alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re GRIESHEIMER et al.

(District Court, N. D. California, First Division.

October 17, 1913.)

No. 8,125.

Bankruptcy (§ 484*)—Receivers—Fees.

A receiver was in possession of the bankrupts’ property but six days, during which time the store was closed. Not more than three times the receiver opened the store to permit prospective purchasers to view the stock, occupying 10 or 15 minutes each time, and sale was finally effected through no efforts of the. receiver. He employed an attorney, who prepared the necessary papers, who presented a claim for $200, which was reduced to $75. *Held,*that the receiver was only entitled to a fee of 2 per cent, on the .first $1,000 and one-half of 1 per cent on the balance, as pro-*135Tided by Bankr. Act July 1, 1S98, § 48d, as added by Act June 25, 1910, c. 412", § 9, 36 Stat. 840 (U. S. Comp. St. Supjp. 1911, p. 1503).

[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §§ 895, 896; Dee. Dig. § 4S4.*]

In Bankruptcy. In the matter of bankruptcy proceedings of Chas. Griesheimer and another, as copartners doing business under the narhe and style of the Variety Store, and such persons individually. On petition for review of referee’s order allowing receiver’s fees.

Modified.

Jas. P. Keleher and Jos. Kirk, both of San Francisco, Cal., for trustee.

F. S. Howell, for Geo. M. Brush.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

DOOLING, District Judge.

Petition for review of referee’s order allowing receiver’s fees. The receiver was in possession of the property not more than six days. During that period the store was- closed. If any purchaser offered himself, the receiver let him into the store, which on each occasion occupied only 10 or 15 minutes. This happened not more than three times. The offer of 65 per cent, of the value of the stock from Raymond Bros., to whom it was finally sold, was secured through no effort of the receiver. He employed an attorney to prepare the few papers necessary and presented a claim for $200 for attorney’s fees. This was cut by Jhe referee to $75. He also presented a claim for $76.80 for his own services, which was reduced by the referee to $50.

It does not seem to me that the receiver performed any such services, or carried on the business to any such extent, as would warrant the allowance of any larger fee than 2 per cent, on the first $1,000 and one-half of 1 per cent, on all above $1,000, as provided in section 48d of the Bankruptcy Act.

The order will be modified, to allow the receiver the sum of $24.20.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 01-08]

# AGENCY:

Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DOD.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 01-08 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: May 4, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 23895)          ( print page 23896)          ( print page 23897)          ( print page 23898)    

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M

[FR Doc. 01-11759  Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-C
#### In the Matter of Alvin Greenberg, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

December 26, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Frank A. Finnerty, Jr. (Nancy A. Bolger*of counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on October 22, 1952.

On May 13, 1989, the respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New *132York of violation of 18 USC § 201, "Bribery of public officials and witnesses”, and of two counts of violation of 18 USC § 654, "Officer or employee of United States converting property of another”; both of these crimes constitute felonies.

Violation of 18 USC § 201 has been held to be cognizable as the New York felony of bribery in the second degree (Penal Law former § 200.00, now § 200.03) *(see, Matter of Phillips,*100 AD2d 69). We find that 18 USC § 654 is essentially similar to grand larceny in the second degree, a class C felony, as defined in Penal Law § 155.40. Each of these felonies require the wrongful taking of money or property. Penal Law § 155.40 requires the value of the property which was wrongfully taken to exceed $50,000, and the respondent was convicted of embezzling $126,957.45.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law upon his conviction of a felony.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. The respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent Alvin Greenberg is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall promptly comply with this court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent Alvin Greenberg is commanded to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
(104 So. 917)

#### R. P. REESE et al. v. Geo. D. MOTLEY et al.

(7 Div. 548.) .

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

*702May 26, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O. A. Steele, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on, certificate, on motion of appellees.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER 

LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER 

SITE LITIGATION 

21MC103(AKH)

THOMAS MAHER, 

Plaintiff(s), 

-against80 LAFAYETTE ASSOCIATES LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

07CV5416(AKH)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby enters an appearance as counsel 

for Defendants CENTURY 21, INC and BLUE MILLENNIUM REALTY LLC in the abovecaptioned action and all future correspondence and papers filed or serviced in connection with 

the above-captioned action are to be directed to the undersigned. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 January 16, 2008 

Yours etc., 

HARRIS BEACH PLLC 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CENTURY 21, INC., BLUE 

MILLENNIUM REALTY LLC 

____________/s/________________

Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG-7062) 

100 Wall Street 

New York, NY 10005 

212 687-0100 

212 687-0659 (Fax) 

Case 1:07-cv-05416-AKH Document 13 Filed 01/16/2008 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATION AS TO SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on January 16, 2008, I caused to be filed and served 

the following document electronically via the Court’s ECF system upon the parties: 

1. Century 21, Inc. and Blue Millennium’s Notice of Appearance 

Dated: January 16, 2008 

 /s/ 

 Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG 7062) 

Case 1:07-cv-05416-AKH Document 13 Filed 01/16/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01509-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01509-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
Clear All

        14 March 2023    

                    Secretary of the Navy Visits Hampton Roads                 
                Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro visited the dock landing ship USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, March 10, to recognize commands and Sailors who supported recovery of a high-altitude surveillance balloon.            

        13 February 2023    

                    NECC Recovery Care Management Program Critical to Expeditionary Multidisciplinary Care Team                 
                Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) continues to demonstrate its commitment to the care and resiliency of its members across the force, by focusing on mental health and other critical care areas. The force uses the Recovery Care Management (RCM) program, which provides assistance to injured and            

        23 June 2022    

                    USS George H.W. Bush, Carrier Air Wing 7 Complete Flight Deck Milestones                 
                ATLANTIC OCEAN – USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) and Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7 - collectively Team Jackpot - completed two significant milestones in the ship's history achieving both 80,000 catapult launches and recoveries on the flight deck, June 15-16.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2009292EN.01002301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/23 |

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 292/07

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | X 166/09 | |
| Member State | Czech Republic | |
| Member State reference number | Znovu oznámení podpory dle nařízení Komise č. 800/2008 | |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Vysocina Article 87(3)(a) | |
| Granting authority | | | | --- | | Vysočina | | Žižkova 57 | | 587 33 Jihlava | | ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA | | http://www.kr-vysocina.cz | | |
| Title of the aid measure | Podpora investic v souvislosti se zpracováním a uváděním zemědělských produktů na trh | |
| National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication) | Zákon č. 129/2000 Sb., o krajích (krajské zřízení), ve znění pozdějších předpisů Zákon č. 250/2000 Sb., o rozpočtových pravidlech územních rozpočtů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů Zákon č. 252/1997 Sb., o zemědělství, ve znění pozdějších předpisů Program rozvoje kraje Vysočina Zásady Zastupitelstva kraje Vysočina pro poskytování finančních příspěvků na podporu zemědělství v kraji Vysočina a způsobu kontroly jejich využití č. 13/2007 | |
| Type of measure | Scheme | |
| Amendment of an existing aid measure | Modification XR 43/07 | |
| Duration | 27.1.2009-31.12.2013 | |
| Economic sector(s) concerned | Manufacture of food products, Manufacture of beverages | |
| Type of beneficiary | SME | |
| Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme | CZK 5,00 million | |
| For guarantees | — | |
| Aid Instrument (Article 5) | Grant | |
| Reference to the Commission Decision | — | |
| If co-financed by Community funds | — | |
| Objectives | Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency | SME-bonuses in % |
| SME investment and employment aid (Article 15) | 50 % | — |

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://www.kr-vysocina.cz/vismo5/dokumenty2.asp?id\_org=450008&id=1724443&p1=5411

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                  FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

     Net income applicable to common and common equivalent shares and the
weighted average number of shares used in the calculation of earnings per share
for the years ended May 31 were as follows (in thousands, except per share
amounts):
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               YEAR ENDED MAY 31
                                                                   ---------------------------------------
                                                                     1997             1996            1995
                                                                   --------        ---------        ------
<S>                                                                <C>             <C>              <C>     
Net income applicable to common and
     common equivalent shares.................                     $361,227        $307,777         $297,588
                                                                   ========        ========         ========

Average shares of common stock
     outstanding..............................                      114,125         113,128          111,975

Common Equivalent Shares:
     Assumed exercise of outstanding
       dilutive options.......................                        6,101           5,250            4,877
     Less shares repurchased from proceeds of
       assumed exercise of options............                       (4,585)         (4,102)          (3,865)
                                                                   --------        --------         --------

Average common and common equivalent
     shares...................................                      115,641         114,276          112,987
                                                                   ========        ========         ========
Earnings per share.........................                        $   3.12        $   2.69         $   2.63
                                                                   ========        ========         ========
</TABLE>


-    The computation of the number of shares repurchased from the proceeds of
     the assumed exercise of outstanding dilutive options is based upon the
     average market price of the Company's common stock during the periods.
     Common equivalent shares are excluded in periods in which their assumed
     exercise would have an anti-dilutive effect.

-    Fully diluted earnings per share are substantially the same as earnings per
     share for the years ended May 31, 1997, 1996, and 1995.
A92A1033.

#### BRADFORD v. THE STATE.

(422 SE2d 74)

Carley, Presiding Judge.

After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdicts.

In his sole enumeration, appellant urges that “[t]he trial court erred in failing to review the State’s file prior to trial for any exculpatory evidence requested by [his] *Brady*motion after the State did not produce exculpatory evidence.”

The record shows that appellant filed only a general *Brady*motion. “[A] trial court is not required to conduct an in camera inspection of the [S]tate’s file in connection with a ‘general’ *Brady*motion unless, after the [S]tate has made its response to the motion, the defense makes a request for such an inspection. [Cits.]” *Tribble v. State,*248 Ga. 274, 275 (1) (280 SE2d 352) (1981). Appellant did not request an in camera inspection. Indeed, the record shows that appellant declined the trial court’s offer to conduct a pre-trial in camera inspection.

