alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10341.

#### Pullman Company *v.*Sutherlin.

Decided November 19, 1919.

(Certiorari granted by tbe Supreme Court.)

Petition for removal of cause; from city of Atlanta—Judge Eeid. January 21, 1919.

*Brewster, HoioeTl & Heyman, Marie Bolding,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. M. Mundy, Sidney Holderness, Westmoreland, Anderson & Smith,*contra.

Smith, J.

The petition in this ease alleges the residence of the plaintiff to be in Alabama and that of the defendant to be in Illinois. In the petition for removal this is not denied, nor is there any other reason given upon which the petition for removal is based. “A suit which, by reason of the non-residence of both parties, could not have been brought in the Federal court in the first instance, cannot be removed to that court from a State court, under the acts of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat, 522, c. 373), and August 13, 1888 (25 Stat. 433, c. 866, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 508), on the ground of diverse citizenship, at least' where the plaintiff resists such removal, even if the consent of both parties could confer jurisdiction.” Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449 (27 Sup. Ct. 150, 51 L. ed. 264). While it is true that in some of the later cases there is a tendency to modify the ruling made in the Wisner case, supra, this court is bound by that ruling until the United States Supreme Court expressly overrules it.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4814 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4814

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pimientos (capsicum anuum), 
            prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 2004

  Mr. Garrett of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pimientos (capsicum anuum), 
            prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PIMIENTOS, PREPARED OR PRESERVED BY VINEGAR OR 
              ACETIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.20.01      Pimientos           Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (capsicum anuum),                                                  31/2006
                         prepared or
                         preserved by
                         vinegar or acetic
                         acid (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2001.90.35)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fiscal Year 2020 Agency Report

1. Please provide a summary of your agency’s activities undertaken to carry out the provisions of 

OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” and the National Technology Transfer and 

Advance Act (NTTAA). The summary should contain a link to the agency’s standards-specific 

website(s) where information about your agency’s standards and conformity assessment related 

activities are available.

Standards are used to guide the work of the grantees and other HUD supported agencies in providing 

quality housing and improvements in America's communities. Standards support the achievement of the 

HUD mission by our state and local partners. In most cases, HUD and our partners use standards 

developed by or in conjunction with other related users, such as model building codes developed for 

and adopted by communities nationwide. Because there are virtually no differences between HUDassisted and market-based construction and development, use of standards such as building codes that 

are developed through a public process for the entire design and construction industry are relevant and 

appropriate. Because of the way HUD supports local housing efforts, the communities use the building 

codes that have been adopted at the state or local level for both the HUD-assisted projects as well as 

the broader construction market. In rare cases, HUD is responsible for the standards, as it the case with 

the Government Standard: 24 CFR 3280 – Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. As 

mandated in legislation, HUD publishes and enforces the construction standard for manufactured 

housing, which is being converted to a consensus standard.

2. Please list the government-unique standards (GUS) your agency began using in lieu of voluntary 

consensus standards during FY 2020. Please note that GUS which are still in effect from previous years 

should continue to be listed, thus the total number in your agency's report will include all GUS 

currently in use (previous years and new as of this FY): 1

(1) Government Unique Standard

24 CFR 3280 – Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards [Incorporated: 2000]

Voluntary Standard

ANSI A119.1 – Recreation Vehicles and NFPA 501C – Standard on Recreational Vehicles

Rationale

HUD-Unique Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. HUD was required by legislation 

to “establish Federal construction and safety standards for manufactured homes and to authorize 

manufactured home safety research and development”. 

Updated FY 2020: HUD is working with the Home Innovation Research Lab to support the Manufactured 

Housing Consensus Committee. HUD published a final rule on January 12, 2020 which updated 24 CFR 

3280.
EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Directors and Officers of
Millipore Corporation (the Corporation), do hereby constitute and appoint Martin D. Madaus, Kathleen Allen and Jeffrey Rudin and each of them individually, their true and lawful attorneys and agents to execute on behalf of the
Corporation the Form 10-K Annual Report of the Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, and all such amendments or additional instruments related thereto which such attorneys and agents may deem to be necessary and desirable to
enable the Corporation to comply with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any regulations, orders, or other requirements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder in connection with the
preparation and filing of said documents, including specifically, but without limitation of the foregoing, power and authority to sign the names of each of such Directors and Officers on his behalf, as such Director or Officer, as indicated below to
the said Form 10-K Annual Report or documents filed or to be filed as a part of or in connection with such Form 10-K Annual Report; and each of the undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorneys and agents shall do or cause to be
done by virtue thereof.



|                                                 |  |          |  |                  
|------------------------------------------------ |  | -------- |  | -----------------
|SIGNATURE                                        |  | TITLE    |  | DATE             
|                                                 |  |         
|/s/    MARTIN D.
MADAUS Martin D. Madaus         |  | Director |  | February 16, 2006
|                                                 |  |         
|/s/    DANIEL
BELLUS Daniel Bellus               |  | Director |  | February 16, 2006
|                                                 |  |         
|/s/    ROBERT C.
BISHOP Robert C. Bishop         |  | Director |  | February 16, 2006
|                                                 |  |         
|/s/    MELVIN D.
BOOTH Melvin D. Booth           |  | Director |  | February 16, 2006
|                                                 |  |         
|/s/    ROLF
CLASSON Rolf Classon                 |  | Director |  | February 16, 2006
|                                                 |  |         
|/s/    MAUREEN A.
HENDRICKS Maureen A. Hendricks |  | Director |  | February 16, 2006
|                                                 |  |         
|/s/    MARK
HOFFMAN Mark Hoffman                 |  | Director |  | February 16, 2006
|                                                 |  |         
|/s/    JOHN F.
RENO John F. Reno                 |  | Director |  | February 16, 2006
|                                                 |  |         
|/s/    EDWARD M.
SCOLNICK Edward M. Scolnick     |  | Director |  | February 16, 2006
|                                                 |  |         
|/s/    KAREN E.
WELKE Karen E. Welke             |  | Director |  | February 16, 2006
The PMI Group, Inc. Officer Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended


 EXHIBIT 4.1 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 THE PMI GROUP, INC. 
 OFFICER DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
  
 THE PMI GROUP, INC., having adopted The PMI Group, Inc. Officer Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) effective
as of July 1, 1997, hereby amends the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2005, as follows: 
  
 1. Section 3.3 is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence thereof and substituting the following sentence therefor: 
  
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, no more than a total of 250,000
additional shares of Company common stock may be delivered to (a) Participants in this Plan pursuant to Company Contributions credited hereunder on or after the date of the Company’s annual meeting in 2004, and (b) participants in The
PMI Group, Inc. 2005 Officer Deferred Compensation Plan pursuant to “Company Contributions” credited thereunder.” 
  
 2. A new Section 10.10 is hereby added immediately after Section 10.9 to read as follows: 
  
 “10.10 Transfer of Unvested Company Contributions.
Notwithstanding any contrary Plan provision, all unvested Company Contributions that were credited to Participants’ Accounts as of December 31, 2004 (as adjusted for deemed investment returns, gains and losses thereon) shall be transferred
to The PMI Group, Inc. 2005 Officer Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Successor Plan”) effective as of January 1, 2005 for distribution under the terms of the Successor Plan.” 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The PMI Group, Inc., by its duly authorized officer, has
executed this Amendment No. 2 to the Plan on the date indicated below. 
  

			
	THE PMI GROUP, INC.
		
	By	 	 /s/ Charles Broom


	Title:	 	Senior Vice President
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10068 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Elechi N. Oti,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 481

- 4

Before **Wiener, Southwick,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Defendant

- Appellant Elechi N. Oti, federal prisoner # 18706

- 021 , appeals the denial of a motion to reduce her sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of Amendment 782 to the Guidelines

. She contends that she was eligible for a reduction in her sentence despite the fact that the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 11, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10068 Document: 00515671173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2020No. 20

- 10068

2 amendment was in effect at the time of sentencing , because U.S.S.G. §
1B1.11 , p.s., required the district court to apply a n earlier guidelines manual that did not incorporate the amendment. We review the district court’s determination that Oti was not eligible for a sentence reduction de novo. See United States v. Jones , 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010). Notwithstanding Oti’s creative arguments, the plain operation of governing principles shows that she was not eligible for relief under § 3582(c) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. The amendment did not subsequently lower the applicable guidelines range, as required by § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10(a)(1), because the amendment was already in effect. See United States v. Alvarez , 2 10 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

. In addition, the first step in determining whether a defendant is eligible for a reduction requires t he court

to determine what her guidelines range would have been if the amendment had been “ in effect at the time of the initial sentencing.” Dillon v. United
States , 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010); see § 1B1.10(b)(1)

. If that range is lower than the one applied at sentencing , the defendant is eligible for a reduction. See § 1B1.1 0(a)(1) , comment. (n.1(A )); United States v. Morgan , 866 F.3d 674,
676

- 77 (5th Cir. 2017). Under the first step, Oti was not eligible because the amendment was already “in effect at the time of the initial sentenc ing.” Dillon , 560 U.S. at 827; see § 1B1.10(b)(1)

. T he district court therefore did not err by denying the motion

. **AFFIRMED.** Case: 20-10068 Document: 00515671173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
Exhibit 13.1
**CERTIFICATION**
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)and (b) of section 1350, Chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each ofthe undersigned officers of Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (the “Company”), herebycertifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s annual report onForm 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
Dated: September 30, 2004        By /s/ Shoei Utsuda                                                                           Name:
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4697 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a permanent 

extension of the credit for producing electricity from wind. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2004 

Mr. MCHUGH 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 provide 

for a permanent extension of the credit for producing 

electricity from wind. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRO4 DUCING ELECTRICITY FROM WIND. 

