alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION v. RUBY GRAGG

No. 7828SC134

(Filed 21 November 1978)

Appeal and Error § 6.9— admissibility oí evidence — rule of damages — pretrial orders — no immediate appeal

Pretrial orders declaring certain evidence admissible or inadmissible and purporting to fix the rule of damages at the trial are subject to later modification and are not immediately appealable.

APPEAL by defendant from order of *Baley, Judge,*entered 4 November 1977 in Superior Court, BUNCOMBE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 November 1978.

*741After a pretrial hearing in this condemnation proceeding, the trial judge made the following pertinent conclusion of law:

That evidence of an oral understanding or agreement with an adjoining landowner for access to subject property is not admissible for the purpose of showing a reasonable probability of securing access to the property nor the reasonable probability of use of the Defendant’s property in conjunction with the adjoining property to provide such access for the purpose of showing the effect of said promise and probability upon the market value of the Defendant’s property prior to the date of taking because such evidence is too remote, contingent and speculative to be considered in determining the market value of property immediately prior to the date of taking, and such property must be valued without access prior to the date of taking.

Defendant purports to appeal from the following pretrial order entered pursuant to the foregoing conclusion of law:

That Defendant’s motion to admit evidence of the alleged reasonable probabilities of access as above described and said probabilities’ effect upon the market value of the property prior to the date of taking is denied and the jury cannot consider said evidence in determining just compensation in the trial of this case.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by R. Bruce White, Jr., Senior Deputy Attorney General and Guy A. Hamlin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Patla, Straus, Robinson & Moore, by Jones P. Byrd, for the defendant appellant.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

A pretrial order declaring certain evidence admissible or inadmissible is indeterminate and subject to later modification. *Knight v. Duke Power Co.,*34 N.C. App. 218, 237 S.E. 2d 574 (1977); *Davis Realty, Inc. v. City of High Point,*36 N.C. App. 154, 242 S.E. 2d 895 (1978). The same is true of a pretrial order purporting to fix what the rule of damages should be at the trial. *Green v. Western & Southern Life Insurance Co.,*250 N.C. 730, *742110 S.E. 2d 321 (1959). Such orders are not immediately ap-pealable. 1 Strong’s N.C. Index 3d, Appeal and Error, § 6.9.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges MORRIS and MARTIN (Harry C.) concur.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Notices 68407 

[FR Doc. 05–22412 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Defense Business Board; Notice of 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Business Board 

(DBB) will meet in open session on 

Thursday, December 1, 2005, at the 

Pentagon, Washington, DC from 9:45 

a.m. until 12 p.m. (noon). The mission 

of the DBB is to advise the Secretary of 

Defense on effective strategies for 

implementation of best business 

practices of interest to the Department 

of Defense. At this meeting, the Board 

will deliberate on their findings and 

recommendations related to: Healthcare 

for Military Retirees; Military Postal 

Service; and Business Management 

Modernization Program (BMMP). 

DATES: Thursday, December 1, 2005, 

9:45 a.m. to 12 p.m. (noon). 

ADDRESSES: 1155 Defense Pentagon, 

3C288, Washington, DC 20301–1155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Members of the public who wish to 

attend the meeting must contact the 

Defense Business Board no later than 

Tuesday, November 22nd for further 

information about escort arrangements 

in the Pentagon. Additionally, those 

who wish to make oral comments or 

deliver written comments should also 

request to be scheduled, and submit a 

written text of the comments by 

Monday, November 21st to allow time 

for distribution to the Board members 

prior to the meeting. Individual oral 

comments will be limited to five 

minutes, with the total oral comment 

period not exceeding 30 minutes. 

The DBB may be contacted at: Defense 

Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, 

Room 3C288, Washington, DC 20301–

1155, via e-mail at 

defensebusinessboard2@osd.mil or via 

phone at (703) 697–2168. 

Dated: November 4, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 05–22410 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


En10NO05.312</GPH>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Eddy SEVERINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-1768.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 16, 2005.

Paul E. Warburgh, Jr., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Timothy J. Treanor, Assistant United States Attorney for.the Southern District of New York (David N. Kelley, United States Attorney, on the brief; Joshua A. Levine, Assistant United States Attorney), New York, NY, for Appellee, of counsel.

Present: STRAUB, POOLER, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the case is hereby REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and this Court’s decision in *United States v. Crosby,*397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005), this case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with *Crosby.*

The disposition in the summary order previously issued in connection with this appeal is hereby made part of this order and is fully effective, except to the extent that it is inconsistent with the present remand in conformity with *Crosby.*

Any appeal taken from the District Court following this remand and resentencing, if it occurs, can be initiated only by filing a new notice of appeal. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 3, 4(b).

A party will not waive or forfeit any appropriate argument on remand or on any appeal post-remand by not filing a petition for rehearing of this remand order. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*363For the reasons set forth above, the case is hereby REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 MARTHA DAWSON SWANSON,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 28,832

5 ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE

6 and FATHER PAUL BACA,

7 Defendants-Appellants.

8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

9 George P. Eichwald, District Judge

10 Law Offices of Daymon B. Ely

11 Daymon B. Ely

12 Albuquerque, NM

13 for Appellee

14 Arthur O. Beach

15 Albuquerque, NN

16 for Archdiocese of Santa Fe

17 Marchiondo Law Offices, PC

18 William C. Marchiondo

19 Albuquerque, NM

20 Kelley-Streubel, LLC

21 Cody K. Kelley

22 Albuquerque, NM

23 for Father Paul Baca
2

1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

2 SUTIN, Judge.

3 Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed

4 summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has been filed and the

5 time for doing so has expired.

6 DISMISSED.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 __________________________________

9 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

10 WE CONCUR:

11 ____________________________________

12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

13 ____________________________________

14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
# L_2010214EN.01001501.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 214/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 214/15

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2007/512/EC of 15 February 2007 on the signing, on behalf of the Community, and on the provisional application of the Arrangement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the modalities of the participation by those States in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 188 of 20 July 2007
  )

In the title of the Decision, both on the cover page and on page 17, and also in the closing formula on page 18:

for:

‘
  15 February 2007
  ’,

read:

‘
  17 October 2006
  ’.

---
BEFORE THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

Date: _________________________

Case No(s). _________________________

In the Matter(s) of:

________________________________________________

 [Claimant or Complainant] 

 v.

________________________________________________

 [Employer or Respondent]

 and

_________________________________________________

 [Other interested party, if applicable]

 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF SETTLEMENT JUDGE

 Pursuant to Rules of Practice and Procedure in Administrative Hearings Before the

Office of Administrative Law Judges, 29 C.F.R. § 18.13, the parties in the above captioned 

matter jointly request the appointment of a settlement judge.

 [Type name of parties or representatives]:

 ________________________________________________________________

 [ ] Pro Se [ ] Counsel for Claimant or Complainant

 Telephone ___________________

Fax ___________________

Email ___________________

 ________________________________________________________________

 [ ] Pro Se [ ] Counsel for Employer or Respondent

 Telephone ___________________

 Fax ___________________

Email ___________________

 ________________________________________________________________

 [ ] Pro Se [ ] Counsel for Other Interested Party

 Telephone ___________________

Fax ___________________

Email ___________________
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 65918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21659]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center For Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 25, 2005, 1 p.m. to 
October 25, 2005, 3 p.m., Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin 
Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the Federal Register on 
October 7, 2005, 70 FR 58723-58725.
    The meeting will be held on November 9, 2005, from 12 p.m. to 2 
p.m., at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20882. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: October 20, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-21659 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Quarterly Report of Irwin Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, (the Report), I, Gregory F. Ehlinger, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: April 29, 2005
    
    /s/ Gregory F. EhlingerGregory F. EhlingerChief Financial Officer
```

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

                                November 11, 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q by Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the period
ending September 30, 2002 (the "Report"), as filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned, Jack A. Hockema, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to such officer's knowledge:

      (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
           15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
           78o(d)); and

      (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
           Report.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of
the date first above written.

                                                     /s/ Jack A. Hockema
                                                     Jack A. Hockema
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
```
#### LEO RUSS v. I. SHEP SMITH.

(Filed 28 November 1962.)

Negligence § 10—

Where the jury answers the issue of contributory negligence in the negative, the issue of last clear chance is eliminated from the case.

Appeal by defendant from *McKinnon, J.,*February, 1962 Term, Brunswick Superior Court.

