alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RICHARDS v. MARK C. WALKER & SONS CO. et al.

Civ. No. 130.

United States District Court D. Nebraska, McCook Division.

Sept. 26, 1949.

John P. Jensen, Kenneth Dryden and Richard A. Dier, all of Kearney, Neb., for plaintiff.

McCormack & McCormack, of Omaha, Neb., and Thomas F. Colfer, of McCook, Neb., for defendant Mark C. Walker & Sons Company.

Joseph T. Votava, U. S. Atty., for the District of Nebraska, Omaha, Neb., for defendant Department of The Army Corps, of Engineers.

*564DELEHANT, District Judge.

Certain motions are before the court in this case. Ruling may be made upon them without further delay.

The defendant, The Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, has moved for additional time within which to “answer or otherwise plead.” Much more time than it requested has elapsed since the service and filing of the motion. Besides, counsel for the moving entity has informed the court that no further time is required for its purposes. Its motion is therefore, being denied and overruled. But, to eliminate any question of the appropriate time for the service and filing of the pleading, the order of the court grants 15 days from this date for such service and filing.

Then, the defendant, Mark C. Walker and Sons Company moves for an order requiring a more definite statement (a) touching the manner of construction of a dam allegedly flooding lands of the plaintiff, and (b) itemizing the elements of his alleged damage to specific crops. Passing over the failure of the moving party strictly to conform in the framing of his motion to Rule 12(e) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the motion must be denied and overruled upon its merits. The manner of construction of the dam must be peculiarly within the moving defendant’s knowledge. And the extent of damage is sufficiently stated to enable the defendant Walker & Sons Company to prepare a responsive pleading. In such circumstances, a motion of the character before the court is not well taken. See discussion of this court in Mitchell v. Brown, D.C.Neb., 2 F.R.D. 325 and United States v. Association of American Railroads, D.C.Neb., 4 F.R.D. 510.

The moving defendant may be entitled to a precise statement by the pláintiff upon each or either of the points mentioned in its motion in the course of its preparation for trial. But material of that nature is obtainable in the practice in this court under Rules 26, 33, 34 and 36, and, in proper circumstances, Rule 16, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant, Walker and Sons Company, is being required to serve and file its answer within 15 days from this date.
EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT  AUDITORS'  CONSENT


We  consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form
S-8  (File  Nos. 33-33497, 33-40038, 33-60214 and 33-60644) of our reports dated
August 20, 1998 appearing in this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  Criticare
Systems,  Inc.  for  the  year  ended  June  30,  1999.


/s/  Deloitte  &  Touche  LLP
Milwaukee,  Wisconsin
December 6, 1999
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Wilkens, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 79]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel E FitzGerald, J.), entered April 20, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the level three sex offender adjudication. Two of defendant’s three prior violent felonies were not adequately accounted for in the risk assessment instrument, and thus there was no improper double counting. These aggravating factors support the court’s discretionary upward departure *(see People v O’Flaherty,*23 AD3d 237 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 705 [2006]). The court properly assessed 15 points for risk factor 11, “Drug or Alcohol Abuse,” since defendant had two drug possession convictions which occurred within two years of one another and within five years of the classification hearing. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including his arguments concerning the choice of risk factors made by the Legislature and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders *(see People v Joe, 26*AD3d 300 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 703 [2006]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6674

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL A. HARRIS, a/k/a Blackie, a/k/a Black

Mike,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-93-1, CA-96-8)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 10, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying Appellant’s Motion for Appropriate Relief. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Harris, Nos. CR-93-1; CA-96-8 (E.D. Va. Apr. 8, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
# covid_table43_c53_naics
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

CARLOS LAMONT JONES, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 234 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 19th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Denis F. Jr., an Infant. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Denis F., Sr., *627Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Nicholas F., an Infant. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Denis F., Sr., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[975 NYS2d 910]

In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated January 22, 2013, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he neglected the subject children and directed, inter alia, that he attend a parenting skills program and undergo a substance abuse evaluation.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In a fact-finding hearing held pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, any determination that the child is abused or neglected must be based on a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; *Matter of Nicole V.,*71 NY2d 112, 117 [1987]; *Matter of Tammie Z.,*66 NY2d 1 [1985]; *Matter of Dareth*O., 304 AD2d 667, 668 [2003]). “The Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record” *(Matter of Christiana C. [Carleton C.],*86 AD3d 606, 607 [2011]).

The children’s mother testified at the fact-finding hearing that during the children’s visitation with the father on a certain date, she observed that his speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot, he was unsteady on his feet, and he smelled of alcohol. Evidence was also adduced that the father had multiple alcohol-related arrests and had misused alcohol in the children’s presence.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court properly credited the mother’s testimony regarding the alcohol-related incident involving the father, and properly found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services established by a preponderance of the evidence that he had neglected the subject children by his misuse of alcohol which impaired, or was in danger of impairing, the children’s physical, mental, or emotional condition *(see Matter of Alaysha E. [John R.E.],*94 AD3d 988, 989 [2012]; *Matter of Christiana C. [Carleton C.],*86 AD3d at 607; *Matter of Tylasia B. [Wayne B.],*72 AD3d 1074 [2010]; *Matter of Samara M.,*19 AD3d 214 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the father neglected the subject children and directed, inter alia, that the father attend a parenting skills program and undergo a *628substance abuse evaluation. Dillon, J.P, Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Case 3:10-cv-06318-MLC-LHG Document 12 Filed 09/23/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 121
Case 3:10-cv-06318-MLC-LHG Document 12 Filed 09/23/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 122
40 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Summer 2012

Consumer spending: Comparing four countries

Shares of expenditures for selected categories, United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and Japan, 2009

How do U.S. consumer expenditures compare with those 

of other industrialized nations? A report by the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows how people in 

the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and 

Japan spent their budgets in 2009.

