alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re HIGBEE CO. YOUNG v. MURPHY et al.

No. 36119.

District Court, N. D. Oltio, E. D.

May 3, 1946.

Proceeding in the matter of the Higbee Company, debtor, wherein Robert R. Young filed a petition for an order permitting him to engage attorneys on behalf of debtor company and to sue John P. Murphy and Gertrude Baker Bradley and Alva Bradley, executors of the estate of Charles L. Bradley, deceased. On submission of respondents’ proposed findings and conclusions.

See also 57 F.Supp. 737.

Dwight B. Buss, Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, Robert J. Bulkley, James A. Butler, Robert W. Purcell, and McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart and George W. Cottrell, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.

Marvin Harrison, of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent.

JONES, District Judge.

Further consideration of the Respondents’ proposed findings and conclusions has not altered the initial impression that they are not in accord with the Court’s interpretation of the rule requiring them in like cases, and that they are open to the Petitioner’s criticism — that they in too large degree constitute an historical review or narrative of litigation between and affecting the parties and The Higbee Company reorganization; that they are also, to some extent, matters which might be set forth in a brief constituting the argument or conclusions of the draftsman. Specific examples may be cited as paragraphs 4, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 43 and 44.

It seems to me that the ultimate facts found are all that need be included, together with sufficient findings to support the Court’s opinion and judgment. It is my suggestion that the Respondents try to reduce the length of the proposed findings and to bring them within the Court’s view of what is required and sufficient under the rule. Otherwise, the Court may adopt such of the Respondents’ and of the Petitioner’s proposed findings and conclusions as seem proper, or the Court may prepare an independent set of its own, which probably is the real intent of the rule. The practice of having the prevailing party prepare the draft for submission is in the interest of assisting the Court and also of benefit to the party in seeing to it that essential ultimate facts to support the judgment are included. This does not mean that a narrative of the evidence here, or of the evidence and conduct of the parties in earlier proceedings, should be set forth at length in findings.

What has been said does not extend to finding 64 and conclusion 7 since they do seem essential in view of the Court’s ruling on the Bradley Estate motion that the *73basis of the motion and the ruling of the Court be fully incorporated.

It will be helpful to the Court, if the Respondents determine to try again, that it be done with reasonable promptness so that this protracted litigation may come to a final conclusion in this Court.
Exhibit 12(d)Entergy Louisiana, LLCComputation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends2001
2002
2003
2004
2005Fixed charges, as defined:Total Interest
$116,076
$100,667
$76,756
$74,141
$85,418Interest applicable to rentals
7,951
6,496
6,359
5,595
4,585Total fixed charges, as defined
$124,027
$107,163
$83,115
$79,736
$90,003Earnings as defined:Net Income
$132,550
$144,709
$146,154
$127,495
$128,082Add:Provision for income taxes:Total Taxes
86,287
84,765
97,408
79,475
96,819Fixed charges as above
124,027
107,163
83,115
79,736
90,003Total earnings, as defined
$342,864
$336,637
$326,677
$286,706
$314,904Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
2.76
3.14
3.93
3.60
3.50
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3218 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that persons who enter 

into a conspiracy within the United States to possess or traffic illegal 

controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in conduct 

within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking outside the 

United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 15, 2010 

Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. SESSIONS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that 

persons who enter into a conspiracy within the United 

States to possess or traffic illegal controlled substances 

outside the United States, or engage in conduct within 

the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking outside 

the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the 

United States, 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, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3218 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drug Trafficking Safe 

3 Harbor Elimination Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

5 ACT TO CLARIFY CONSPIRACIES CONDUCTED 

6 WITHIN THE UNITED STATES MAY BE CRIMI7 NALLY PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES. 

8 Section 406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

9 U.S.C. 846) is amended by— 

10 (1) inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Any’’; and 

11 (2) inserting at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(b) Whoever, within the United States, conspires 

13 with one or more persons, or aids or abets one or more 

14 persons, regardless of where such other persons are lo15 cated, to commit at any place outside the United States 

16 an act that would constitute a violation of this title if com17 mitted within the United States, shall be subject to the 

18 same penalties that would apply to such act if it were to 

19 occur within the United States.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of David Rikard, Appellant, v Sheila Matson, Respondent. (And Four Other Related Proceedings.)

Submitted February 14, 2011;

decided April 5, 2011

Motion to vacate stay granted.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 16.1

KPMG
----

     Stamford Square
     3001 Summer Street
     Stamford, CT 06905


Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC 20549


March 19, 1999


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are the principal accountants for Micro Warehouse, Inc. and, under the date
of February 16, 1999, we will report on the consolidated financial statements of
Micro Warehouse, Inc. and subsidiaries as of and for the years ended December
31, 1998 and 1997. On March 19, 1999, we were informed that upon completion of
the audit for the year ended December 31, 1998 we will not be reappointed as
principal accountants for the year ended December 31, 1999. We have read Micro
Warehouse's statements included under Item 4 of its Form 8-K dated March 25,
1999, and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position to
agree or disagree with MicroWarehouse's statement that the change was
recommended by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors and approved by the
full Board of Directors.

