alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The LAMPTON-REID COMPANY v. Iverson ALLEN and Immer Ball.

No. 31755.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A.

May 27, 1935.

J. N. Ogden, of Magnolia, for appellant.

J. M. Alford, of Tylertown, and Price, Price & Phillips, of Magnolia, for appellee.

McGOWEN, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer filed by the appellant, the Lampton-Eeid Company, to a cross-bill of Allen and Ball, the appellees, which order granted the appellant an appeal “to settle the principles of the case.”

The main contention of appellant is that the cross-bill is a collateral attack on a former decree against appellees in the same court, while appellees contend that, it is a direct attack. If we should hold with the appellant the bill is readily and easily amendable as to formal allegation and the formal prayer of the cross-bill. That being true, an opinion by us on the merits would simply point out wherein the cross-bill was defective, if it is, in formal allegation and prayer, and thereupon the cross-bill would, or could, be amended. That being our conclusion, we are of the opinion that the appeal would not “settle all of the.controlling principles” of the-case, and, in conformity with the practice established by this court in its construction of section 14 of the Code of 1930, we have decided on our own motion to dismiss this appeal. It should not have been granted by the chancellor. See Liberty Trust Co. v. Planters’ Bank, 155 Miss. 721, 124 So. 341; Miller v. Klingman, 156 Miss. 795, 126 So. 838; Randall v. Randall, 156 Miss. 656, 126 So. 484; Carothers v. Bank of Baldwyn, 158 Miss. 602, 131 So. 111; Moore v. White, 161 Miss. 390, 137 So. 99.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10(AB)








April 24, 2018


Mr. Mike Murtagh


Dear Mike: 


Congratulations on your new role within Carpenter. This memo will outline the changes in compensation and benefit programs and supercedes any prior memos or understandings regarding this subject matter.


		
	•
	Title:  Vice President and Group President--Specialty Alloy Operations  (SAO)




		
	•
	Effective date: July 1, 2018  


 
		
	•
	Annual Base Salary: $420,250.00




		
	•
	Salary Grade: 25




		
	•
	Location: Philadelphia




		
	•
	Annual Bonus Plan: You will be eligible to participate in the Company’s Bonus Compensation Plan or such successor arrangement (if any) as the Board may from time to time approve.  Your target annual bonus opportunity for this role is 55% of your annual base salary pro-rated based on earnings received during fiscal year 2019.   




		
	•
	Long Term Incentive Grants:  The Company generally grants equity awards to its senior executives annually.  The terms of these awards are determined by the Compensation Committee of Carpenter’s Board of Directors. You will be eligible to receive an annual award at the time these grants are made to all employees in similar positions. The current value of the annual equity incentive for your position is $400,000.00 The total value of the grant awarded to you in August 2018 will be $550,000.00 




		
	•
	Health Benefits, 401K Savings Plan, Vacation Benefit:   remain the same as you currently have available to you.




Please indicate your acceptance by signing below and returning the original copy of this letter to me.  


Sincerely,


/s/ John Rice                            


John Rice
Vice President Human Resources








Exhibit 10(AB)





By execution of this offer letter, you agree that this offer by Carpenter will be “at will” and either you or the Company may terminate your employment at any time and for any reason, with or without cause.  Although your job duties, title, compensation and benefits, as well as the Company’s personnel policies and procedures may change from time to time, the “at will” nature of your employment may only be changed in an express written agreement signed by you and a duly authorized officer of the Company.








ACCEPTED:                        DATE:        


/s/ Michael Murtagh                            8/7/2016                                 
Michael Murtagh
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELATED CASE ORDER

A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related or a

Sua Sponte Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been

filed. The time for filing an opposition or statement of support has passed. As the judge

assigned to the earliest filed case below that bears my initials, I find that the more recently filed

case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case assigned to me, and such case(s) shall

be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not related to the case assigned to me are

referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case for a related case determination.

C 05-01298 PJH Amochaev et al v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.

C 09-04117 SBA Bullen v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

I find that the above case is NOT related to the case assigned to me. PJH

CLERK’S NOTICE

The court has reviewed the motion and determined that no cases are related and no

reassignments shall occur.

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

DATED: 9/22/09 By: 

Deputy Clerk
SCWC

- 18

- 0000 715

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,

vs.

STEVEN DUDLEY VEGA , Petitioner/Defendant

- Appell ee

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 18

- 0000 715 ; C R. NO. 3 CP C

- 1 8

- 0 000409 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ochiai , assigned by reason of vacancy)

Petitioner/Defendant

- Appell ee ’s Application for Writ

of Certior ari, filed on September 30 , 2020, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, November 12, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Dean E. Ochiai Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-18-0000715 12-NOV-2020 12:39 PM Dkt. 31 ODAC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

NH Housing Finance Authority

v. Civil No. 06-cv-248-JM

Reginald Chown, Jr. and Laurie S. Chown,

US Internal Revenue Service,

Littlefield Condominium Associates

O R D E R

The United States moves for an entry of an order directing the Clerk of Court to disburse

funds that have been interpleaded in this matter, together with any interest that has accrued upon

such funds, to the United States.

The basis for the relief this motion seeks is that on May 4, 2007, the Court entered an 

order granting the United States’ motion for summary judgment, and judgment was entered in

 favor of the United States. No party has filed a notice of appeal, and the time to file an appeal has

expired. Thus, the full amount of the funds, ( $68,447.83), together with interest shall be 

distributed to the United States and applied to the unpaid income tax liability of Reginald R. Chown

and Laurie S. Chown.

Case 1:06-cv-00248-JM Document 27 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

September 28, 2007 _________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: William H. Craig, Jr., Esq.

