alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SHULMAN, Inc. v. Harold S. SHERTZ, Paul F. Barnes and Robert H. Shertz, individually and trading as Shertz, Barnes & Shertz, a Pennsylvania partnership.

Civ. A. No. 17205.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

April 18, 1955.

*95John B. Martin, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

James F. Masterson, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

WELSH, District Judge.

Notice having been given, the taking of the depositions of plaintiff’s officers was commenced on July 27, 1954. At the close of that day said depositions were continued to August 3, 1954 and counsel for plaintiff informally agreed to produce records requested by counsel for defendants. On the latter date, further depositions were taken and counsel for plaintiff produced some of the records and explained that additional time would be required for the production of the rest of the records, except books of original entry.1 And, it was agreed that the depositions be continued to a date later to be fixed by counsel, inasmuch as counsel were contemplating vacations. On January 26, 1955, nothing further having occurred concerning the further taking of depositions, plaintiff filed interrogatories to be answered by defendants.

Thereafter, on February 10, 1955, defendants filed this motion to dismiss plaintiff’s interrogatories on the ground that plaintiff is not entitled to pre-trial discovery (answers to interrogatories) until defendants who first sought discovery (the depositions of plaintiff’s officers) conclude the same.

The general rule is that discovery under the Federal Rules shall proceed in the order demanded.

Counsel for plaintiff recognizes the rule but contends defendants have abandoned their right of discovery, having for almost six months done nothing about fixing a date for the further taking of the depositions of plaintiff’s officers.

The contention, we think, is without merit in view of the circumstances here present — the vacations of counsel and the common knowledge in court circles that counsel (particularly those participating herein) commencing with the fall session of Court are quite occupied for some time.

The rule that discovery under the Federal Rules shall be given in the order demanded, however, does not require the dismissal of plaintiff’s interrogatories as sought by defendants’ present motion; rather it requires that action on plaintiff’s interrogatories be postponed until defendants have had an opportunity to conclude the taking of the depositions of plaintiff’s officers.

An order directing that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s interrogatories be denied and that action on plain*96tiff’s interrogatories be postponed until defendants have had an opportunity to conclude the taking of the depositions of plaintiff’s officers will be prepared and submitted by counsel for defendants.

1

. Counsel for plaintiff now refuses to produce any of the records, and defendants as a result have moved for the production of same. »
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                      AVEMCO Corporation and Subsidiaries
                        Statement Regarding Computation
                             Of per Share Earnings


PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE/1/           
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Years Ended December 31,
                                        ------------------------
                                    1996         1995         1994
                                 -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                              <C>          <C>          <C>
 
   Net earnings                  $12,288,000   $7,918,000  $10,833,000
                                 ===========   ==========  ===========
 
   Average shares outstanding      8,478,393    8,845,857    9,019,322
                                 ===========   ==========  ===========
 
   Net earnings per share        $    1.4493   $    .8951  $    1.2011
                                 ===========   ==========  ===========
 
</TABLE>
FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE/2/
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
<S>                              <C>          <C>         <C>
   Net earnings                  $12,288,000  $7,918,000  $10,833,000
                                 ===========  ==========  ===========
 
   Average shares outstanding      8,481,303   8,845,857    9,019,322
                                 ===========  ==========  ===========
 
   Net earnings per share        $    1.4488  $    .8951  $    1.2011
                                 ===========  ==========  ===========
 
</TABLE>

/1/ Primary earnings per share are based on the weighted average number of
    common and common equivalent shares outstanding during the year. Outstanding
    common stock options are considered to be common stock equivalents (based
    upon the average market price of the Registrant's common stock) for the
    purpose of this calculation, when their impact is dilutive.

/2/ Fully diluted earnings per share are based on the weighted average number of
    common and common equivalent shares outstanding during the year. Outstanding
    common stock options are considered to be common stock equivalents (based
    upon the higher of the ending market price or the average market price of
    the Registrant's common stock) for the purpose of this calculation, when
    their impact is dilutive.


                                      103
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 325 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 325

   To amend section 845 of title 18, United States Code, relating to 
     explosives, to grant the Attorney General exemption authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2009

  Mr. Cochran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend section 845 of title 18, United States Code, relating to 
     explosives, to grant the Attorney General exemption authority.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIFIC EXEMPTION.

    Section 845(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) pest control pyrotechnics manufactured, imported, 
        used, and stored in accordance with regulations issued by the 
        Attorney General.''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION AUTHORITY.

    Section 845 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting at the end the following:
    ``(d) The Attorney General may exempt from all or a part of the 
provisions of this chapter explosive materials or explosive devices 
containing such materials when a determination is made, by regulation, 
that the explosive materials or explosive devices--
            ``(1) are of a type that does not pose a threat to public 
        safety; and
            ``(2) are unlikely to be used as a weapon.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
96-1271.

#### VFW Post 1238 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.

Huron App. No. H-95-065. This cause, here on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Huron County, was considered in the manner prescribed by law. The court finds that the record establishes that the *1483notice of appeal from the trial court to the court of appeals was not filed within the time prescribed by App.R. 4(A). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, *sm sponte,*for want of jurisdiction; the judgment of the court of appeals is vacated because it lacked jurisdiction; and the trial court’s entry filed on September 1, 1995, and journalized on September 5, 1995, is reinstated on authority of *Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.*(1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 378, 21 O.O.3d 238, 423 N.E.2d 1105, paragraph one of the syllabus.

