alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HYGEMA v. CITY OF SEBRING et al.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 13, 1936.

Rehearing Denied July 21, 1936.

*367W. L. Long, of Sebring, for appellant.

W. H. Nollman, of Sebring, for appel-lees.

Peter O. Knight, of Tampa, James Hardin Peterson, of Lakeland, Francis P. Fleming, of Jacksonville, Allen Clements, Jim Clements, and J. A. Franklin, all of Ft. Myers, Fred R. Wilson, of Sanford, Murray Sams, of De Land, E. Noble Calhoun, of St. Augustine, James Messer, Jr., of Tallahassee, Ernest E. Mason, of Pensacola, Ralph A. Marsicano, of Tampa, Sumter Leitner, of Arcadia, W. G. Vaughn, of Melbourne, Leon J. C. Hartón, of Daytona Beach, J. M. Austin, of Leesburg, J. W. Watson, Jr., of Miami, Wm. M. Madison, of Jacksonville, Russell Snow, of Cocoa, E. O. Deni-son, of Ft. Pierce, Thomas W. Butler, of Punta Gorda, and R. A. McGeachey, of Milton, as amici curiae.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, after a careful reading and inspection of the record it appears to the court that the city council of the city of iyebring, purporting to act under the authority of chapter 17118, Laws of Florida 1935, proposed a construction of a gas plant and distribution system and the financing of the cost thereof from the issuance of debentures payable solely from the revenue of such proposed gas plant and distribution system.

The circuit court granted the appellees’ motion to dismiss the bill of complaint, which sought to restrain the city from proceeding with the project. After a careful consideration of the record, it is decided by the court that the principles of law involved are the same, and the case is controlled by the opinion and decision in the case of Kathleen Citrus Land Company, Appellant, v. City of Lakeland et al., Appellees (Fla.) 169 So. 356, this day decided, and upon the authority of which decision the order of the chancellor in this case is hereby reversed with direction to grant injunction unless and until the certificate proposed to be issued shall have been approved under the provisions of amended section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution.

Reversed.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

BROWN, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1998, and the Consolidated
Statement of Income for the six months ended June 30, 1998, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      450,181
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     97,558
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          94,330
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        12,919
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 654,988
<COMMON>                                        59,039
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       37,568
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            117,731
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 214,338
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,000
<PREFERRED>                                     20,831
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           186,076
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               4,300
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   16,944
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 194,499
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  654,988
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      203,855
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             3,949
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     183,612
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     187,561
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         16,294
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,707
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  18,001
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         8,047
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,773
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,179
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   12,594
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        11,283
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        7,607
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          18,058
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 624 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 624

  To prohibit the use of Federal funds to close or realign the Marine 
     Corps Recruit Depot located at Parris Island, South Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2021

 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina (for himself, Ms. Mace, Mr. Norman, Mr. 
   Timmons, Mr. Rice of South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Tiffany) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the use of Federal funds to close or realign the Marine 
     Corps Recruit Depot located at Parris Island, South Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Parris Island Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The Marine Corps Recruit Depot located at Parris 
        Island, South Carolina (in this section referred to as ``Parris 
        Island''), has served the United States as a home to the Marine 
        Corps since 1891.
            (2) Parris Island was the first, and remains the only, 
        facility to integrate women in boot camp training for the 
        Marine Corps in the United States.
            (3) Female recruits have trained at Parris Island since 
        1949.
            (4) The first integrated company of male and female 
        recruits graduated from Parris Island in 2019.
            (5) Parris Island has cultivated a legacy of excellence and 
        faithful service to the United States.
            (6) Parris Island is and shall remain the physical home of 
        the U.S. Marine Corps Eastern Recruiting Region.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF CLOSING OR REALIGNMENT OF MARINE CORPS RECRUIT 
              DEPOT LOCATED AT PARRIS ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA.

    No Federal funds may be used to close or realign Marine Corps 
Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, or to conduct any 
planning or other activity related to such closure or realignment.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7224

LARRY ALBERT FORD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-04-747-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 29, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Albert Ford, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry Albert Ford seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ford

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
#### Debra Lea MCSHEFFREY, Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Appellee.

No. 02-1499.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 31, 2002.

DYK, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Debra Lea MeSheffrey moves to transfer her case to the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Postmaster General has not responded.

MeSheffrey filed a notice of appeal from a decision of a contracting officer. The clerk, by letter, informed MeSheffrey that this court does not have jurisdiction to review a contracting officer’s decision. McSheffrey’s motion, in response to that letter, states that she wishes to have her case transferred to the Court of Federal Claims, which might have jurisdiction over such an action. 41 U.S.C. § 609(a)(1) (“in lieu of appealing the decision of the contracting officer under section 605 of this title to an agency board, a contractor may bring an action directly on the claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims”).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this court “shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed or noticed for the court from which it is transferred.”

