alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,583<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,884<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      5,961<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,775<F1>
<PP&E>                                         225,923<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 136,124<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,063<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,783<F1>
<BONDS>                                         50,313
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,814
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,448<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,063<F1>
<SALES>                                        155,767<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               155,767<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  148,905<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,823)<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,417)<F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,406)<F1>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,406)<F1>
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.84)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.84)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Restated to reflect the effect of certain required adjustments of income and
expense items, which resulted from a fourth quarter review of the Company's
operations and business.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Manlove, Receiver, *v.*Bender.

Mutual Insurance Company.—Assessment.— In an action to recover an assessment upon a premium note given to a mutual insurance company, it must be alleged in the complaint, and proved upon the trial, that the losses to be paid accrued during the membership of the defendant in the company.

APPEAL from the Vanderburg Common Pleas.

Downey, J.

This action was brought by Manlove, as receiver of the Farmers and Merchants’ Insurance Co., a *372mutual insurance company, against Bender, £0 recover on two premium notes executed by him to the company. The defendant answered by general denial and several special paragraphs. Issue was taken on the special paragraphs by general denial thereof. The issues were tried by a jury, and there was a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff moved the court for a new trial, for these reasons: first, because the verdict is contrary to the evidence; second, because the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence; third, because the verdict is contrary to law; fourth, fifth, and sixth, because the court overruled the demurrers to the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the defendant’s answer, respectively.

*J. R. Troxell, W. R. Manlove,*and *R. A, Hill,*for appellant.

*C. Denby*and *D. B. Kumler,*for appellee.

This motion was overruled, and final judgment for the defendant was rendered on the verdict of the jury.

The only error assigned in this court is the refusal of the court to grant a new trial. The first, second, and third reasons assigned for a new trial may be considered together. We have examined the evidence as set out in the bill of exceptions, and are of the opinion that the verdict was right. The evidence, among other things, fails to show that the losses to be paid occurred during the time of the membership of the defendant in the company. See *Manlove*v. *Naw, ante,*p. 289. This fact must be alleged and-proved, in order to render the maker of the premium note liable to an action for the assessment. The fourth, fifth, and sixth causes for a new trial are not reasons for which a new trial can be granted, and no question is presented to us relating to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the paragraphs of the answer by such a mode of making up the record and assigning errors.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

Pettit, J., dissents.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 11, 2014.

# PLACE:

 The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

# STATUS:

 Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                         The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Excel Mining, LLC*, Docket No. KENT 2009-1368. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred by affirming a “significant and substantial” designation and an “unwarrantable failure to comply” designation.) Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).                    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll-free.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2014-28371 Filed 11-26-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
#### Hulbert Webster v. City of Lansing.

*Violation of municipal ordinance*— Appeals—Statute *of amendments.*

Where a city charter authorizes a city to prosecute civil suits iu its own name, for the violation of city ordinances, a criminal prosecution before a justice for the violation of an ordinance, cannot, on appeal, he transformed into a civil suit, nor can the original criminal sentence he affirmed on the civil side of the appellate court.

A change of style in appealing a criminal prosecution so that the case on appeal shall appear to he a civil suit, introduces a fatal contradiction of the record, and the defect cannot he cured hy the statute of amendments.

Error to Ingham.

Submitted Oct. 19.

Decided Oct. 26.

Complaint against saloon-keeper. Respondent brings error.

Reversed.

*M. V. é¡ B. A. Montgomery*for plaintiff in error.

City Attorney *E. O. Chwpvn*for defendant in error.

Graves, J.

The plaintiff in error was prosecuted by criminal proceedings before a justice of the peace for keeping a saloon without license contrary to city ordinances and the justice found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of thirty dollars within two hours and in default of payment to be imprisoned in the penitentiary of the city for thirty days.

Webster, appealed to the circuit court where the case was entitled and presented as though it were a civil suit by the city against the defendant. This was not a mere clerical *193misprision or an accidental misnomer. It was a deliberate proceeding by tbe city.

The jury rendered a verdict of guilty and the court reiterated the sentence of the justice, except that the fine was required to be paid *instcmter*instead of within two hours. The case comes up on writ of error and bill of exceptions which are entitled as above.

The charter empowers the city to bring civil suits and in its own name for violation of ordinances, but it does not assume to authorize the transformation of a case carried to judgment under criminal proceedings in the name of the people, to one bearing the style and title of a civil case in the name of the city; much less to authorize a criminal sentence in a suit the city assumes to prosecute as plaintiff and on the civil side of the court.

Upon the abstract question of who should be plaintiff, and without reference to anything else than the alteration of title in the record, it suffices to say that the suit as one by the people should have been adhered to. The change of title introduced a fatal contradiction of the record. The incongruity could not be cured by the general statute, Comp. L. ch. 190, because the provisions do not apply to such matters. It is impossible to harmonize the judgment with the case as it was proceeded in and prosecuted in the circuit court, and it must be reversed.

The other Justices concurred.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ALAN J. AIRINGTON, Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

2011-7188

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Case No. 10-1246, Chief Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

T HOMAS R. B ENDER , Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick,LLP, of Providence, Rhode Island, argued for claimantappellant. On the brief was Z ACHARY M. S TOLZ

.

J AMES S WEET , Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were T ONY W EST , Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON
,Director, and M ARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R
., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were M ICHAEL J. T IMINSKI , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and T RACEY P. W ARREN , Staff Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN
, M OORE , and O’M ALLEY
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

June 19, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly
Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4589 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4589

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant 
      program through September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 2004

  Mr. Herger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant 
      program through September 30, 2004, 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 ``TANF and Related Programs 
Continuation Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK 
              GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004.

    (a) In General.--Activities authorized by part A of title IV of the 
Social Security Act, and by sections 510, 1108(b), and 1925 of such 
Act, shall continue through September 30, 2004, in the manner 
authorized for fiscal year 2002, notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) 
of such Act, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States 
not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as 
may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made 
pursuant to this authority through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 
2004 at the level provided for such activities through the fourth 
quarter of fiscal year 2002.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking ``June 
30'' and inserting ``September 30''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF CHILD WELFARE 
              AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER AUTHORITY THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 
              2004.

    Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the Social 
Security Act shall continue through September 30, 2004, in the manner 
authorized for fiscal year 2002, and out of any money in the Treasury 
of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and 
payments may be made pursuant to this authority through the fourth 
quarter of fiscal year 2004 at the level provided for such activities 
through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2002.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 31, 2021

s0324 

# Order

Clerk March 31, 2021

161627

ALBERT JOSEPH FRATARCANGELI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 161627

COA: 347390

Oakland CC: 2018

- 166053

- CZ

SARAH MYERS, MICHAEL SUMMERS,

JAMES BOWIE, OAKLAND COUNTY,

WILLIAM PERRY, DAVID WEAVER III,

BRANDON HALL, SAMUEL JAMES,

PHILIP DUROCHER, and DANIELL E VEATCH,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 9, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that t he questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      50,268
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            50,268
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       46,518
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,268
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,905
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               58,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (35,332)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (35,332)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (4.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        


</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of L.M., a child, * From the 326th District Court

 of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 10343-CX.

No. 11-22-00079-CV * September 22, 2022

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6817
WERNER JOSEPH MATTHEWS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TOM C. MARTIN, Warden/CEO, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-550-5-BR) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Werner Joseph Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on April 16, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed at the earliest on May 17, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore deny acertificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 6 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       January 7, 1997.
    Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of 1929, as amended, the 
six minority employees authorized therein shall be the following named persons, 
effective January 3, 1997, until otherwise ordered by the House, to wit: Steve 
Elmendorf, George Kundanis, Marti Thomas, Sharon Daniels, Dan Turton, and Laura 
Nichols, each to receive gross compensation pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 119, Ninety-fifth Congress, as enacted into permanent law by section 
115 of Public Law 95-94. In addition, the Minority Leader may appoint and set 
the annual rate of pay for up to three further minority employees.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                 406,921
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                           21,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                          5,909,933
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             0
<PP&E>                                 111,142
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       6,519,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        0
<BONDS>                              4,941,343
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  696,774
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                             1,011,899
<OTHER-SE>                            (400,988)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         6,519,559
<SALES>                             10,763,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    12,968,379
<CGS>                                9,647,765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       11,640,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     193,416
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        284,004
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    284,004
<DISCONTINUED>                         165,863
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           449,867
<EPS-BASIC>                               0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.15


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL
       FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
          OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Everest Fund, L.P.
(the "Partnership"), for the quarter ended September 30, 2010,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Lamoureux, President
of Everest Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of
the Everest Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 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 Fund.




      By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
         ----------------------
      Name: 	Peter Lamoureux
      Title: 	Director, President and
      		Treasurer

     November 15, 2010


		E-3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

THOMAS C. WELLER, JR., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-0240-CG-C 

 ) 

VAN P. FINGER, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on the plaintiff=s motion to release funds, in which the 

plaintiff moves the court to release to plaintiff’s counsel the $385,311.33 in attonrey’s fees and 

costs recently deposited by the defendant (Doc. 195). 

 Upon due consideration, the motion is hereby GRANTED. The clerk of court is 

ORDERED to disburse the THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND THREE 

HUNDRED ELEVEN 33/100 DOLLARS ($385,311.33) deposited with this court, plus any 

interest accrued, to plaintiff=s counsel, Anne Laurie McClurkin, at McDowell Knight Roedder & 

Sledge, LLC, Post Office Box 350, Mobile, AL 36601. 

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00240-CG-C Document 196 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 1