5 Section 45(c)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

6 1986 (relating to wind facility) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘, and before January 1, 2004’’. 

Æ
| 1)   | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2)   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                        |                                                                               |                                       |
|---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                        |                                                                               |
|                                   |                                                                          |                                  |
| Date: November                22, 2005 | By:                                                                      | /s/ Lowell                W. Giffhorn |
|                                        | Lowell W. Giffhorn  Chief                Financial Officer     |
#### Elliott G. Stevenson v. Edmund Fitzgerald and Samuel McCormick.

*Trover*— Plaintiff *must Time right to possession*

Plaintiff in trover must have either had actual possession of the property converted, or the immediate right to it.

Error to St. Clair.

Submitted Oct 14.

Decided Oct. 26.

Trover. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*O^Brien J. AtJ&wison*for plaintiff in error.

*William T. Mitchell*for defendant in error.

Graves, J.

Stevenson sued in trover for an alleged wrongful conversion of a horse and buggy. The trial took place without a jury and the judge made a series of special findings and awarded judgment for defendants.

The plaintiff contends that on the strength of these findings he is entitled to recover. Unless the facts as ascertained and reported make out a case of trover the result cannot be changed. They show that McCormick acting as-ward collector of the city of Port Iiui’on under a warrant-attached to what was claimed to be the assessment roll of the ward, seized and sold the property in question to satisfy a tax on said roll against the plaintiff. They further show that Fitzgerald was city controller and in that character-made the warrant, but had no other connection with the act. relied on as a conversion. Many circumstances are set forth bearing on the regularity of the roll, but the finding affirms-that the roll was fair on its face.

In order to maintain trover the plaintiff must have either actual possession or the immediate right to it, and there is no finding of either in form or effect. Moreover, the conclusion is pretty strongly implied that for other reasons there was no wrongful conversion. But it is not necessary to go into that consideration.

*167No actual possession being found and no fact or facts showing an immediate right thereto, the case is in the same predicament, so far as the plaintiff’s right to recover is concerned, that it would be if an express finding against him had been made on those points. The judgment against him was therefore a necessary alternative. It follows that the result cannot be disturbed and the questions concerning the regularity of the roll do not call for discussion.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72682-72683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28665]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 2, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice 
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
    1. S&T Bancorp, Inc., Indiana, Pennsylvania; to acquire 100 percent 
of the voting shares of Integrity Bancshares, Inc., and thereby 
indirectly acquire voting shares of Integrity Bank, both in Camp Hill, 
Pennsylvania.


[[Page 72683]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 3, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-28665 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4379 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount which 

may be excluded from the gross income of an employee for dependent 

care assistance with respect to dependent care services provided during 

a taxable year, to adjust such amount each year by the rate of inflation 

for such year, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2004 

Ms. BALDWIN 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 increase 

the amount which may be excluded from the gross income of an employee for dependent care assistance with 

respect to dependent care services provided during a 

taxable year, to adjust such amount each year by the 

rate of inflation for such year, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Working Parents Child 

5 Care Relief Act’’. 
2 

•HR 4379 IH 

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE OF AMOUNT WHICH MAY BE EXCLUDED 

2 FROM GROSS INCOME OF EMPLOYEE FOR DE3 PENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE AND ANNUAL 

4 ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT FOR ANNUAL 

5 RATE OF INFLATION. 

6 (a) INCREASE OF AMOUNT.—Section 129(a)(2)(A) of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘$5,000 ($2,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$6,000 ($3,000’’. 

9 (b) ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT.—Section 129(a)(2) of 

10 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

11 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

12 ‘‘(D) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.— 

13 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

14 taxable year beginning in a calendar year 

15 after 2005, each amount specified in sub16 paragraph (A) shall be increased by an 

17 amount equal to the product of— 

18 ‘‘(I) such amount, and 

19 ‘‘(II) the cost-of-living adjust20 ment determined under section 1(f)(3) 

21 for the calendar year in which the tax22 able year begins, determined by sub23 stituting ‘2004’ in subparagraph (B) 

24 thereof. 

25 ‘‘(ii) ROUNDING.—If any increase de26 termined under clause (i) is not a multiple 
3 

•HR 4379 IH 

1 of $50, such increase shall be rounded to 

2 the nearest multiple of $50.’’. 

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

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 December 31, 2004. 

Æ