It is further ordered that the appellee recover from the appellant its costs herein expended, that a mandate be sent to the Court of Common Pleas of Huron County to carry this judgment into execution, and that a copy of this entry be certified to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for Huron County for entry.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Nader, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Robert A. Nader, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 15

- 00286

- CV

J. T., Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRI CT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY, NO. 19157, THE HONOR ABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JU DGE PR ESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

The reporter’s record in this appeal was originally due to be filed on May 18, 2015. By request to this Court dated May 18, 2015 , Gayla R. May requested an

extension of ten days.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure pro hibit this Court from granting extensions of over 10 days for the filing of reporters’ records in accelerated appeals, including those from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). Further, any extensions of time granted for the filing of the reporters’ records may not exceed 30 days cumulatively. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(2). Accordingly, Gayla R. May is hereby ordered to file the reporter’s record in this case on or before May 2 9 , 2015 . If the record is not filed by th at date, May may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on May 1 9 , 2015

.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23(A)

      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Registrant's
previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 2-83506, 33-5434, 33-32459,
33-39535, 33-39536, 33-41184, 33-44344, 33-51365, 33-59246, 33-57597,
33-59246, 33-83571, and 33-61229.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Jacksonville, Florida
February 7, 1996
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7216

DAVID J. KOCAYA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-137-6-21AK) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Kocaya, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Kocaya v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections , No. CA-97- 137-6-21AK (D.S.C. July 31, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
April 18,2000 

Christopher A. Karns 

Dorsey & .Whitney LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Suite 300 South 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Mr. Karns: 

This letter responds to the submission of the Organized Village of Kake's ("OVK") Class 

II Gaming Ordinance received by the National Indian Gaming Commission on 

January 19,2000. The Gaming Ordinance was adopted by OVK Resolution No. 99-08. Under 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") and NIGC regulations, the Chairman has 90 days 

to review a new ordinance and either approve the ordinance or notify the tribe of specific areas . 

of noncompliance with the requirements of 25 C.F.R Part 522. This letter shall serve as formal 

notification that the OVK's Gaming Ordinance submission is hereby approved. 

IGRA and NiGC kgulations require that gaining be conducted on "Indian lands." The 

OVK has identified 14.81 acres of land, which the United States holds in trust for its benefit, as . 

the site on which it will conduct class II gamingactivities. A letter dated July 2,1998, hm the 

Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Deml Jordan 

.confirms that the identified tract of land is 'Md in trust by the.United States for the benefit of 

the Organized Village of Kake." In analyzing the trust parcel, the Associate Solicitor noted that 

the Secretary of the Interior acquired the parcel in trust for OVK on February 15, 1950, pursuant 

to the Indian Reorganization Act; that the deed states on its face "to the United States of America 

in trust for the Organized Village of Kake, Alaskq" and that the trust deed was recorded in 

Petersburg, Alaska, on April 19,1950. The 14.81 acres of lands were originally taken into trust 

in support of the OVK's fish processing enterprise.' 

After careful review and consideration, we conclude that the OK trust land qualifies as 

Indian lands as defined by IGRA and MGC regulations. Therefore, the OVK's Gaming 

Ordinance submission is hereby approved and the OVK may lawfiilly conduct class I1 gaming on 

its trust lands pursuant to the IGRA. 

-. 

'me !hcr&y of the Interior iornisimng 'acqired 15.9 acres of trust land fa the OganiEcd Village of KakeHowever, 1.09 acres was subsequently conveyed by tbe United States to the Orga&ed Village of Kake m fee. 
Thank .you for submitting the CIass II amin in^ Ordinance of the OVK for review and 

approval. The NIGC staff and I look forward to working with you and the OVK in 

implementing the IGRA and NIGC regulatiow. If you have any-questions or wish to discuss this 

matter further, please contact Todd J. Araujo, StaEAttomey at (202) 632-7003. 

Sincerely yours,, 

Montie R. Deer - . 

Chailmau 

Cc: Executive Director 

Organized Village of Kake 

P.O. Box 316 

Kake, Alaska 99830-0316 

Derril Jordan, Associate Solicitor 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of the Solicitor 

Division of Indian Af&h 

1849 C Street, NW 

MS 6456 

Washington, DC 20240 

George Shibine 

Director, Indian Gaming Mahaghent Staff 

Bureau of Indian AfFairs 

1849 C Street., N.W. 

Mail Stop 2070 

washington D.C. 20241)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Income found
on pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form 10-Q for the year to date and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          69,982
<SECURITIES>                                    58,335
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,792
<ALLOWANCES>                                       534
<INVENTORY>                                     12,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               192,843
<PP&E>                                          20,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 285,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,236
<BONDS>                                          2,718
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                     234,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   285,664
<SALES>                                        117,171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,171
<CGS>                                           48,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 371
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,422
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,347
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,075
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,075
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Riley, Appellant.

Decided April 25, 2013

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain it *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5601; CPL 450.90).
#### Jennifer Cangro, Appellant, v Park South Towers Associates et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 1, 2012;

decided November 27, 2012

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the orders appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
               RULE 13A-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

         I, William T. Jacobson, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of Atlas Mining Company, certify that:

         (1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Atlas Mining
Company.

         (2) Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report.

         (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in the report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in the report.

         (4) I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and I have:

                  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

                  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c. presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date.

         (5) I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the registrant's Board of Directors:

                  a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.


/s/ William T. Jacobson                                       March 30, 2004
------------------------------------
William T. Jacobson
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer