alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. E. BATTLE v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, MRS. MARGARET COLVILLE, Administratix of J. L. COLVILLE, and W. S. LACKEY.

(Filed 22 September, 1943.)

Negligence § 10—

In an action against a railroad to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff, a licensee, the doctrine of last clear chance does not apply unless such licensee is apparently in a helpless condition upon the railroad track, since otherwise the engineer has the right to expect, up to the moment of impact, that he will leave the track in time to avoid the injury.

Appeal by plaintiff from *BlacTcstoch, Special Judge,*at May Term, 1943, of JacksoN.

*Stillwell & Stillwell and Don G. Young for plaintiff, appellant.*

*W. T. Joyner and Jones, Ward ■& Jones for defendants, appellees.*

PER Curiam.

This is an action against the Southern Eailway Company and its employees for personal injuries to the plaintiff alleged to have been caused by the negligent failure of the defendants to avail themselves of the last clear chance to avoid running a train over the plaintiff while in a helpless condition on the railroad track of the corporate defendant.

When the plaintiff had introduced his evidence and rested his case the defendants moved for a judgment as in case of nonsuit (C. S., 567), which motion was allowed, and from judgment accordant therewith the plaintiff appealed, assigning errors.

Since we are of the opinion, and so hold, that there was not sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury of the plaintiff being down or in an apparently helpless condition on the track, so that the engineer or fireman saw, or, by the exercise of ordinary care in keeping a proper lookout, could have seen such helpless condition of the plaintiff in time to have stopped the train before striking him, there was no error in the ruling of the court, and the judgment as in case of nonsuit was properly *396entered. The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply in cases of this nature unless the licensee upon a railroad track is in an apparently helpless condition, since otherwise the engineer has the right to expect up to the moment of impact that he will leave the track in time to avoid injury. *Justice v. R. R.,*219 N. C., 273, 13 S. E. (2d), 553; *Mercer v. Powell,*218 N. C., 642, 12 S. E. (2d), 227.

Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.
Order entered July 30, 2015 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00867-CV 

IN RE VICTORIA MANUSOS-JENKINS, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 296-54413-2012 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges and Justice Stoddart 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

d0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140211

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140211 COA: 294284 Oakland CC: 1979-039825-FY THOMAS ANZURES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 9, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Presidential Documents 32083 

Proclamation 8531 of May 28, 2010 

National Oceans Month, 2010 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Each year during National Oceans Month, we rededicate ourselves to protect 

the Earth’s dominant feature and precious resource. In 2010, this annual 

observance falls at a time of environmental crisis, as we continue our relentless efforts to stop and contain the oil spill threatening the Gulf Coast 

region. The oil spill has already caused substantial damage to our coastline 

and its natural habitats, and negatively impacted the livelihoods of Gulf 

Coast small businesses and communities. The environmental and economic 

devastation to the Gulf Coast region requires our continuing efforts to reverse 

the damage to our coastlines and revitalize affected areas. 

As we respond to this disaster, we must not forget that our oceans, coasts, 

and Great Lakes demand our constant attention. They have long been under 

considerable strain from pollution, overfishing, climate change, and other 

human activity. Last year, I established the Interagency Ocean Policy Task 

Force and charged it with developing a clear direction for meeting our 

environmental stewardship responsibilities. Our oceans face complex challenges, and we must take a comprehensive approach to ensure their sustained 

protection, maintenance, and restoration. 

The vitality and bounty of America’s natural resources immeasurably impact 

our lives. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. As we commemorate this special milestone, 

we are reminded by the ongoing Gulf Coast crisis that we still have much 

to do in order to safeguard our vast oceanic resources for generations to 

come. Forty years from now, when our children look back on this moment, 

let them say that we did not waiver, but rather seized this opportunity 

to fulfill our duty to protect the waters that sustain us. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as National 

Oceans Month. I call upon Americans to learn more about what they can 

do to protect, conserve, sustain, and enjoy our oceans, coasts, and Great 

Lakes. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PRESDOCD4

32084 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth 

day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13675 

Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–W0–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PRESDOCD4OB#1.EPS</GPH>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1365]



[[Page 4269]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0706; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-26]


Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lewisport, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
published in the Federal Register September 14, 2009 that establishes 
Class E Airspace at Hancock Co.--Ron Lewis Field, Lewisport, KY.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 
comments in the Federal Register on September 14, 2009 (74 FR 46896), 
Docket No. FAA-2009-0706; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-26. The FAA uses 
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule 
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. 
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 
December 17, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this 
notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 15, 2010.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-1365 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuantto**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Northwest Airlines Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas M.Steenland, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:May 10, 2006

 
| /s/  Douglas M. Steenland              |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Douglas  M. Steenland                  |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Thiscertification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the ExchangeAct, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it byreference.

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          44,841
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             446
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    142,089
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,388
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,432
<LOANS>                                        664,610
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 874,648
<DEPOSITS>                                     669,160
<SHORT-TERM>                                    66,820
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,042
<LONG-TERM>                                     53,058
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,823
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 874,648
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 27,568
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,393
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   462
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                32,423
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,484
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,971
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,452
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,136
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 780
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 13,556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,439
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,439
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,540
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.46
<LOANS-NON>                                        667
<LOANS-PAST>                                       308
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   614
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,475
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,650
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,254
<RECOVERIES>                                       628
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,160
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             8,188
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,972
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from HCW Pension
Real Estate Fund Ltd. Partnership 1997 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000745538
<NAME> HCW PENSION REAL ESTATE FUND LTD. PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,402
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       28
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          14,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,590)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,279
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,462
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,344
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       118
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.37<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             618
<SECURITIES>                                        23
<RECEIVABLES>                                      694
<ALLOWANCES>                                        24
<INVENTORY>                                        392
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,191
<PP&E>                                           8,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,983
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              251
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (255)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,202
<SALES>                                          4,878
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,878
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     4
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    150
<INCOME-TAX>                                        59
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 91
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        91
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .98


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAOBO REN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72873

Agency No. A099-901-049

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Shaobo Ren, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and

withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

SEP 30 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-72873

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the

standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID

Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination

based on the omission from Ren’s written statement of the arrest and physical harm

he allegedly suffered. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir.

2011) (adverse credibility finding supported where incidents petitioner omitted

from asylum application materially altered claim); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47

(“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s

claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great

weight.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Ren’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Ren’s claim for relief under the

Convention Against Torture because he did not appeal the IJ’s denial of relief to

the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcrof, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court

lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### John Doe, *ex demise*of William H. Davis *et al.,*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Richard Roe, casual ejector, and Terry Davis, tenant in possession, defendants in error.

1. Where the common law action of ejectment was brought, it was error in the Court on the motion of defendant to order the plaintiffs to exhibit the title deeds upon which they relied, for the purpose of enabling him to make his defense. (R.)

2. If it had been shown to the Court, by competent evidence, that the deed under which the plaintiff claimed title was a forgery, and its production had been required for the purpose of being annexed to interrogatories, to establish the forgery, its production might properly have been ordered. (R.)

Ejectment. Production of deeds. Before Judge Harrell. Clay Superior Court. March Term, 1872.

Eor the facts of this case, see the decision of the Court.

Hood & Kiddoo, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas F. Jones ; H. Fielder, for defendants.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, on the several demises of William H. Davis, and Simeon Tinor, as guardian of the minor children and heirs-at-law of Thomas J. Carnes. At the appearance term the defendants’ counsel asked the Court to grant an order requiring the plaintiffs’ counsel to exhibit the title deeds, upon which they relied for a recovery of the premises in dispute, to the counsel for the defendants, and permit them to take an abstract or memorandum of the same, or furnish copies there*82of on the representation of defendants’ counsel, that they could not make their defense without a knowledge of the plaintiffs’ title. The plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the order of the Court, requiring him to produce his client’s title deeds, but his objection was overruled, and the order was granted, to which the plaintiffs’ counsel excepted. If it had been shown to the Court, by competent evidence, that the deed under which the plaintiff claimed title to the land was a forgery, and its production had been required for the purpose of being annexed to interrogatories to prove the forgery thereof, then the Court might have required the production of the deed or deeds for that purpose: *Faircloth vs. Jordan,*15 *Ga. R.,*511. This action was not brought under the statutory or short form of action for the recovery of land, but according to the form of action which existed, and was in use by the common law, and we know of no law or rule of practice which would authorize the Court to compel the counsel for the plaintiff, in an action of ejectment, to produce his client’s title papers, to enable the defendant to make out his defense to his action.

Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.