Moreover, nothing in the record suggests a *Brady*violation. Appellant urges that the State failed to disclose a statement which had been given to officers by an accomplice who testified for the State. However, the record shows that appellant was fully aware of the existence of this statement and cross-examined the accomplice about its contents. Accordingly, either the statement had been disclosed to appellant by the State before the accomplice testified or appellant was otherwise aware of the existence of the accomplice’s statement. In ei*384ther event, there would be no violation of *Brady. Brady*does not require a *pre-trial*disclosure of material *(Brantley v. State,*199 Ga. App. 623, 624 (2) (405 SE2d 533) (1991)) and applies only “to exculpatory material *unknown*to the defendant. [Cit.]” (Emphasis supplied.) *Gilreath v. State,*247 Ga. 814, 827 (6) (279 SE2d 650) (1981).

Decided September 8, 1992.

*Howard J. Stiller,*for appellant.

*Britt R. Priddy, District Attorney,*for appellee.

After the trial, the trial court did conduct an in camera inspection and entered an order finding that no exculpatory material had been found in the State’s file. On appeal, appellant makes no contention that, contrary to the trial court’s finding, the State’s file does contain exculpatory material. Accordingly, we will not assume the burden of reviewing the State’s file. *Byrd v. State,*171 Ga. App. 344, 345 (3) (319 SE2d 460) (1984).

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Pope and Johnson, JJ., concur.*
#### THE DICKSADEE.

(District Court, S. D. Florida.

June 6, 1923.)

Maritime liens <@=>29—Libelant held not entitled to maritime lien for repairs.

Undei; Comp. St. Compact Ed. Supp. 1923, §§ *8146)4ooo,*8146)4p, as to maritime liens, where a motor yacht was placed at a boatyard under agreement that one L. might make certain repairs and changes at his expense, for which the owner should not be responsible, and L. employed libelant, and on- three occasions the owner notified libelant that he would not be responsible, for the work libelant was doing, *held,*that libelant was not entitled to a maritime lien for his work.

In Admiralty. Libel by William C. Kitchell against the motor yacht Dicksadee.

Libel dismissed.

Webster Spates, of Miami, Fla., for libelant.

Semple & Taylor, of Miami, Fla., for respondent.

CALL, District Judge.

In this cause libelant seeks to recover for labor performed upon the motor yacht Dicksadee during the months of November and December, 1921, and part of January, 1922. It is clear from the testimony that the yacht was placed at the boatyard under an agreement that Lane might make certain repairs and changes at his expense, for which the owner of the boat would not be responsible; that Lane employed libelant; that on three different occasions the owner notified the libelant that he would not be responsible for the work libelant was doing.

Act June 5, 1920, c. 250, § 30, subsection P (section 8146J4000 of Compiled Statutes Compact Ed. Supp. 1923), gives a maritime lien to any person furnishing repairs to - a vessel upon the order of the owner, or of a person authorized by the owner to make same. Section 30, subsection Q (section 8146J4p of the Compiled Statutes Compact Ed. Supp. 1923), designated the persons' who shall be presumed to have authority from the owner to procure such repairs, to wit, the *1013managing owner, ship’s husband, master, or any person to whom the management of the vessel at the .port of supply is intrusted. The employer of the libelant was neither the managing owner, ship’s husband, master., nor person to whom the management of the vessel was intrusted. Nor was he the owner. If any person was intrusted with the management of the yacht, if indeed any person appears by the evidence to have been so intrusted, it was the boatyard, and the libelant has not connected himself in any manner with the boatyard.

This Act of June 5, 1920, repealed the statute of 1910. It is to this Act of June 5, 1920, that the libelant must appeal to establish a maritime lien, and by the terms of it he is denied the relief sought. It is established by the testimony beyond controversy that the owner never authorized Lane to make any repairs.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider the defense of laches set up in the answer of claimant.
# C_2009266EN.01001101.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/11

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 266/07

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned route | Limoges (Bellegarde)–Paris (Orly) |
| Period of validity of the contract | 4 years from 6 April 2010 at the earliest |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | — | for the application (first step): 21.12.2009 (12.00, local time) |

Member State

France

Concerned route

Limoges (Bellegarde)–Paris (Orly)

Period of validity of the contract

4 years from 6 April 2010 at the earliest

Deadline for submission of tenders

—

for the application (first step): 21.12.2009 (12.00, local time)

| — | for the application (second step): 25.1.2010 (12.00, local time) |
| --- | --- |

—

for the application (second step): 25.1.2010 (12.00, local time)

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

| Syndicat Mixte de l’Aéroport de Limoges-Bellegarde |
| --- |
| 81 avenue de l’Aéroport |
| 87100 Limoges |
| FRANCE |
| M. Gilles TELLIER |
| Directeur de l’aéroport international de Limoges-Bellegarde |
| Tel. +33 555433026 |
| E-mail: gilles.tellier@limoges.cci.fr |

Syndicat Mixte de l’Aéroport de Limoges-Bellegarde

81 avenue de l’Aéroport

87100 Limoges

FRANCE

M. Gilles TELLIER

Directeur de l’aéroport international de Limoges-Bellegarde

Tel. +33 555433026

E-mail: gilles.tellier@limoges.cci.fr

---