Thomas P. Cole, Esq.

Edmund J. Waters, Jr. , Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00248-JM Document 27 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-201-01-SM

John I. Clark

O R D E R

Defendant Clark’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 11). Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2007 trial

period. Defendant Clark shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

February 9, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: March 21, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: April 3, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00201-SM Document 12 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 2, 2007

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Jennifer Cole Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00201-SM Document 12 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 8, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-0593 Lower Tribunal No. F03-5785B

________________ 

### Desmon Hallman, Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge. Daniel J. Tibbitt, P.A., and Daniel Tibbitt, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mark Mariano

v. Case No. 05-cv-25-PB

Warden, NH State Prison

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 27, Motion to Reconsider

Ruling: Mariano asks me to reconsider my prior order

declining his request for an extension of time in which to file a

notice of appeal. Having reviewed the record, I agree that the

motion for extension was timely and that Mariano’s failure to file

a timely notice was due to excusable neglect. The time for filing

a new notice of appeal is extended until April 9, 2006. 

Entered by: Paul Barbadoro, District Judge

Date: March 9, 2006

cc: Mark Mariano, pro se 

Case 1:05-cv-00025-PB Document 29 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Geovanny Tapia

Criminal No. 06-cr-147-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

17) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: February 15, 2007

cc: Richard Foley, Esq.

Terry Ollila, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00147-JD Document 18 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**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 Report of Puget
      Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc .
      (the
      "Companies") on Form 10-Q for
      the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
      10-Q"), I, Stephen
      P. Reynolds, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
      Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)  The
      Form
      10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Companies.











Date:
                May 3, 2007/s/Stephen
                P. ReynoldsStephen
                P. ReynoldsChairman,
                President and
              Chief
                Executive Officer
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1600

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on

the use of foreign tax credits under the alternative minimum tax.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. HOUGHTON (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr.

CRANE, Mr. ARMEY, Ms. DUNN, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr.

LEWIS of Georgia, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. WATKINS, Mr.

FOLEY, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. HERGER, Ms. HART, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr.

BECERRA, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. POMEROY, and Mr. ENGLISH) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and

Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the limitation on the use of foreign tax credits under

the alternative minimum tax.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FOREIGN TAX

4 CREDIT UNDER ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 59(a) of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to alternative minimum tax

7 foreign tax credit) is amended by striking paragraph (2)
2

•HR 1600 IH

1 and by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as para2 graphs (2) and (3), respectively.

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

4 53(d)(1)(B)(i)(II) of such Code is amended by striking

5 ‘‘and if section 59(a)(2) did not apply’’.

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

7 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

8 December 31, 2000.

Æ
Exhibit 32


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


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXII  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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; and

     2.   The   information  contained  in  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 12, 2009



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 12, 2009
II

Calendar No. 396

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1374

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 17, 2002

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

MAY 23, 2002

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan,

as the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan,

6 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe

7 Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1374 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

5 to the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building’’.

Calendar No. 396

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1374

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 600 Calumet Street in Lake

Linden, Michigan, as the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe PostOffice Building’’.

MAY 23, 2002

Reported without amendment
Case 1:06-cv-00254-JD   Document 32   Filed 07/25/07   Page 1 of 3

Case 1:06-cv-00254-JD   Document 32   Filed 07/25/07   Page 2 of 3

Case 1:06-cv-00254-JD   Document 32   Filed 07/25/07   Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1346 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1346

To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate the prohibitions on 
 the transmission of abortion related matters, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2001

  Mr. Frank introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate the prohibitions on 
 the transmission of abortion related matters, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Comstock Cleanup Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. IMPORTATION OR TRANSPORTATION OF CERTAIN ABORTION-RELATED 
              MATTERS.

    Section 1462 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (b) of 
        the first undesignated paragraph; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (c) of the first undesignated 
        paragraph.

SEC. 3. MAILING OF ABORTION-RELATED MATTERS.

    Section 1461 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``; and'' the first place it appears, and all that follows 
through ``Is declared'' and inserting ``is declared''.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00835-CR

Danny Edward Drummond, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 10-245-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Danny Edward Drummond seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for

robbery. Pursuant to a plea bargain, he was sentenced as a habitual offender to thirty-five years in

prison with credit for fifty-two days time served. An appeal by a defendant in a criminal case must

be dismissed unless the record contains a certification that the defendant has the right of appeal. 

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The trial court has certified that: (1) this is a plea bargain case and

Drummond has no right of appeal, and (2) Drummond waived the right of appeal. The appeal is

dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

___________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 14, 2011

Do Not Publish
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit _____________ 

No. 23-50686 

consolidated with 

No. 23-50689 

Summary Calendar 

_____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Felipe Matias-Miguel, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC Nos. 4:23-CR-178-1, 

4:22-CR-229-1 

______________________________ 

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Felipe Matias-Miguel appeals following his conviction for illegal 

reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) as well as the revocation of a 

previously imposed term of supervised release, arguing for the first time on 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

March 12, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-50686 Document: 51-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024
23-50686 

c/w No. 23-50689 

2 

appeal that the statutory sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is 

unconstitutional. He concedes this argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and has filed an unopposed 

motion for summary disposition. 

Because the argument is foreclosed, see United States v. Pervis, 937 

F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019), summary disposition is appropriate, see

Groendyke Transp. Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 

Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the 

judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-50686 Document: 51-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2024
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar ARROYO-JAIMES, also known as Cesar Arroyo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50032.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Cesar Arroyo-Jaimes appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Arroyo-Jaimes complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Arroyo-Jaimes thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. *425Arroyo-Jaimes acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.