alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barber & Dick *v.*John H. Black.

Judicial Sales — Description of Land.

Tire petition, in a proceeding to sell land should set forth the land sought to he sold, and the description given in the judgment should be such as to enable the commissioner to' identify the land without resorting to extraneous evidence.

APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT.

December 20, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

In the petition, no description is given of the land sought to be subjected to the payment of the debt except that it is situated in Pulaski County; not even the quantity is alleged. Reference is made to a deed which appellee made to appellant with a promise to file it; but it never was filed as an exhibit; and'there is noi statement in 'the petition by which it could be identified. A deed was lodged with the clerk, but it constituted no part of the pleading.

The petition should set forth the land sought to be sold; and the judgment pursuing the description given in the petition should en- ' able the commissioner to identify, the land he was ordered to .sell without looking to any other paper. In so important a matter as *389the sale of real estate nothing should be left to conjecture, or to the discretion of a ministerial officer.

*Morrow, for appellants.*

*James, for appellee.*

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent herewith. If appellee should in proper time ask to amend his petition, he should be permitted to do so.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 451

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the at-risk rules 

for publicly traded nonrecourse debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mr. FOLEY 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 modify 

the at-risk rules for publicly traded nonrecourse debt.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT UNDER AT-RISK RULES OF PUB4 LICLY TRADED NONRECOURSE DEBT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

6 465(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

7 to qualified nonrecourse financing treated as amount at 

8 risk) is amended by striking ‘‘share of’’ and all that fol9 lows and inserting ‘‘share of—
2

•HR 451 IH 

1 ‘‘(i) any qualified nonrecourse financ2 ing which is secured by real property used 

3 in such activity, and 

4 ‘‘(ii) any other financing which—

5 ‘‘(I) would (but for subparagraph 

6 (B)(ii)) be qualified nonrecourse fi7 nancing, 

8 ‘‘(II) is qualified publicly traded 

9 debt, and 

10 ‘‘(III) is not borrowed by the tax11 payer from a person described in sub12 clause (I), (II), or (III) of section 

13 49(a)(1)(D)(iv).’’. 

14 (b) QUALIFIED PUBLICLY TRADED DEBT.—Para15 graph (6) of section 465(b) of such Code is amended by 

16 adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

17 ‘‘(F) QUALIFIED PUBLICLY TRADED

18 DEBT.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 

19 term ‘qualified publicly traded debt’ means any 

20 debt instrument which is readily tradable on an 

21 established securities market. Such term shall 

22 not include any debt instrument which has a 

23 yield to maturity which equals or exceeds the 

24 limitation in section 163(i)(1)(B).’’. 
3

•HR 451 IH 

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

2 this section shall apply to debt instruments issued after 

3 December 31, 2003.

Æ
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                CONSENT OF NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
               

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this
Registration Statement on Form S-4 of our reports dated February 10, 1998,
February 18, 1998, and February 19, 1998, that were utilized in aggregate as a
basis for Ocean Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-K/A and for United Meridian Corporation's
Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1997, and to all references to our
Firm included in this Registration Statement.



                                        NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.



                                        By:  /s/ DANNY D. SIMMONS
                                             ----------------------------------
                                              Danny D. Simmons
                                              Senior Vice President

Houston, Texas
September 1, 1998
#### J. H. Hornsby *v.*W. Judah et al.

Evidence — Journal Entries of Acts of Common Council. •

A journal record, made up of what the clerk of the common council recollects to have been the action of the council, is not competent evidence of the proceedings of the council.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

November 11, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The evidence conduces to show that the ordinance upon which this proceeding is based was passed nearly a year prior to the entry of the proceeding on the journals of the common council. In fact it is to be doubted whether the record of 1869 was ever completed until 1871: Clany was not employed to assist Bayler until July, 1870, and he says he then wrote up most of the proceedings of August, 1869, including the ordinance, the verity of *295which is in controversy. Duerson was president of the council in 1869, his term expiring in March, 1870, long .prior to the time at which this record was made. Neither the scrap book, minute book or printed proceedings contain such a statement of facts, in an abbreviated form, as would have enabled either the clerk or the deputy to make up the record from either or all combined. The clerk’s minute book contains this statement of the proceedings: “German 42 — Contracts approved.” Now what contract was approved is within the memory of the clerk and the board alone, and when reference is made to the official printed proceedings, no mention whatever is made of this approval. The record is made up of what the clerk recollects to have been the action of the council. Such a record can not be regarded as competent evidence of the proceedings of that body.

*Bullitt, Harris, for appellant.*

*Burnett, for appellees.*

The judgment of the court below is reversed and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition so far as it attempts to charge the present appellant for the improvements made, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports, included or incorporated by reference in the Form
10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3
(Nos. 333-67067, 033-60406, 033-57167, 033-39466, 333-86299, 333-34609,
333-29657, 333-14869, 033-59235, 033-59237, and 333-56476) and on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-66233, 033-45525, 033-50260, 033-45074, 033-52094, 333-19671, 333-91305,
333-94955, 333-30742, 333-29819, 033-36694 and 333-77703). It should be noted
that we have not audited any financial statements of UtiliCorp United Inc.
subsequent to December 31, 2000, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to
the date of our reports.

/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
March 29, 2001
THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

July 20, 1993

I am delighted to send my best wishes to the participants
of the 1993 National Metric Conference, "Metrication '93," and
its cosponsors, the U.S. Metric Association, the American National
Metric Council, and the U.S. Department of Commerce's National
Institute of Standards and Technology.

International trade is becoming increasingly competitive.
To improve our balance of trade and to succeed in the international
marketplace, America must produce goods and services that fit the
needs and quality requirements of other nations. Since the metric
system is the world standard of measurement, more and more nations
are demanding metric products. All developed nations except the
United States use the metric system, and it is clear that our
country will benefit by encouraging voluntary metric use by
industry. These efforts can enhance America's competitive
edge and help create new jobs and opportunities for our people.

I want to commend the sponsors of this conference for helping
America move forward in metric use. Government commitment to
metric conversion in federal programs is already accelerating the
transition to the use of metric units, and your efforts hold great
promise for further strengthening private sector competitiveness
and for stimulating economic growth for the entire nation.

Best wishes for a productive conference.

Thu Chto —
[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: 2014-28538]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 14-15]


Ngobros and Company Nigeria Limited v. Oceane Cargo Link, LLC, 
and Kingston Ansah, Individually; Notice of Filing of Complaint and 
Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (Commission) by Ngobros and Company Nigeria Limited 
(NCNL), hereinafter ``Complainant,'' against Ocean Cargo Link, LLC 
(OCL) and Kingston Ansah, hereinafter ``Respondents.'' Complainant 
states that it is a Nigerian Limited Liability Company. Complainant 
alleges that Respondent OCL is a license ocean freight forwarder and 
non-vessel-operating common carrier and Respondent Kingston Ansah is a 
``member of OCL'' and ``has utilized OCL as his alter egos [sic].''
    Complainant alleges that Respondents have violated the Shipping 
Act, 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), in connection with the failed shipment of 
three vehicles from the United States to Nigeria. Complainant alleges 
that Respondent shipped the vehicles to the wrong destination resulting 
in the loss of the vehicles.
    Complainant seeks an Order holding that Respondents violated Sec.  
41102(c); an Order compelling Respondents ``to make reparations to 
Complainant NCNL in the amount of $180,628.66 for shipping its goods 
intentionally or unintentionally to a wrong destination and abandoning 
it there''; ``attorney's fees, interests and costs and expenses 
incurred in this matter''; and ``such other and further relief as the 
Commission deems just and proper.''
    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's 
Electronic Reading Room at www.fmc.gov/14-15.
    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. 2014-28538 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3062
DAVID E. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRESH FIELDS MARKET, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-55-C) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David E. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Murphy, Michael Frank Marino, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, McLean, Virginia; Eric Anthony Welter, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's disposition of Appellant's discovery motions for expenses, for sanctions, and for a change i the location of his deposition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdictiononly over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4642 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4642

 To provide for the extension of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 
              into the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2004

 Mr. Ferguson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the extension of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 
              into the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NEW JERSEY COASTAL HERITAGE TRAIL.

    The second sentence of section 2 of Public Law 100-515 (102 Stat. 
2563; 16 U.S.C. 1244 note) is amended by inserting ``including sites in 
the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey,'' after the words ``cultural 
sites''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 15-1

May 11, 2000

MCN Energy Group Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of MCN Energy Group Inc. for the periods ended March 31, 2000 and
1999, as indicated in our report dated May 11, 2000; because we did not perform
an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000, is
incorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements:

|         |  |                                
|-------- |  | -------------------------------
|FORM     |  | REGISTRATION NUMBER            
|        
|        
|        
|        
|Form S-8 |  | 333-02105
333-02107
33-21930-99
|        
|        
|        
|        
|Form S-3 |  | 333-47137
333-47139
333-45281  

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Detroit, Michigan
No. 15,658.

#### Hale *v.*Miller.

*Appeal.*— Proceedings *Supplemental to Execution.*— Separate *Trials.*— Parties *on Appeal.*— Where -several persons are made parties to a proceeding supplemental to an execution, there is no right to separate trials; and if a joint judgment is rendered against the defendants, the one appealing must make the remainder parties to the appeal.

From the Miami Circuit Court.

*J. M. Brown*and *N. N. Antrim,*for appellant.

*J. L. Farrar*and *J. Farrar,*for appellee.

Elliott, C. J.

The appellant was one .of several parties to proceedings supplemental to execution, and joined with his co-parties in a plea in abatement, alleging that there was another action pending at the time these proceedings were commenced. To the plea in abatement the appellee responded, admitting that such an action was pending, and averring that it was dismissed on the first day of the term. This response to the plea was probably insufficient, inasmuch as the pend-ency of the former action at the time these proceedings were commenced was a sufficient ground for a plea in abatement. *Lee*v. *Hefley,*21 Ind. 98. But we do not think the appellant is in a situation to make available the error in holding the reply to the plea good, as the exception was a joint one, as was the plea, and he alone appeals and assigns error, not *81making his co-parties in the court below parties to the appeal.

Filed April 1, 1892.

Where several persons are made parties to a proceeding supplemental to execution there is no right to separate trials.

A special finding was not requested, nor is there a special finding in the record, so that there is no foundation for the appellant’s complaint that the court erred in not specifically finding a designated fact. If it were conceded that the reason stated is one known to the law, there is no foundation for it.

We can not disturb the finding upon the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6608

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEE GUY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00134-BO-1)

Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 27, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Guy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lee Guy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for return of 

property, Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. 

Guy, No. 7:12-cr-00134-BO-1 (E.D.N.C., Feb. 26, 2019). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,865
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,884
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,661
<PP&E>                                          48,145
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,909
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,248
<BONDS>                                          2,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,462
<SALES>                                          3,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,292
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (393)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (798)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (282)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (516)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (516)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 25, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00552

- CR

Jose Carlos LEAL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR4767

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

Patricia O. Al varez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The court has considered the Appellant ’ s Motion for En Banc reconsideration, and the

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of August, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit23**

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTACCOUNTANTS

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-85142 and 333-94267) and Form S-8 (Nos.33-48476, 33-54175, 33-56291, 33-65199, 333-88907, 333-88923 and 333-90167) ofALLTEL Corporation of our reports dated January 21, 2003 relating to thefinancial statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in thisForm 10-K.

 

 
| /s/                    | PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP |   |
|------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                   |
| Little  Rock, Arkansas |
| March  19, 2003        |

 

----