alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PENNSYLVANIA SUGAR REFINING CO. v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO. et al.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

May 20, 1909.)

Depositions (§ 84*) — Return—Cross-Examination.

Whore the failure of defendant’s counsel to appear at the taking of a deposition arose from a misunderstanding caused by unwarranted reliance on statements in a letter of the witness’ attorney, and it did not appear that plaintiff would be prejudiced by the return of the deposition for cross-examination, except to the extent of the expense thereof, defendant’s motion for return would be granted on condition of defendant’s paying the charges of the notary and stenographer and a fee of $50 to plaintiff for counsel on such examination.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Depositions, Dec. Dig. § 84.*

Irregularities in taking or return of depositions as ground for exclusion as evidence, see note to Columbus Ry. Co. v. Patterson, 73 C. C. A. 608.]

On Motion for an Order Directing the Return of Depositions to Permit Cross-Examination.

See, also, 160 Fed. 144.

*580Battle & Marshall, for plaintiff.

Parson, Closson & Mcllvaine, for defendants.

*

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

NOYES, Circuit Judge.

It is apparent from the affidavits that the failure upon the part of the counsel for the defendants to appear at the taking of the deposition arose from a misunderstanding. They undoubtedly relied upon the statements in the letter of the witness’ attorney, however unwarranted they may have been. Counsel for the plaintiff acted entirely properly and within their rights in proceeding with the deposition, and were I satisfied that the plaintiff would he prejudiced in any other way than that of expense by a cross-examination at the present time, rather than at the time of the direct examination, I should be disinclined to grant this motion. But after an examination of the deposition I cannot see that the plaintiff will be so prejudiced. The plaintiff, however, should not be put to any expense by this delay.

The motion is granted, and the deposition may be returned for the purpose of permitting the cross-examination and redirect examination of the witness, provided the defendants pay the charges of the notary and stenographer in taking the same, and also pay $50 to the plaintiff for its counsel fees upon such examination. The time for the further examination authorized by this order is fixed for May 27, 1909, at 11 o’clock a. m., at the place named in the original order. The parties are at liberty, however, to agree upon another time. If such further examination be not had, the deposition may be returned in its present form.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14244]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-1290; MM Docket No. 01-111; RM-10020]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Alamo, Georgia

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on the proposed allotment of 
Channel 287C3 to Alamo, Georgia, as that community's first local aural 
transmission service. Coordinates used for this proposal are 32-19-29 
NL and 82-43-23 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 16, 2001, and reply 
comments on or Before July 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner, as follows: The Office of Dan J. Alpert; 
2120 N. 21st Road; Arlington, Virginia 22201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-111, adopted July 16, 
2001, and released July 31, 2001. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 
Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision 
may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Georgia, is 
amended by adding
    Alamo, Channel 287C3.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-14244 Filed 6-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MILLER-LANE & COMPANY AND GEORGE C. LANE 

DOCKET NUMBER: 225 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 225 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Acting Secretary of 

Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Miller-Lane & Company and George C. Lane 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that during the period August 22-29, 1973, Miller-Lane 

& Company, a registered futures commission merchant of Chicago, Illinois, failed 

to properly segregate regulated commodity customers' funds. It also charges 

that the firm failed to meet minimum capital requirements as of April 30 and 

July 31, 1973, and made material false statements in its financial reports to 

the CEA as of January 31 and October 31, 1973. In addition, the complaint 

charges that the firm failed to prepare certain required records and to submit 

reports to CEA when its net worth had declined 20 percent from its last previous 

financial statement. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when there has been a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. A determination is considered as having been made when a 

decision of the Administrative Law Judge becomes final or, after appeal, a 

decision is made by the Judicial Officer of the Department. Complaints are 

filed in the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and 

are a matter of public record. Pending disposition of a complaint, it is the 

policy of the CEA not to comment or elaborate on charges contained therein or to 

discuss evidence on which it is based. 

A public hearing on the complaint will be held before the Administrative Law 

Judge in Chicago, Illinois, at a date and time to be specified at a later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
nt contains so~e \hiS docume f poor quahtv that are o . 

pages . f \mag\09· at the t,me o . . . 

...... 

~clf-'/kl8 

(() e:t /li:k ~J'i) 

---.. RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRlMI"!Al4PPfALS 

OCT 1 ~ 201~ 

Abet Acosta. Cler~ 

. v)t,.._. fd ~._,_J .(l) ()1M_./()~ c~~ 0~ 

tWLt~ .t, {<.... ~· ~ 1 ,~ . \r •,;f ~ ~0'~ C&uuc 

1: (vW 1-~"J ~.J .;,. !..,~ ~ . 

~~ ~ ~ (ewJ ';t-- c't%!~~ ~~ Y-k, ~ ~ ' ~ p . 

·.. \_ ·-. -.-~ \ 

jfWl ~ -~ k; ~J-~ ~~~ ' 

. L),~ ~~ ..tti 0 10£;1 ~9 7 
·.~_2,.,0~ 

~~-!v1 

k<t1 w ~· e;;::;:Jl ~oct; 

~-k:.A_)~CJ) 

~__.,J./v,~ ~. ·~ ~~ D\ 

~~~· . ~ 
J I -~-

~- 7 ~e;J- I Au:tk~ < ~ ' 

~,_J 1-fJJ~ I 1\., ~p.e®<Mt- GwJ:-:~flo ~ +o ~ 

Wo% .q «V)~~/~~ .~ a.e_e ~ tJA£l'1~'1)-lv ~~ s;tt J!~A.A~ .w;_, q,-6-t Me A-.v.t'jn.zzr («} t0~-0 

~ 

. " L ., ) 

~~~ JA ArP~· ~c-__~· -~ 
~~ .P~. · _ ~~~1 ~,.Qf<!l. ·~.~ c\-L ~ ~~ I ~ ~ S>(}vd-- ~~ ~ ~ lll'l ~ ~ ~. 

SC+M ~~~2.0\'), ~~ ~~~ 

. §I (-~£J J.Q~ 

j ~-~~~~-#,at,_,~~ 

7_. -tw. ~ ~ lLflJM ~- ~+j t- f.Pj~, 2-6USC f 174~ 

'i?K.~ dv.. ()d-,tL~20lS, PI ~~ .£oJ ~
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# Time and Date: 

10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 20, 2001.

# Place: 

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

# Status: 

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

 

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.

2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

# Contact Person for More Information: 

Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.

# Supplementary Information: 

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

Dated: June 12, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01-15274 Filed 6-13-01; 11:29 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1507 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1507

Expressing support for designation of July as ``National Choroideremia 
                           Awareness Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 2010

    Mr. Roe of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Gingrey of 
Georgia, Mr. Castle, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Cassidy, 
 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. McKeon, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cooper, 
and Mr. Broun of Georgia) submitted the following resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for designation of July as ``National Choroideremia 
                           Awareness Month''.

Whereas over 7,000 men are affected with vision loss due to choroideremia and 
        over 7,000 women are affected as carriers in the United States;
Whereas annual health costs to treat the disorder are in excess of $10,000,000 
        and annual disability and accommodation costs are in excess of 
        $100,000,000;
Whereas the National Institutes of Health currently spends approximately 
        $700,000,000 on vision research but has not designated specific 
        resources to choroideremia;
Whereas a dedicated funding stream would help find a treatment for this 
        disorder;
Whereas research has advanced to the point where it is believed that with 
        adequate funding a treatment could be available within 2 years;
Whereas a successful treatment for choroideremia would accelerate development of 
        treatments for more common retinal degenerative disorders such as 
        macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa that affect over 2,000,000 
        people in the United States with annual health costs of over 
        $5,000,000,000 and annual disability costs of over $20,000,000,000;
Whereas retinal degenerative disorders affect 30 percent of the population over 
        age 75;
Whereas the Choroideremia Research Foundation has recognized July as ``National 
        Choroideremia Awareness Month''; and
Whereas July would be an appropriate month to designate as ``National 
        Choroideremia Awareness Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the 
designation of ``National Choroideremia Awareness Month''.
                                 <all>
```
# FCM Data November 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from NS Group, Inc.'s
condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the nine month period
ended July 1, 2000, included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such condensed consolidated
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000745026
<NAME> NS GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,121
<SECURITIES>                                    37,091
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                       903
<INVENTORY>                                     66,675
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183,570
<PP&E>                                         336,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                 203,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 347,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,874
<BONDS>                                         73,203
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       259,231
<OTHER-SE>                                    (63,625)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   347,285
<SALES>                                        293,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               293,546
<CGS>                                          292,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  292,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,171)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       111
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,282)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,282)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.17)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32653-32654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15115]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection: Comment Request for Review of an Expiring 
Information Collection: Standard Form 1153

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget a request for review of an expiring information 
collection. Standard Form 1153, Claim for Unpaid Compensation of 
Deceased Civilian Employee is used to collect information from 
individuals, who have been designated as beneficiaries of the unpaid 
compensation of a deceased Federal employee or who believe that their 
relationship to the deceased entitles them to receive the unpaid 
compensation of a deceased Federal employee. OPM needs this information

[[Page 32654]]

in order to adjudicate the claim and properly assign a deceased Federal 
employee's unpaid compensation to the appropriate individual(s).
    Approximately 3,000 SF 1153 forms are submitted annually. It takes 
approximately 15 minutes to complete the form. The annual estimated 
burden is 750 hours.
    Comments are particularly invited on:

--Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and 
whether it will have practical utility;
--Whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is 
accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and
--Ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on those who are to respond, through use of the appropriate 
technological collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.

    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e636c7a6161636b774e617e6320696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fe2edfbe0e0e2eaf6cfe0ffe2a1e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a>.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before August 
14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Melissa A. Drummond, Program 
Manager, Office of Merit Systems Oversight, Office of Merit Systems 
Oversight and Effectiveness, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 
E Street, NW., Room 7671, Washington, DC 20415.

Office of Personnel Management.
Steven R. Cohen,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 01-15115 Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-43-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Grant Leon TURNER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7176.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

Grant Leon Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Terri-Lei O’Mal-ley, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Grant Leon Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. 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 dis*248trict 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Turner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Robinson, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 451]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered May 13, 2005, as amended June 30, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of five years, and orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 9, 2006 and May 11, 2006, which denied defendant’s CEL 440.10 motions to vacate the judgment of conviction, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

The court properly concluded that the jury verdict acquitting defendant of second-degree assault while convicting him of second-degree possession of a weapon and third-degree assault was not repugnant. Under the court’s charge *(see People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1 [1981]), the jury could have found that defendant possessed a loaded firearm with intent to use it unlawfully, but that he injured the victim without the use of the firearm.

Defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]) at all stages of the case. Defendant’s claim that he was deprived of his right to hire counsel of his own choosing is without merit.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
No. 542.

#### Asiatic Petroleum Co., Ltd., *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

November 25, 1935.

*Messrs. William D. Whitney*and *Joseph C. White*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Messrs. James W. Morris*and *Imcius A. Buck*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.