alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James W. Bowles *v.*Boyd Winchester et al.

Wills — Probate—Remedy by Appeal.

If a Will offered for probate is incomplete, and is not the testator’s entire last will and testament, the objectors have an adequate remedy by appeal to the court of common pleas from an order admitting the will to probate.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. -

March 16, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

*583
      *Muir & Biju/r, for executor.*

*Duke, Richards, for appellees.*

*J. F. Bullitt, for appellant.*

The decision of this case must be ruled by those of Hughey et al. v. Sidwell’s Heirs, 18 B. Monroe 259, and Walters et al. v. Ratliff, 5 Bush 575. If, notwithstanding the right of appeal to the court of common pleas from the judgment of probate, there existed grounds for impeaching that judgment in a court of equity, as any other decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the petition in this case, does not, in our opinion, state facts Which are sufficient to give a court of equity jurisdiction for that purpose. If, as is alleged, the paper admitted to record as the will of Joshua B. Bow-les, is incomplete, qr not his entire last will and testament, we can perceive no sufficient reason why the appellant’s remedy was not adequate and ample by appeal to the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 12

Aquila, Inc.  Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                                                    |                                                       | Year Ended December 31, |      
|--------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | -----
|
|                                                    |                                                      
|Loss from continuing operations before income taxes |                                                       | $                       | (12.1
|                                                    | Add (Subtract):                                       |                         |      
|                                                    | Equity in earnings of investments                     |                         |      
|                                                    | Dividends and fees from investments                   |                         |      
|                                                    | Total interest expense                                |                         |      
|                                                    | Interest capitalized                                  |                         |      
|                                                    | Portion of rents representative of an interest factor |                         |      
|                                                    |                                                      
|Income (loss), as adjusted                          |                                                       | $                       | 141.3
|                                                    |                                                      
|Fixed Charges:                                      |                                                       |                         |      
|                                                    | Interest on long-term debt                            |                         | $    
|                                                    | Interest on short-term debt                           |                         |      
|                                                    | Portion of rents representative of an interest factor |                         |      
|                                                    |                                                      
|Fixed Charges                                       |                                                       | $                       | 153.4
|                                                    |                                                      
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                  |                                                       |                         | .92  
|                                                    |                                                      

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28539]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 14-16]


Baltic Auto Shipping, Inc. v. Michael Hitrinov a/k/a Michael 
Khitrinov, Empire United Lines Co., Inc.; Notice of Filing of Complaint 
and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (Commission) by Baltic Auto Shipping, Inc., 
hereinafter ``Complainant,'' against Michael Hitrinov (``Hitrinov'') 
and Empire United Lines Co., Inc. (``EUL''), hereinafter 
``Respondents.'' Complainant states that it is an Illinois corporation. 
Complainant alleges that Respondent EUL is a licensed NVOCC, and 
Respondent Hitrinov is ``the sole principal and officer of EUL.''
    Complainant alleges that Respondents have violated the Shipping 
Act, 46 U.S.C. 41102, 41104, 40501, and 46 CFR part 515, in connection 
with shipment of over 4000 used automobiles over a five year period and 
charging rates ``in excess of the amounts set forth in EUL's tariff.'' 
Complainant alleges it ``has sustained and continued to sustain 
injuries and damages in excess of $400,000.''
    Complainant seeks that Respondents ``be required to answer the 
charges herein; that after due hearing, an order be made commanding 
said respondent to pay to Complainant by way of reparations for the 
unlawful conduct . . . with interest and attorney's fees or such other 
sum as the Commission may determine to be proper as an award of 
reparation; and that such other and further order or orders be made as 
the Commission determines to be proper in the premises.''
    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's 
Electronic Reading Room at www.fmc.gov/14-16.
    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative 
Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding officer in this 
proceeding shall be issued by December 1, 2015 and the final decision 
of the Commission shall be issued by June 1, 2016.

Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28539 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
EXHIBIT 3


                                                          State of Delaware
                                                         Secretary of State
                                                      Divisions of Corporations
                                                   Delivered 06:23 PM 10/02/2009
                                                      FILED 06:16 PM 10/02/2009
                                                    SRV 090907445 - 2132775 FILE

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                     OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF

                                VASOMEDICAL, INC.
                                -----------------




     VASOMEDICAL,  INC., a corporation  organized and existing under the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST:  That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of  VASOMEDICAL,  INC.,
resolutions  were adopted setting forth a proposed  amendment to the Certificate
of Incorporation of said  corporation,  declaring said amendment to be advisable
and calling a meeting of the  stockholders of the corporation for  consideration
thereof.

     SECOND: That thereafter,  pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors,
the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held,
upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by
statute were voted in favor of the following amendment:

     RESOLVED,  that the  Certificate of  Incorporation  of this  corporation be
     amended  by  changing   Article  IV  of  the   Company's   Certificate   of
     Incorporation,  so  that,  as  amended  said  Article  shall be and read as
     follows:

          ARTICLE  IV.  CAPITAL  STOCK.  The  authorized  capital  stock  of the
     Corporation shall consist of 250,000 000 shares of Common Stock,  $.001 par
     value per share  (hereinafter  referred to as either the "Common Shares" or
     "Common Stock"),  and 1,000,000  shares of Preferred Stock,  $.01 par value
     per  share  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  either  "Preferred  Shares"  or
     "Preferred Stock").

          THIRD:  That said  amendment was duly adopted in  accordance  with the
     provisions  of Section 242 of the General  Corporation  Law of the State of
     Delaware.
<PAGE>
          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said VASOMEDICAL, INC. has caused this certificate
     to be signed by JUN MA,  its  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer  and
     TARACHAND SINGH, its Secretary, this 1st day of October, 2009.

                                  VASOMEDICAL, INC.


                                  By:/s/ Jun Ma
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                         Jun Ma
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
ATTEST:


By: /s/ Tarachand Singh
    ------------------------------
        Tarachand Singh, Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,008)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,008)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,008)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy SCURRY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6276.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 25, 2001.

Jimmy Scurry, pro se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Scurry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court.*
      *See United States v. Scurry,*Nos. CR-95-409; CA-00-3301-19-3 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 25, 2001; entered Jan. 26, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *178materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

The district court did not have the benefit of this court’s opinion in *United States v. Sanders,*247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Balance Sheet and Income  Statement dated December 31, 1996 on Form 10-QSB,  and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-QSB dated December 31,
1996.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000837987
<NAME>                        Wasatch Education Systems Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             193,772
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      391,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                        15,000
<INVENTORY>                                         61,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   659,167
<PP&E>                                             782,856
<DEPRECIATION>                                     641,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,448,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,957,933
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,046,781
<COMMON>                                        11,781,511
<OTHER-SE>                                     (19,337,365)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,448,860
<SALES>                                            785,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   785,638
<CGS>                                              879,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      879,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   162,144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  81,461
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (960,962)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (960,962)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (960,962)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.27)
        


</TABLE>
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

FLORIDA’S ECONOMY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Public Safety 

Communications Research (PSCR) Division is the primary federal laboratory 

focused on conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation for 

public safety communications technologies. Their mission is to accelerate 

communications innovation in support of public safety communities and the 

citizens they serve. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allocated $300 Million 

from the Public Safety Trust fund to NIST PSCR to perform critical public safety 

communications R&D during a 10-year period. PSCR implemented numerous 

research mechanisms to support the development and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network: grants, Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) contracts, prize challenge competitions, and internal research. 

These research mechanisms were housed within six research portfolios and crosscutting initiatives to maximize their impact: 

•	 User Interface/User Experience •	 Public Safety Analytics 

•	 Location-Based Services •	 Security 

•	 Mission Critical Voice •	 Resilient Systems 

While the ultimate impact of these research mechanisms is the increased safety 

of first responders and their communities through improved communications

technologies, PSCR was interested in better understanding how their R&D 

investments to date result in economic impacts that ripple outward to state 

economies. An independent analysis was conducted to demonstrate how PSCR’s 

deployment of the $300 Million from the Public Safety Trust Fund translated into 

broader impacts to the United States, including jobs, earnings, value added, and 

total economic output. PSCR’s R&D investments resulted in economic output 

in 33 of the 50 states. Results of the analysis are presented here. 

For more information, see NIST PSCR’s Economic Impact Study. 

10 Prize Challenge 

Participants 

Awards Totaling 

$0.3 Million 

3 Grant Awards 

Totaling $2.3 Million 

•	 Harris Corporation 

•	 University of Florida 

(2 awards) 

FLORIDA BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$2.5 Million 

OUTPUT 

$6.8 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$13.9 Million 

EARNINGS 

$8.8 Million 

JOBS 

139 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

**All values are rounded; thus, the 

sum of the components may not 

sum exactly to the NIST Investment 

amount.

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71814-71815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8962]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Man Ray--Human Equations: A Journey From Mathematics 
to Shakespeare'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Man Ray--Human Equations: A Journey from 
Mathematics to Shakespeare,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at The Phillips Collection, Washington, DC, from 
on or about February 7, 2015, until on or about May 10, 2015, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public

[[Page 71815]]

Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including 
lists of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-28455 Filed 12-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### H. J. Spradlin *v.*Eli Pieratt, etc.

Attachment — Reply, When Not Necessary.

Where one comes into suit in attachment for the sole ¡purpose of asserting his claim to the property, a reply to his answer is not necessary.

Courts — Transfer of Cause.

Where the circuit court has the right to entertain jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the litigation, the parties may by agreement before judgment transfer the cause from the quarterly to the circuit court.

APPEAL FROM MORGAN, CIRCUIT COURT.

February 27, 1873.

*John» W. Hazelrigg, J. L. Scott, for appellants.*

*J. E. Cooper, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Spradlin by his petition asked to be made a party defendant to the actions against Dennins, and that his petition be taken as his answer.

His sole object in coming into these suits was to, assert his claim to the property seized under the attachment. He did not sue the officer holding the property for its recovery, but asked merely the right to assert his claim in the capacity of a defendant to the actions in which it was seized under the orders of attachments. He did not, and in fact could not have pleaded matters1' of set-off, or asserted counterclaims against the causes of action set up by the plaintiffs, hence it was not necessary that they should reply to his answer. As the circuit court had the right to entertain jurisdiction of the subject-matters of the litigation, the parties had the right by agreement before judgment to transfer the cause from' the quarterly court to that tribunal. The instructions given presented the issues clearly, and the evidence is not of such a character as will authorize this court to interfere, there being no error of law in the proceedings.

Judgment *affirmed.*