Plaintiff instituted this civil action to recover damages for his personal injuries allegedly caused by the actionable negligence of the defendant’s minor daughter, operating the family purpose automobile.

The accident occurred about 7:00 p.m. on May 13, 1960, on U.S. Highway No. 17 within the Town of Shallotte. The evidence disclosed the plaintiff undertook to walk across the highway within a block at a point not marked by any crosswalk; that he stopped near the center of the street to permit a south-bound motor vehicle to pass, when he was struck by defendant’s north-bound vehicle operated by his minor daughter. He sustained serious and permanent injuries.

Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages were raised by the pleadings, supported by competent evidence, and answered by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. From the judgment on the verdict, the defendant appealed.

*S. B, Frink, for defendant, appellant.*

*Herring, Walton & Parker, for plaintiff, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, by way of reply to the allegation of contributory negligence, pleaded the defendant’s last clear chance to avoid the injury. The jury, having found the plaintiff was not con-tributorily negligent, left the issue of last clear chance unanswered. The defendant, therefore, may not be heard to complain.

The case was tried in accordance with our decisions as to the matters of law involved and the jury settled the issues of fact.

No error.
#### MILLER v. ENZOR

No. 55 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 510.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 April 1973.
#### CLONTZ v. CLONTZ

No. 35 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 573.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

State College, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 24-0017

Issued: October 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On October 9, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a March 20, 2023 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 24-0017.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the March 20, 2023 decision was September 16, 2023. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until October 9, 2023, more than 180 days after 

the March 20, 2023 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 24-0017 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

explained his failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 24-0017, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 24-0017 is dismissed.

Issued: October 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
#### STATE v. WILLIAMS

No. 15 PC.

Case below: 3 N.C. App. 463.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 11 February 1969.
# L_2007188EN.01001301.xml

| 20.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 188/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 188/13

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 854/2007

of 19 July 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 958/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 19 July 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 19 July 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 19 July 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 shall be 39,695 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 July 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 July 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69, 9.3.2007, p. 3).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 49. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 203/2007 (OJ L 61, 28.2.2007, p. 3).

2

---
**Exhibit 12.1**
**ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION**
**RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**  Six Months     Ended June 30, Years Ended Dec. 31,     2008 2007   2007 2006 2005(a)2004 2003     (dollars in millions) EARNINGS:        Income from continuing operations $119.9$110.2$424.7$338.3$56.4$218.4$151.7Income tax expense (benefit) (b) 51.269.7255.8203.0(52.9)91.275.6  Income from continuing operations before income taxes 171.1179.9680.5541.33.5309.6227.3 Fixed charges as defined 88.191.0185.6213.4226.7238.8247.1 Adjustment for undistributed equity earnings (2.8)(4.6)(7.8)(16.6)(41.7)(21.0)(18.4) Less:    Interest capitalized - - - - 3.45.4-    Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries (pre-tax basis) (c) 13.114.929.529.35.525.924.5  Total earnings as defined $243.3$251.4$828.8$708.8$179.6$496.1$431.5  FIXED CHARGES: Interest expense $60.0$57.3$116.7$145.7$175.8$176.9$205.1Interest capitalized - - - - 3.45.4- Estimated interest component of rent expense 15.018.839.438.442.030.617.5Preferred dividend requirements of subsidiaries (pre-tax basis) (c) 13.114.929.529.35.525.924.5  Total fixed charges as defined $88.1$91.0$185.6$213.4$226.7$238.8$247.1  Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (d) 2.762.764.473.320.792.081.75  
(a) For the year ended Dec. 31,2005, earnings as defined were inadequate to cover fixed charges as defined by $47.1million. 

(b) Includes net interest related tounrecognized tax benefits. 

(c) Preferred dividend requirementsof subsidiaries (pre-tax basis) are computed by dividing the preferred dividendrequirements of subsidiaries by one hundred percent minus the respective year-to-dateeffective income tax rate. 

(d)  The ratio calculation in theabove table relates to Alliant Energy Corporation's (Alliant Energy's) continuingoperations.  Refer to Note 14 of Alliant Energy's "Notes to Condensed ConsolidatedFinancial Statements" in Alliant Energy's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June30, 2008 for information related to Alliant Energy's discontinued operations.