alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Frederick R. Buckles, United States Magistrate

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was

referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

___________

No. 96-2579

___________

Calvin J. Weber, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Thomas E. Reinkober, Federal * Eastern District of Missouri.

Official Named in His *

Individual Capacity, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 7, 1997

 Filed: February 26, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Calvin J. Weber, a former civilian Army engineer, appeals from the

district court's order dismissing his complaint under Bivens v. Six

1

Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for

failure to state a claim. Having carefully reviewed the record and the

briefs, we conclude the judgment of the district court is correct and an

extended opinion would lack precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### Proposed Provision: E2.18. Apply the combined OASDI payroll tax rate on covered earnings above $400,000 paid in 2025 and later, and tax all covered earnings once the current-law taxable maximum exceeds $400,000. Increase the computed level of the AWI for years after 2024 by amounts ranging from 0.5 percent for 2025 to 0.9 percent for 2047 and later. Credit the additional earnings taxed for benefit purposes by: (a) calculating a second average indexed monthly earnings ("AIME+") reflecting only earnings taxed above the current-law taxable maximum, (b) applying a 1 percent factor on this newly computed "AIME+" to develop a second component of the PIA, and (c) adding this second component to the current-law PIA.

back
#### WILMER CREEL v. PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.

(Filed 22 March, 1961.)

Injunctions § 1—

The issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and its order denying the relief will not be disturbed unless contrary to some rule of equity or abuse of discretion is made to appear.

*325Appeal by plaintiff from *Farthing, J.,*15 August Term 1960, of MECKLENBURG.

This is a civil action in which the plaintiff seeks to recover actual and punitive damages against the defendant, resulting from the discontinuance of service to the plaintiff, and for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to furnish gas to the plaintiff and to reconnect the service without charge therefor.

When this matter came on for hearing, it was stipulated and agreed by the parties that service would be restored upon payment to the defendant by the plaintiff of $20.15, the amount of the accumulated and unpaid bills due the defendant by the plaintiff, plus the additional charge of $1.00 as a reconnection fee.

The court below heard the plaintiff upon his application for a preliminary mandatory injunction to require the defendant to supply him with natural gas at his residence in the City of Charlotte.

The court, after considering the affidavits filed by the parties, the stipulation of facts, the oral testimony of witnesses, and the argument of counsel, found the facts and set them out in its order.

Upon the facts found, the court held that the plaintiff has suffered no irreparable injury; that he has an adequate remedy at law; and has failed to show that he is entitled to a mandatory injunction. Whereupon, the court, in its discretion, denied the plaintiff’s application for a preliminary mandatory injunction and entered an order accordingly.

The plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*Don Davis for plaintiff appellant.*

*Kennedy, Covington, Lobdell & Hickman; Edgar Love, III, for defendant appellee.*

PER CuRIAM.

The question whether a preliminary mandatory injunction should be issued, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal “unless contrary to some rule of equity, or the result of improvident exercise of judicial discretion.” *Whaley v. Taxi Company,*252 N.C. 586, 114 S.E. 2d 254, and cited cases.

No abuse of discretion is made to appear in this cause.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Interstate Hotels &
Resorts, Inc. (the Registrant) for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, James A. Calder, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and                                  
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant.

Dated: August 12, 2003



| | /s/ James A. Calder
James A. Calder
Chief Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                         318,760
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  7,837,483
<ALLOWANCES>                   101,123
<INVENTORY>                    687,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               9,223,399
<PP&E>                         62,495,877
<DEPRECIATION>                 15,685,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 56,034,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          18,139,932
<BONDS>                        0
<COMMON>                       18,492
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0 
<PREFERRED>                    0
<OTHER-SE>                     9,327,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   56,034,176
<SALES>                        63,796,592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                63,796,592
<CGS>                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               59,590,192
<LOSS-PROVISION>               115,522
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             3,269,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                821,740
<INCOME-TAX>                   312,262
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            509,478
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   509,478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .28
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 361 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 361

To establish a 90-day limit to file a petition for judicial review of a 
  permit, license, or approval for a highway or public transportation 
                    project, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 23, 2021

 Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Cotton) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a 90-day limit to file a petition for judicial review of a 
  permit, license, or approval for a highway or public transportation 
                    project, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATIONS ON CLAIMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 139(l) of title 23, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``150 days'' each place it appears and inserting 
``90 days''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 330(e) of title 23, United States Code, is 
        amended--
                    (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``150 days'' 
                and inserting ``90 days''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (3)(B)(i), by striking ``150 
                days'' and inserting ``90 days''.
            (2) Section 24201(a)(4) of title 49, United States Code, is 
        amended by striking ``of 150 days''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5107]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GT95-23-000]


Questar Pipeline Co.; Tariff Filing

February 24, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 21, 1995, Questar Pipeline Company, 
tendered for filing and acceptance to be effective March 1, 1995, 
Second Revised Sheet No. 8 and First Revised Sheet No. 8A of First 
Revised Volume No. 1 of its FERC Gas Tariff.
    Questar states that this filing updates its Index of Shippers by 
reflecting information regarding firm and no-notice transportation 
service agreements that were executed subsequent to Questar's August 1, 
1994, filing in Docket No. RP94-331-000.
    Questar states further that a copy of this filing has been served 
upon its jurisdictional customers as well as the Utah and Wyoming 
public service commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with this Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before March 3, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5107 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11687-11688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5164]



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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Alan T. Waterman Award Committee, Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    [[Page 11688]] Name: Alan T. Waterman Award Committee (#1172).
    Date and Time: Monday, March 20, 1995; 8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 320, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Mrs. Susan E. Fannoney, Executive Secretary, 
Room 1220, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, 
VA 22230. Telephone: 703/306-1096.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations in the 
selection of the Alan T. Waterman Award recipient.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The nominations being reviewed include 
information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute 
unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. These matters are exempt 
under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) of the government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 27, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-5164 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### LESTER MATTHEWS v. BLACKWOOD LUMBER COMPANY.

(Filed 14 June, 1933.)

Trial E c — Instruction in this case held sufficiently full in view of the simplicity of the case.

The failure of the trial court to define and explain the terms “proximate cause,” “burden of proof,” “greater weight of the evidence” in his charge to the jury in an action against an employer for negligent injury, will not be held for error where the simplicity of the case renders such explana*726tions unnecessary and it is apparent that the jury could not have misunderstood the meaning of the expressions used when applied to the evidence.

Appeal by defendant from *Hill, Special Judge,*at February Term, 1933, of JacksoN.

Civil action by servant to recover damages from master for alleged negligent injury, tried upon issues of negligence, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and damages, which, resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff.

Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*W. B. Sherrill and J ones & Ward for plaintiff.*

*Johnston & Horner for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The validity of the trial is assailed upon the ground that the judge, in charging the'jury, used the technical expressions “proximate cause,” “burden of proof,” “greater weight of the evidence,” without explaining their meaning in language which the jury could understand.

The case is a very simple one, both as to the law and the facts. The plaintiff was a woods “swamper,” cutting tree laps and brush in the Balsam Mountains. He was given an ax with a defective, switchy handle, which caused him to strike a limb and cut himself. *McKinney v. Adams,*184 N. C., 562, 114 S. E., 817; *Mercer v. R. R.,*154 N. C., 399, 70 S. E., 742.

The simplicity of the ease rendered the use of the ordinary formula in charging the jury, without further explanation, certainly harmless, if not unnecessary. *Fleming v. Utilities Co.,*193 N. C., 262, 136 S. E., 723; *S. v. Steadman,*200 N. C., 768, 158 S. E., 478. The jury could not have misunderstood the meaning of the expressions used, when applied to the evidence.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31322]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Ex Parte No. 523 (Sub-No. 1)]


Railroad Cost of Capital--1995

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of decision instituting a proceeding to determine the 
railroads' 1995 cost of capital.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is instituting a proceeding to determine the 
railroad industry's cost of capital for 1995. The decision solicits 
comments on: (1) The railroads' 1995 cost of debt capital; (2) the 
railroads' 1995 current cost of preferred stock equity capital; (3) the 
railroads' 1995 cost of common stock equity capital; and (4) the 1995 
capital structure mix of the railroad industry on a market value basis.

DATES: Notices of intent to participate are due no later than December 
29, 1995. A service list will then be prepared and issued by January 
13, 1996. Statements of the railroads are due by March 8, 1996. 
Statements of other interested persons are due by April 5, 1996. 
Rebuttal statements by the railroads are due by April 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 15 copies of statements and an original 
and 1 copy of the notice of intent to participate to: Office of the 
Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce Commission, 1201 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard J. Blistein, (202) 927-6171. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Legislation to sunset the Commission on 
December 31, 1995, and transfer remaining functions is now under 
consideration in Congress. Until further notice, parties submitting 
pleadings should continue to use the current name and address contained 
herein. Additional information is contained in the Commission's 
decision. To obtain a copy of the full decision, write to, call, or 
pick up in person from: DC NEWS & DATA, INC., Interstate Commerce 
Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 2229, 
Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357. [Assistance for the 
hearing impaired is available through TDD services (202) 927-5721.]

Environmental and Energy Considerations

    We preliminarily conclude that the proposed action will not 
significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the 
conservation of energy resources.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10704(a).

    Decided: December 15, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Owen, and 
Commissioner Simmons.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31322 Filed 12-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7869

FRANK M. GASTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; MICHAEL J. CAVANAUGH,

Commissioner of the South Carolina Department

of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-1803-2-20AJ)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 15, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank M. Gaster, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert

E. Peterson, William Ansel Collins, Jr., Lesli Brown Darwin, SOUTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Janet L. Paduhovich, Carl

Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE &

PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district

court. Gaster v. Evatt, No. CA-97-1803-2-20AJ (D.S.C. Dec. 11,

1997). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,402
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,605
<PP&E>                                       1,078,879
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,096,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,945
<BONDS>                                        233,479
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    750,000
<COMMON>                                        10,370
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,087,484
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               109,183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (110,243)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (110,243)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (110,243)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Order entered August 15, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00577

- CV

JOSE G. GARCIA, Appellant

V.

FABRICIO & MICHELE S OLORIO, Appellee s
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 11

- 10644



### O RDER

The Court has before it appellant’s August 13, 2013 unopposed second motion for
extension of time to file appellant’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS
appellant to file his brief by August 19, 2013. No fur ther extensions will be granted absent a
showing of exceptional circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE