alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Town of Nokomis v. Martin Harkey.

*Municipal Corporations—Nuisance—Prosecution under*Ordinance— *Liability of Town for Costs.*

Upon (he dismissal of a prosecution under an ordinance, it is improper to render judgment against the municipal corporation for costs.,

[Opinion filed January 21, 1889.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County; the Hon L. A. Creighton, Judge, presiding.

*108Messrs. Pepperdine & Jett and James M. Truitt, for appellants.

Messrs. Lane & Cooper, for appellee.

Conger, J.

This was a prosecution against appellee for keeping a nuisance, brought under the ordinances of the town before the police magistrate, and upon an appeal to the Circuit Court the prosecution was dismissed and judgment for costs was rendered against the town.

The propriety of such judgment for costs is the only question we are called upon to decide.

These prosecutions are of a *quasi*criminal nature. They are not 9]ways brought, by the authority of the town, but may be set in motion by any one filing a complaint, and, like the criminal laws of the State, are for the purpose of preserving the public peace and comfort of the inhabitants of the municipality, and therefore should not involve such municipality in costs when a supposed offender against the ordinances is acquitted, unless the law has expressly so declared.

We know of no statute which makes the municipality liable in express terms, but the language of the latter part of Sec. 40, Chap. 53, would seem to indicate that the question of municipalities paying costs in prosecutions for the violations of ordinances is one entirely within the discretion of the board.

The language is as follows: “The costs in criminal and *quasi*criminal prosecutions for the violation of an ordinance of an incorporated city or town, where the provisions of the charter of such towns or cities do not prohibit the payment of such costs, may be paid by such city or town, in the discretion of the city council or board of trustees of such incorporated cities or towns.” -

The j udgment of the Circuit Court will be reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5642 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to modify the eligibility 

disqualification for certain convicted felons. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to modify 

the eligibility disqualification for certain convicted felons. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS. 

4 Section 6(r)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

5 2008 (7 U.S.C. 201(r)(1)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking subparagraph (B), 

7 (2) in subparagraph (A)— 

8 (A) in clause (v) by striking ‘‘clause (i), 

9 (ii), or (iii)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraph (A), 

10 (B), or (C)’’, and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5642 IH

1 (B) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), (iii), 

2 (iv), and (v) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), 

3 (D), and (E), respectively, 

4 (3) by striking ‘‘ifl(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘if’’, 

5 and 

6 (4) by moving the left margin of subparagraphs 

7 (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E), as so redesignated, 2 

8 ems to the left. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### D. J. TODD, SR., Administrator of D. J. TODD, JR., v. E. J. SMATHERS.

(Filed 1 February, 1952.)

Trial § 4: Appeal and Error § 37—

A motion for continuance is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and, in the absence of manifest abuse, his ruling thereon is not reviewable.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Bless, J.,*at 17 September Term, 1951, of Foksyth.

Civil action to recover damages for alleged wrongful death, heard upon motion of plaintiff to continue trial of this cause until a certain witness for plaintiff, who is now in the Armed Services of the United States, be available.

*124Tbe trial judge, upon facts found as appear of record, ordered that tbe cause be not calendared for trial or tried before or during tbe October Term, 1951, of tbe court, and that subsequent thereto defendant shall be at liberty to calendar same for trial.

Plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*Fred S. Hutchins for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Ratcliff, Vaughn, Hudson, Ferrell & Carter for defendant, appellee.*

PbR CuRiam.

A motion for continuance is addressed to tbe discretion of tbe trial judge, and, in tbe absence of manifest abuse, bis ruling thereon is not reviewable. *S. v. Parker,*234 N.C. 236, and cases cited.

And on tbe facts presented on this record, we are of opinion that no such abuse has been made to appear. Hence this appeal will be, and it is hereby

Dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.3


                            ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                        THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                                       Percent
                                                             Number of Shares        Outstanding          Equivalent Shares
                                                             ----------------        -----------          -----------------
<S>                                                          <C>                      <C>                 <C>
Prior to Initial Public Offering
  1997 Common Stock Offering                                          639              100.00%                       639

After Initial Public Offering
  1998 Common Stock Offering                                   15,000,000              100.00%                15,000,000
  Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                    60,511,692              100.00%                60,511,692
  1999 Common Stock Offering                                   21,041,100              100.00%                21,041,100
  2000 Common Stock Offering                                   10,703,109              100.00%                10,703,109
  Treasury Shares                                                (327,495)             100.00%                  (327,495)
  Warrants Exercised                                              626,094               99.74%                   624,459
  Stock Options Exercised                                         643,953               87.18%                   561,382
  Cash in Lieu of Stock Split                                        (577)             100.00%                      (577)
  Employee Stock Discount Purchase Plan Shares Issued             194,520               99.14%                   192,838
  Common Stock Issued for Business Acquisitions                   393,482               17.86%                    70,285
                                                                                                            ------------

  WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                                        108,377,431

  NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK                                                                       $(56,730,000)

  NET LOSS PER SHARE, BASIC AND DILUTED                                                                     $      (0.52)
                                                                                                            ============

</Table>
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3395 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to records 

and other information inspections. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 14, 2021 

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to records and other information inspections. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medical Device Integ5 rity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RECORDS AND OTHER INFORMATION INSPECTION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 704(a)(4)(A) of the Fed8 eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

9 374(a)(4)(A)) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3395 IS

1 (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘or de2 vice’’ after ‘‘processing of a drug’’; and 

3 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘shall 

4 include’’ and all that follows through the period at 

5 the end and inserting the following: ‘‘shall include— 

6 ‘‘(A) a sufficient description of the records 

7 requested; and 

8 ‘‘(B) a rationale for requesting such infor9 mation in advance of, or in lieu of, an inspec10 tion.’’. 

11 (b) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

12 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue draft 

13 guidance describing the circumstances in which the Sec14 retary intends to issue requests for records or other infor15 mation in advance of, or in lieu of, an inspection, processes 

16 for responding to such requests electronically or in phys17 ical form, and factors the Secretary intends to consider 

18 in evaluating whether such records are provided within a 

19 reasonable timeframe, within reasonable limits, and in a 

20 reasonable manner, accounting for resource and other lim21 itations that may exist, including for small businesses. The 

22 Secretary shall issue final guidance not later than 1 year 

23 after the close of the comment period for the draft guid24 ance. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5507-5508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01878]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Region III--Charleston, WV; Regulatory Fairness Hearing

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

ACTION: Notice of open Hearing of Region III Small Business Owners in 
Charleston, WV.

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

SUMMARY: The SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman is issuing this 
notice to announce the location, date and time of the Charleston, WV 
Regulatory Fairness Hearing. This hearing is open to the public.

DATES: The hearing will be held on Friday, February 19, 2016, from 9:30 
a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (EST).

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be at the Charleston Area Alliance, 1116 
Smith Street, Charleston, WV 25301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The hearing is open to the public; 
however, advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to 
attend and/or make a presentation at the Charleston, WV hearing must 
contact Yolanda Swift by February 15th in writing or by fax or email in 
order to be placed on the agenda. For further information, please 
contact Yolanda Swift, Deputy National Ombudsman, Office of the 
National Ombudsman, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 3316, Washington, DC 
20416, by phone (202) 205-6918 and

[[Page 5508]]

fax (202) 481-6128. Additionally, if you need accommodations because of 
a disability, translation services, or require additional information, 
please contact Yolanda Swift as well.
    For more information on the Office of the National Ombudsman, see 
our Web site at www.sba.gov/ombudsman.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), Sec. 222, SBA announces the 
hearing for Small Business Owners, Business Organizations, Trade 
Associations, Chambers of Commerce and related organizations serving 
small business concerns to report experiences regarding unfair or 
excessive Federal regulatory enforcement issues affecting their 
members.

    Dated: January 20, 2016.
Miguel J. L'Heureux,
SBA Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-01878 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
#### TOWN OF WILKESBORO, J. F. JORDAN, as Mayor of WILKESBORO, and C. T. DOUGHTON, J. R. HENDERSON, C. E. LENDERMAN and C. A. LOWE as Commissioners of the Town of WILKESBORO, v. W. E. HARRIS, C. E. LENDERMAN, JOE R. BARBER, R. R. REINS, L. B. DULA, P. L. LENDERMAN, and O. F. BLEVINS.

(Filed 20 November, 1935.)

Appeal by defendants from *Phillips, J.,*at Chambers in Wilkesboro, 15 Aua-ust. 1935. From Wilkes.

*750This was a *mandamus*proceeding, instituted by the plaintiffs to compel the delivery to them by defendants of the tax books, check books, bond records, and all other records and property of the town of Wilkes-boro.

The court, after considering the pleadings and affidavits offered by the plaintiffs and defendants, and after hearing arguments for all parties, entered judgment directing the sheriff of Wilkes County to seize the records and property described in the complaint and deliver the possession thereof to the plaintiffs. To this judgment the defendants objected and excepted, and appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning-errors.

*Triveiie & Holshouser, J. M. Brown, Chas. G. Gilreath, F. J. Mc-Duffie, and H. A. Cranor for defendants, appellants.*

*Fred S. Hutchins, H. Bryce Parker, J. H. Whicker, and B. G. Jeiu nings for plaintiffs, appellees.*

ScheNCK, J.

The basis of the individual plaintiffs’ complaint is the allegation that they had been duly declared elected as mayor and aider-men of the town of Wilkesboro, respectively, at the election held on 7 May, 1935, and as such mayor and aldermen they were entitled to the possession of the records and other property of the municipality. This allegation is denied by the answer of the defendants, and, at the hearing, the defendants demanded a trial by jury, and, upon denial thereof, reserved exception.