Very truly yours,

/s/ KPMG LLP
<PAGE>

                                                             EXHIBIT 10(l)(1)(C)



                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                         AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM
                               EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN
               (As amended and restated effective January 1, 2001)


     American Electric Power Service  Corporation adopts the following amendment
to the  American  Electric  Power System  Excess  Benefit  Plan,  as amended and
restated as of January 1, 2001 (the "Plan").

1.   Section  2.14 of the Plan is  hereby  amended  in its  entirety  to read as
     follows:

          "2.14 `Maximum  Benefit' means the vested  retirement  benefit payable
     from the Retirement  Plan under either the Final Average Pay Formula or the
     Cash Balance Formula, whichever is greater, given the Participant's marital
     status, Beneficiary, credited service and earnings for services rendered to
     the  Company,  to the  extent  such  are  permitted  by the  Code  and  the
     Retirement Plan to be taken into account under either the Final Average Pay
     Formula or the Cash Balance Formula."

2.   Section  2.21 of the Plan is  hereby  amended  in its  entirety  to read as
     follows:

          "2.21 `Unrestricted  Benefit' means the vested retirement benefit that
     would be payable from the  Retirement  Plan under either the Final  Average
     Pay Formula or the Cash Balance  Formula,  whichever is greater,  given the
     Participant's  marital  status,  Beneficiary,  credited  service  and  Plan
     Earnings,   assuming  sections  401(a)(17)  (Compensation  Limit)  and  415
     (Limitation  on  Benefits) of the Code are not  applicable  and taking into
     account any service,  Plan Earnings and other  adjustments  as are provided
     for in an Employment Agreement."

3.   In all other respects, the terms of the Plan are ratified and confirmed.

          IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this Amendment has been executed this 5th day of
     March, 2003.

American Electric Power Service Corporation


By:   /s/ Thomas M. Hagan
Title Executive Vice President - Shared Services
97-673.

#### State v. Schilling.

Delaware App. No. 88CA38. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
#### Geraldine PIVA, Administratrix of the Estate of Francis A. Doucette v. GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION. Geraldine PIVA, Administratrix of the Estate of Francis A. Doucette, v. THE TRAWLER DORCHESTER, Inc.

Civ. A. Nos. 54-366, 54-367.

United States District Court D. .Massachusetts.

Nov. 23, 1955.

Joseph Schneider, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Thomas H. Walsh, Leo Glynn, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

ALDRICH, District Judge.

This is plaintiff’s motion under Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. rule 42(a), 28 U.S.C.A., to consolidate two actions for trial. In both the plaintiff sues as administratrix of the estate of her late husband. In the one she sues the owner of the vessel on which he was employed at the time of his death. In the other she sues the owner of the dock where the vessel was tied up. The shipowner objects to consolidation.

Plaintiff’s intestate, returning to his ship, fell into the water and.was drowned because' of an allegedly defective ladder on the dock. Plaintiff sues the vessel owner under*the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, for negligence in not providing safe access, and sues the dock owner under the Maine death statute. R.S.Maine 1954, c. 165, §§ 9-11. Admittedly the primary factual situation is the same in both cases. If the seaman was a business invitee, and not a mere licensee on the dock, the standard of due care would be similar in both cases. Here comparison ceases. Different persons’ due care would be involved. Then, under the Maine statute there is a maximum recovery, and contributory negligence is a complete bar, while under the Jones Act there is no limit to recovery, and contributory negligence only reduces damages proportionately. While doubt*353less the court could in theory explain these differences to a jury and allow it to decide both cases together, I think there would be difficulty in so doing. I believe there would be even greater difficulty in expecting the jury to follow these instructions. The shipowner fears that the jury might find it liable simply beeause the alternative of the Maine death statute, to Massachusetts eyes, might seem over-restricted. The plaintiff, on the other hand, says that if she were to try the cases separately, each jury might find no recovery, oh the assumption the liability was on the defendant who was not in court. While that is possible, it seems to me a more likely danger is that if the cases were tried together, the jury, a's soon as it had eliminated one defendant, might find such elimination all that was needed to decide against the other, although it is perfectly possible that neither defendant is liable.

Much as I would prefer to try the cases together in the interests of saving time and expense, I feel that as a matter of discretion I should deny the motion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TERENCE JEROME RICHARDSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (CR-00-383)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 6, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terence Jerome Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Terence Jerome Richardson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in which

he sought reconsideration of the denial of his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by the district court on the merits absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. See

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
April 23. 2012 

Cynthia f yall 

Tribal Chairman 

Nisqmtlly Indian Tribe 

4820 Shc-Nah-Num Drive S.E 

Olympia. WA 1>8511 

Re: Review or Loan DocLUncnts for the Nisgually lq~!_ian Tsibc 

D(.'ar Ms. Iyall: 

This letter responds to tht:! request on behalf of the Nisqually fndian Tribe (Tribe) 

for the National [ndian Gaming Commission's Office of" General Counsel 10 rcvic\v 

several agreements related to the refinancing of the Tribe's existing debt. Thi:! Tribe h:is 

asked for an opinion on whether these agreements are manag<.:ment contr::icts requiring 

the NTGC Chairwoman's approval under the Indian Gami ng Regulatory Act (TGRA). 

The Tribe also asked for an opinion on whether the agreements violate lGRA's 

requirement that the Tribe have the sole proprietary interest in its gaming operation. 

In my r~view, I considered the following submissions (collectively, " the Loan 

Documents"), either executed or drafts represented to be in substantially final form: 

• Amendc<l and Restated Business Loan Agreement marked on th~ top right 

comer as ·'SMRH DRAFT 4/10!13" and bottom left as 

."SM RH :2007420 79. 9" (Loan Agreement); 

• Ament.led and restated security agreement markc.:d on the top right comer 

as "SMRH Draft 4/10/13" and on the bottom !cit as 

"SMRH:200780847.2" (Security Agreement). 

The Loan Documents contain terms simiiar to other agreements the Office of 

General Counsel has alr!.!ady reviewed and analyzed. See hltp:/!www.nigc.gov/Rcading 

_Room/Management Review J .cltcrs_f.kclination_l ,cttcrs.a$px. Applying the .same 

analysis here, it is my opinion that the Loan Documents arc not management contract:;; 

and do not require tht: approval of the Chairwoman. lt is also rny opinion that they do not 

violate IGRA 's sole proprietary interest requirement. 

It is my understanding that the Loan Document$ are rcrrcscntcct to be in 

suhstantially final fonn wilh sp~ct 10 ten11:; affecting this opinion. 11·sud1 ci:::rm!i chang<..: 

in any material way or arc inconsisienl with assumptions rnade herein. this upinion shal l 

not apply. Further, this ~)p nion is limited kl the Loan Documents listuJ above. This 

q; ,.1 l trw.t 1 C.'fH .('. l't t .111 ll , .u "'''' 11 f•~w ' • J/ :'.tl f 1 11 "vt. r: 1 , 1r.. 
Ms. Iyall 

April 23. 201 _1 

Page 2 of 2 

opinion docs not include or extend to any other agrcem~nts or documents not submitted 

for reviC\.\. _ 

! anticipate that this letter will be posted to the NTGC"s website. Prior to posting. 

NIGC will notify you and give you an opportunity to identify and reqt.est that 

information subject to the exemptions under FOIA be redacted or \vithheld: A list of the; 

FOrA exemptions may be found at 5 U.S.C § 552(b). 

If you have any questions, please contact NlGC Staff Attorney Alison Grigonis at 

(202) 632-7003. 

Eric Shepard 

ActingGeneral Counsel 

('c: Christine L. Swanick 

Sheppard Mullin · 

30 RockcfoUer Plaza 

New York. NY 10112 

Fabio Apolitio 

NisquaHy Indian Tribe 

Office of the Tribal Attorney 

4820 She-Nah-Num Drive S.EOlympia, WA 98513
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3253 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.3253

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
 To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 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. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS 
UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 
1958.
    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to extend 
temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business Administration'', 
approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109-316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most 
recently amended by section 1 of Public Law 111-136 (124 Stat. 6), is 
amended by striking ``April 30, 2010'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``July 31, 2010''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on April 29, 2010.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
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 Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:03 p.m. on Thursday, January 15, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters relating to an open bank assistance transaction.

In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, seconded by Director John C. Dugan (Director, Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Director Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), Director John M. Reich (Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), and Chairman Sheila C. Bair, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B)).

The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Dated: January 15, 2009.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Valerie J. Best,

Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-1360 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
#### CITIES SERVICE OIL CO. v. STANDARD TOWING CORPORATION. THE CITIES SERVICE NO. 2. THE ANNA L. CONNERS.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Oct. 27, 1948.

Hatch, Wolfe, Nash & Ten Eyck, of New York City (William Potter Lage, of New York City, of counsel), for libellant.

Purdy, Lamb & Catoggio, of New York City, for respondent.

KAUFMAN, District Judge.

Motion denied on condition that the libel-lant, within twenty days from the entry of an order herein, answer interrogatories numbered 12 and 17(b). There is no Federal Rule of Procedure requiring a party to a controversy to obtain information from a third party over whom he has no control as a condition to the maintenance of his suit in this Court.

Settle order on notice.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
The Investment Plan Committee
Amdel Inc. Employee Investment Plan:
 
     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
2-49321) on Form S-8 of FINA, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 1997, relating
to the statements of net assets available for plan benefits of the Amdel Inc.
Employee Investment Plan as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related
statements of changes in net assets available for plan benefits for the years
then ended, and the related supplemental schedules, which report appears in the
December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 11-K of the Amdel Inc. Employee
Investment Plan.
 
     Our report refers to a change to the liquidation basis of valuing
investments.
 
                                            KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
 
Dallas, Texas
April 14, 1997
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of China Granite Corporation, a Nevada
      Corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December
      31,
      2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), Costas Takkas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies
      to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      China Granite Corporation, and will be retained by China Granite Corporation
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





/s/
      Costas Takkas


Costas
      Takkas


Chief
      Financial Officer


February
      8, 2006