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

McSheffrey’s motion is granted and this case shall be transferred to the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 OF PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         246,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  572,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    440,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,550,300
<PP&E>                                       8,801,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,866,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,972,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,345,700
<BONDS>                                      2,157,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       492,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,640,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,972,600
<SALES>                                      2,232,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,232,600
<CGS>                                        1,768,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,768,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               312,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             109,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 160 (Monday, August 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19065]


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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Federal Advisory Committee Act; Technical Guidelines Development 
Committee Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 
92-463), the purpose of this notice is to announce that the Election 
Assistance Commission (EAC) has renewed the charter for the Technical 
Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) for a two-year period through 
August 9, 2010. The TGDC is a federal advisory committee under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act.

DATES: Renewed through August 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Avenue, NW., 
Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donetta Davidson, Designated Federal 
Officer, Technical Guidelines Development Committee, at (202) 566-3100. 
E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b232a3d2a22252d240b2e2a28652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d252c3b2c24232b220d282c2e632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The TGDC is a Federal advisory committee 
created by statute whose mission is to assist the EAC Executive 
Director in the development of voluntary voting system guidelines. In 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 
as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the renewal of 
the TGDC.

Thomas R. Wilkey,
Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-19065 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 10.5**

 

| **Tony L. White**       |                   |
|-------------------------|-------------------|
| Chairman and President  | 301 Merritt 7     |
| Chief Executive Officer | Norwalk, CT 06851 |

August 28, 2006

Mr. Dennis L. Winger

8 Thomas Place

Rowayton, CT  06853

Dear Dennis:

This letter supplements the amendment effective August 21, 2003, to your employment letter dated June 24, 1997, as amended. Payment options under the letter amendment dated August 21, 2003, shall include the following:  a lump sum option which shall be a single payment representing the entire value of your accrued benefit; a deferred lump sum option which shall be a reduced monthly annuity payable as of the first day of each month for a specified period of thirty-six (36), sixty (60) or one hundred-twenty (120) months, to be followed by payment of an actuarial equivalent lump sum representing the present value of the remaining payments; and should you die before the end of the specified period, your beneficiary will commence receiving the remaining monthly payments during the specified period to be followed by the lump sum payment which would have been paid to you.The death benefit payment options will include a lump sum payment or deferred lump sum payment that is actuarially equivalent to the present value of the surviving spouse death benefit. The determination of amounts payable under the lump sum or deferred lump sum or death benefit lump sum options shall be based on the actuarial equivalency definition for lump sums as specified in the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan. In all other respects the employment letter, as amended, remains unchanged.

 

|   |   |   | Sincerely,                                    |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Tony L. White                             |
|   |   |   |  

 

 

Tony L. White

  |
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6429 

To establish certain protections for members of the Armed Forces who refuse 

to receive vaccinations against COVID-19, and to increase basic pay 

for members of the uniformed services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2022 

Mrs. MILLER of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To establish certain protections for members of the Armed 

Forces who refuse to receive vaccinations against 

COVID-19, and to increase basic pay for members of 

the uniformed services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

4 FORCES WHO REFUSE TO RECEIVE VACCINA5 TIONS AGAINST COVID-19. 

6 (a) PROHIBITIONS.— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6429 IH

1 (1) FEDERAL FUNDING.—No Federal funds 

2 may be used to require a member of the Armed 

3 Forces to receive a vaccination against COVID-19. 

4 (2) ADVERSE ACTION.—The Secretary con5 cerned may not take any adverse action against a 

6 member of the Armed Forces solely on the basis that 

7 such member refuses to receive a vaccination against 

8 COVID-19. 

9 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

10 (1) The term ‘‘adverse action’’ includes the fol11 lowing: 

12 (A) Retaliation. 

13 (B) Punishment. 

14 (C) Disparate treatment. 

15 (D) A requirement to wear a mask. 

16 (E) A requirement to reside in sub17 standard housing. 

18 (2) The term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ has the 

19 meaning given that term in section 101 of title 10, 

20 United States Code. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6429 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN BASIC PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE 

2 UNIFORMED SERVICES. 

3 Effective on January 1, 2023, the rates of monthly 

4 basic pay for members of the uniformed services are in5 creased by 2.7 percent. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stephen Clifford FERGUSON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-30117.

D.C. No. CR-00-00192-JCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Ferguson's request for oral argument and appointment of counsel is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Stephen Clifford Ferguson appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the supposed new evidence would not probably lead to an acquittal because it did not affect Ferguson’s lack of standing to challenge the search of his house. *See United States v. Kulczyk,*931 F.2d 542, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Ferguson’s Rule 33 motion.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          33,972
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  212,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,810
<INVENTORY>                                    186,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               495,652
<PP&E>                                       5,909,334
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,520,817
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,137,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          377,024
<BONDS>                                      2,262,337
<COMMON>                                        43,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     987,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,137,398
<SALES>                                        631,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               649,000
<CGS>                                          355,872
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  365,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,680
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 90,188
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,637
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             57,551
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    57,551
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23
        


</TABLE>