Some of the defendants in this action were the plaintiffs in the case of *W. H. Harris et al. v. T. S. Miller et al.,*which was jointly argued with this case, and this day decided, *ante,*746. In *Harris et al. v. Miller et al., supra,*it is held that there was no valid election on 7 May, 1935, and the judgment of the court which authorized the canvass of the illegal votes cast and the declaration of the results of the invalid election is reversed. In the light of this holding, it is manifest that the plaintiffs cannot maintain this action.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is remanded that judgment directing the records and property heretofore seized by the sheriff and delivered to the plaintiffs be returned to the defendants.

Reversed and remanded.

DeviN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. v. O. T. KIRBY et al.

(Filed 5 January, 1938.)

Courts § 2b — Where statute creating state commission does not provide for appeal from its decisions, no appeal lies.

The Superior Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the determination by the Unemployment Compensation Commission of the liability of an employer for contributions under the act, eh. 1, Public Laws, Extra Session 1936, since the act does not authorize an appeal, but the Superior Court is without authority to dismiss the proceeding, but should only dismiss the appeal. Whether the Unemployment Compensation Commission is authorized to conduct hearing and to determine liability of employers for contributions, *quwre.*

Appeal by plaintiff from *Bone, J.,*at October Term, 1937, of Pekson.

*764Proceeding before Unemployment Compensation Commission to determine liability of respondents for contributions under cb. 1, Public Laws, Extra Session 1936.

From finding and determination tbat respondents are subject to tbe provisions of tbe act (amounts not in dispute, if liability exists), tbe respondents appealed to tbe Superior Court of Person County.

His Honor beld tbat be was without jurisdiction to entertain tbe appeal (as no appeal in sucb cases is provided in tbe act, and tbe parties bave not agreed tbat tbe attempted appeal may be treated as return to certiorari) and dismissed tbe proceeding, taxing each side with one-balf tbe costs.

Prom tbis ruling tbe Unemployment Compensation Commission appeals, assigning error.

*Adrian J. Newton, general counsel, and J. O. B. Bhringhaus, Jr., assistant counsel for plaintiff, appellant.*

*No counsel appearing for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

Whether tbe Unemployment Compensation Commission is authorized to conduct bearings and to determine tbe liability of employers for contributions under cb. 1, Public Laws, Extra Session 1936, is not before us for decision. Conceding, without deciding, tbat sucb authority exists, tbe statute is silent upon tbe subject of any appeal from sucb determination. His Honor, therefore, was correct in bolding tbat be was without jurisdiction to entertain tbe appeal. His reasoning is sound, but be inadvertently went beyond bis authority in dismissing tbe proceeding. He should bave dismissed tbe appeal and left it there.

Tbe cases cited by appellant, *Higdon v. Light Co.,*207 N. C., 39, 175 S. E., 710, and *S. v. Carroll,*194 N. C., 37, 138 S. E., 339, are inapplicable, as they deal with statutes providing for appeal without prescribing tbe procedure.. Here no appeal is authorized.

Modified and affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Commission Half-Day Closing

    Pursuant to the Office of Personnel Management announcement on 
January 22, 2016, all Federal Government offices in the District of 
Columbia metropolitan area will be closed at 12 noon.
    In accordance with section 385.2007 of the Commission's Rules, 18 
CFR 385.2007, filings and documents due to be filed on Friday, January 
22, 2016 will be accepted as timely on the next official business day.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01806 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### William T. Brown, Respondent, v. The Mutual Trust Company, Appellant.

— Judgmentmodi-fied as directed in opinion, and affirmed as modified. Opinion by

Davis, P J.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (1.53 MB)

Tags:USSPACECOM, Space Symposium 39

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

AMY LEBLANC GOODSON AND

WILLIAM R. GOODSON, JR. 

VERSUS

CITY OF ZACHARY

In Re: City of Zachary, 

Judicial District

No. 667741. 

NO. 2023 CW 0593

SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

applying for supervisory writs, 19th

Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ. 

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Re lator failed to provide a copy of

all exhibits to its Motion for Summary Judgment, including the

City of Zachary's Answer to Plaintiff's Petition for Damages and

the " corrective affidavit" of John Hopewell, in violation of

Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-S(C) ( 8). 

Supplementation of this writ application and/or an

application for rehearing will not be considered. Uniform Rules

of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2-18.7 & 4-9. 

In the event relator seeks to file a new application with

this court, it must contain all pertinent documentation, the

missing items noted above, and must comply with Uniform Rules of

Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12. 2. Any new application

must be filed on or before October 10, 2023 and must contain a

copy of this ruling. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT

JMG

WRC

WIL