*Luigi Scascitelli et al.

*George 8. Sakellares,*for the appellees (defendants).

*William F. Gallagher,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Argued June 3

decided June 3, 1975

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          47,972
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  357,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,916
<INVENTORY>                                    219,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          35,024
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 761,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    338,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           359
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,551
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   761,145
<SALES>                                        281,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               337,693
<CGS>                                           71,437
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,068
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,579
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,444
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,156
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,288
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    766
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,522
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54
<FN>
<F1>FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>


</TABLE>
PLATEAU CREEK NEAR CAMEO, COLatitude: 39.184Longitude: -108.268Elevation: 4840

PLATEAU CREEK NEAR CAMEO, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mesa Lakes Site Page...



Mesa Lakes

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Overland Res. Site Page...



Overland Res.

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Park Reservoir Site Page...



Park Reservoir