alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10293.

#### Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York *v.*Young Shoe Parlor.

Decided October 1, 1920.

Action on insurance policy; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. December 17, 1918.

1, The action was upon a policy insuring against loss by burglary of goods “from within the premises” defined in the *665policy, which contains provisions limiting the meaning of the term “premises and which in an attached schedule states “the location of the building and that “the assured occupies Rooms 206 and 207.55 The first question certified by the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court was in substance whether 'the policy covered goods which at the time of the alleged loss were not in the rooms designated in the policy, but were in a basement room occupied by the insured as a storeroom on a different floor of the building. The question was answered in the negative. The material provisions of the policy are set out in 150 *Ga.*402.

*664Broyles, C. J.

Under the rulings made by the Supreme Court on September 15, 1920, in answer to certain questions in this case certified by this court (150 *Ga.*402, 104 S. E. 429), neither count of the plaintiff’s petition set out a cause of action, and the trial court erred in overruling the general demurrers thereto.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Luke, J., absent on account of illness.*

*6652. Whether an estoppel to deny liability was shown by facts alleged in the second count of the plaintiff’s petition was a question also certified, and also answer.ed in the negative. The facts are set out in 150 *Ga.,*supra.

*Rosser, Slaton, Phillips & Hopkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein,*contra.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADRIAN LACEY, )

 Petitioner, ) 

) Civil Action No. 13-00413-KD

v. )

 ) Criminal Action No. 12-00046-KD-N

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 Respondent. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of 

those portions of the recommendation to which objection (Doc. 94) is made, the Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 88) of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

dated February 11, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petitioner’s two motions to compel discovery 

(Docs. 83, 86), his “Motion Requesting an Urgent Evidentiary Hearing/Motion to Amend 

Pending 18 USC § 2255” (Doc. 84), and his “Motion to Appeal Criminal Forfeiture under FRCP

32.2” (Doc. 85) are DENIED;

It is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion to Amend Petitioner’s 18 U.S.C. § 2255 

Claims of Illegal Terry Pat and Breach of Proffer Agreement” (Doc. 89) is GRANTED; and 

It is further ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docs. 69, 71), as supplemented (see Docs. 81, 82, 87, 89), is 

DENIED, that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, that the Petitioner is found not entitled 

either to a Certificate of Appealability or to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this the 20th day of April 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cr-00046-KD-N Document 95 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                              --------------------

NetNation  Communications  Inc.,  a  company  incorporated under the laws of the
Province  of  British Columbia, Canada, is wholly owned subsidiary of NetNation.

NetNation  Communications  UK Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of the
United  Kingdom,  is  a  wholly  owned  subsidiary  of  NetNation.

NetNation  Communications  (USA)  Inc., a company incorporated under the laws of
the  State  of  Delaware,  is  wholly  owned  subsidiary  of  NetNation.

DomainPeople  Inc.,  a  company  incorporated  under  the  laws  of the State of
Delaware,  is  wholly  owned  subsidiary  of  NetNation.


<PAGE>
#### In the Matter of Micah Z. Kellner et al., Appellants, v City of New York Department of Sanitation et al., Respondents.

[967 NYS2d 356]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered November 29, 2012, denying the petition to declare that respondents City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) and State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), DEC’s own rules, and the City’s Solid Waste Management Plan, and to enjoin the City respondents from proceeding with construction of the 91st Street Marine Transfer Station until they complied therewith, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determinations of DSNY not to prepare and DEC not to require a supplemental environmental impact study (SEIS) were not affected by an error of law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion *(see Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast,*9 NY3d 219, 231-232 [2007]; *Matter of C/S 12th Ave. LLC v City of New York,*32 AD3d 1, 7-8 [1st Dept 2006]; *Matter of Coalition Against Lincoln W., Inc. v Weinshall,*21 AD3d 215, 223 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 715 [2005]). As the lead agency, DSNY took the requisite “hard look” at the potential impacts of the delay in implementation *530and made a reasoned determination that an SEIS was not required. Petitioners’ scenarios suggesting potential consequences of the delay are no more than speculation.

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1979 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1979

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
  Intitute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
  Intitute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 
              NATIONAL INTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE 
              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute of 
Neurological Disorders and Stroke for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$2,216,913,000.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>



                               HCC INDUSTRIES INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      For the Nine Months Ended
                                                               -------------------------------------
                                                                 December 30,           January 1,
                                                                    2000                  2000
                                                               --------------       ----------------
<S>                                                           <C>                  <C>
Earnings:

     Earnings (loss) before taxes and extraordinary item         $     6,395           $   (1,393)

     Add:  Fixed Charges*                                              8,122                8,485
                                                                 -----------           ----------
                                                                 $    14,517           $    7,092
                                                                 ===========           ==========


* Fixed Charges:

     Interest expense                                            $     8,122           $   8,485
                                                                 -----------           ---------
                                                                 $     8,122           $   8,485
                                                                 ===========           =========
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                      1.79              ----(1)
                                                                 ===========           =========

</TABLE>

(1)      There was a deficiency of earnings to fixed charges for the nine months
         ended January 1, 2000 of $1,393.


*The ratios of earnings to fixed charges were computed by dividing earnings by
fixed charges. For this purpose, "earnings" consist of earnings before taxes and
extraordinary item plus fixed charges and "fixed charges" consist of interest
expense and amortization of debt issuance costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TASHA MICHELLE BLACKBURN, *

 *

*

Petitioner, * CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00727-WS-B 

* CRIMINAL NO. 08-00256-WS-B

vs. * 

 *

 *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

*

Respondent. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the 

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED

that Blackburn’s Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence under § 2255 (Doc. 195) be 

DENIED and that Blackburn is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability or to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

DONE this 3rd day of February, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00256-WS-N Document 239 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

<pageID>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                         49,735
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  724,161
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                    160,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               873,812
<PP&E>                                         921,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                 641,225
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,184,351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          861,026
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       487,291
<OTHER-SE>                                     (227,605)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,184,351
<SALES>                                        940,413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               940,413
<CGS>                                          474,898
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  474,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               696,915
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (235,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (235,963)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (235,963)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.07)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7211

DONALD LEE TAYLOR, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM K. DAVIS, Commissioner D.O.C., professional and individual capacities; HOWARD

PAINTER, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, professional and individual capacities;

GEORGE TRENT, professional and individual

capacities; TONY LEMASTERS, professional and

individual capacities; KERI COLEMAN, professional and individual capacities; SUSAN

LANHAM, professional and individual capacities; STEVEN BERRYMAN, professional and individual capacities; DAVID JONES, professional

and individual capacities; RALPH TERRI, professional and individual capacities; WILLIAM

KENNEDY, professional and individual capacities; LARRY HAMLIN, professional and individual capacities; DUSTY LEWIS, professional and

individual capacities; LEO PEAK, professional

and individual capacities; JOSEPH CONNELLY,

professional and individual capacities; JAMES

BROWN, professional and individual capacities;

JOSEPH B. COY, professional and individual

capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District

Judge. (CA-98-1181)
2

Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 14, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Lee Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leslie K. Tyree, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Donald Lee Taylor, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the magistrate judge’s report and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous on the

reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Davis, No. CA-98-

1181 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 25, 1999). 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
#### Paul H. ANDERSON and Frances M. Anderson, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. Herbert E. WIESE and Mary C. Wiese, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 77-2048, 77-2049.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 24, 1980.

Gregory A. Pletsch, David Irvin Couvillion, Theodore L. Jones, Baton Rouge, La., for petitioners-appellants.

M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Act. Chief, App. Sect., William Estabrook, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Internal Rev. Service, Leon G. Wigrizer, Acting Chief Counsel, Stanley S. Shaw, Jr., Atty., Tax Div.,'Dept. of Just., Washington, D. C., for C. I. R. in both cases.

Lester Stein, Acting Chief Counsel, IRS, Washington, D. C., for C. I. R. in 77-2048.

Stuart E. Seigel, Internal Rev. Service, Washington, D. C., for C. I. R. in 77-2049.

Before SIMPSON, TJOFLAT, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Taxpayers appeal from a Tax Court ruling that they did not qualify under I.R.C. § 1201 for a twenty-five percent capital gains tax rate on their sale of stock. 1976 T.C.M. ¶76,362 (P-H). The narrow issue before us is whether the Tax Court erred in concluding that the taxpayers had not sold their stock pursuant to a binding contract in effect on November 9, 1969. We cannot say that the Tax Court’s finding of fact on this issue is clearly erroneous or that it erred in holding that the alleged agreement was unenforceable. The Tax Court therefore is

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30217]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8980]


In the Matter of the Designation of Ibrahim al-Rubaysh, Also 
Known as Ibrahimj Sulayman Muhammad Arbaysh, Also Known as Ibrahim 
Salman Mohammed Al Rubeish, Also Known as Sheikh Ibrahim Bin Sulayman 
Al Rubaysh, Also Known as Ibrahim Bin Sulayman Al Rubaysh, Also Known 
as Ibrahim al-Rubaish, Also Known as Abu Muhammad, as a Specially 
Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 
13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Ibrahim al-
Rubaysh, also known as Ibrahimj Sulayman Muhammad Arbaysh, also known 
as Ibrahim Salman Mohammed Al Rubeish, also known as Sheikh Ibrahim Bin 
Sulayman Al Rubaysh, also known as Ibrahim Bin Sulayman Al Rubaysh, 
also known as Ibrahim al-Rubaish, also known as Abu Muhammad, poses a 
significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that threaten the 
security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or 
economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 11, 2014.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-30217 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 197 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to include store-and-forward 

technologies as telecommunications systems through which telehealth 

services may be furnished for payment under the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. ROSENDALE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to include 

store-and-forward technologies as telecommunications 

systems through which telehealth services may be furnished for payment under the Medicare program. 

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 ‘‘Rural Telehealth Ex5 pansion Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 197 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR STORE-AND-FORWARD 

2 TECHNOLOGIES USED TO FURNISH TELE3 HEALTH SERVICES. 

4 Section 1834(m)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395m(m)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘in the case 

6 of any Federal telemedicine demonstration program con7 ducted in Alaska or Hawaii,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1817 

To prohibit Federal agencies from requiring lenders to estimate a borrower’s 

race or ethnicity via visual observation or surname. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2023 

Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas (for himself, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, and Mr. HILL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal agencies from requiring lenders to estimate a borrower’s race or ethnicity via visual observation 

or surname. 

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 ‘‘Preventing Racial 

5 Profiling in Lending Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1817 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ESTIMATING RACE OR ETHNICITY. 

2 A Federal agency may not require any person or enti3 ty, when extending credit, to estimate a borrower’s race 

4 or ethnicity via visual observation or surname. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### In the Matter of Joelin V., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[966 NYS2d 668]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about July 19, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen *512property in the fifth degree, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new fact-finding hearing.

As the presentment agency concedes, the Family Court erred in ordering testimony to proceed in appellant’s absence. While the court briefly inquired into appellant’s whereabouts and learned that defense counsel did not know where she was, the court did not make a determination that appellant’s absence was deliberate, or state any grounds for reaching such a conclusion *(see People v Brooks,*75 NY2d 898, 899 [1990]). Accordingly, there was a violation of appellant’s right to be present *(see*Family Ct Act § 341.2 [1]). We note that appellant arrived in court approximately one hour late, and had a reasonable excuse for her lateness. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, Richter and Clark, JJ.
11827.

#### Sullivan *v.*Levy, Brother & Co.

Hill, J.

Where in a petition for certiorari the assignments of error were as to specified rulings of the trial court preceding the final judgment, and there was no assignment of error as to the final judgment, because of additional error in it or because of the antecedent error complained of, *320the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the certiorari. *McCranie*v. *Shipp,*10 *Ga. App.*544 (73 S. E. 701); *Lyndon*v. *Ga. Ry. & Elec. Co.,*129 *Ga.*353 (58 S. E. 1047).

Decided February 15, 1921.

Petition for certiorari; from Glynn superior court — Judge Higlismitb. August. 20, 1920.

*Frank H.*Harris, for plaintiff in error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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