As the chart shows, housing made up the biggest 

consumer expense in all the countries except Japan. But 

U.S. consumers spent a larger share of their money on 

housing than did consumers in any of the other three 

countries.

The United States topped the other countries in 

another spending category, too: healthcare. American 

consumers had the highest share of healthcare expenditures, in part because medical costs in Canada, the 

United Kingdom, and Japan are paid indirectly through 

nationalized healthcare options. Only consumers’ out-ofpocket expenses were included in the data.

Additional data show that countries differ in their 

spending within the categories. Japan’s consumers, for 

example, spent about the same share of their transportation money on public transportation as they did on buying automobiles. U.S. consumers, in contrast, were over 5 

times more likely to spend their transportation money on 

automobile purchases than on public transportation.

Data for shares of U.S. expenditures in the report are 

from the BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey. For purposes of the analysis, several adjustments were made to 

expenditures categories of the three foreign countries so 

that their shares data were comparable with U.S. shares 

data. To read the full report, see www.bls.gov/opub/

focus/volume2_number16/cex_2_16.htm. Data tables, 

Consumer Expenditure Survey program publications, a 

glossary, and other information are available at

www.bls.gov/cex.

United States Canada United Kingdom Japan

5

10

15

20

25

30%

Housing Transportation Food Healthcare Clothing
#### BROCKWAY GLASS CO., Inc., v. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., et al.

No. 387.

District Court, W. D. New York,

May 9, 1940.

Saperston, McNaughtan & Saperston, of Buffalo, N. Y. (R. Kerford Wilson, of Buffalo, 'N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Kenefick, Cooke, Mitchell, Bass & Letch-worth, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Stephen H. Phil-bin, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

Rule 12(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, has been and is certain to be a source of much labor for the courts. It will be made less onerous if the courts, as they should, strictly construe the rule as applicable only to particulars sufficiently definite to enable a party to prepare a responsive pleading and construe “preparation for trial” as comprehended in the words “to prepare his responsive pleading.” That clearly was the intent as respects a motion for a bill of particulars. If the party is fully advised of the meaning of the averments of the pleading, he is in a position to “prepare for trial.” This is so unless we are to say that the moving party is entitled to “evidence.” That clearly is outside of the purpose of the rule. The rule is to be construed in the light of other provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure stating the requirements of a pleading (Rule 8), permitting the taking of depositions (Rule 26) and also by the submission of interrogatories (Rule 33).

Rule 12(e) has been many times construed by the courts. It is unnecessary to make any analysis of these opinions. Each case depends upon its own particular pleading, and any comparable state of facts can hardly be found. This court has heretofore expressed views in accordance with the within. United States v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc., et al., 1 F.R.D. 205. With the purpose of Rule 12(e) in mind, the court has carefully examined the particulars requested. The complaint in an unusual degree sets out the charges made, and it seems that it is necessary that little be added.

It seems to me that particulars should be required only with respect to the following:

(1) XI. State the person or persons making the request and whether oral or in writing.

LII. State the person or persons who misrepresented or concealed the terms of the agreement of July 1, 1932.

(2) XI. State the person or persons representing Hazel and Kearns, either or both, who made the agreement, and wheth*243er the agreement was oral or in writing, or in the alternative state that all the terms of the agreement stated in XI are included in Exhibit A.

(3) XI. State the person or persons representing Hazel and Kearns who “understood” the purpose of the agreement, and also whether there was any writing showing such understanding.

(5) XXXIV (a) Allowed, except that in lieu thereof plaintiff may state, if the fact, that the concealment is in the respects therein before stated.

XXXVII. Same direction as in (5) XXIV, supra.

XXXX. Same direction as in (5) XXIV, supra.

Except as hereinbefore set forth, the motion for particulars is denied.
TSO10K2012-EX.10.37


Exhibit 10.37




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
TESORO CORPORATION
EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN




THIS AGREEMENT, made at San Antonio, Texas, effective as set forth herein, by Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”):
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Tesoro Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to eliminate Supplemental Matching Awards with respect to Deferrals from Bonus Compensation; 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective January 1, 2011:
Section 2.2(c) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(c)    The amount of the Supplemental Match shall be applied only to Compensation (excluding Bonus Compensation) in excess of the limitations imposed under Section 401(a)(17) of the Code and shall be in such percentage of the Participants' Compensation (excluding Bonus Compensation) as shall be determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board in its sole discretion from year to year.  The amount of the Supplemental Discretionary Award, if any, shall be communicated to the applicable Participant by the Committee following determination of such award by the Chief Executive Officer.” 
Except as otherwise expressly stated herein, the provisions of the Plan shall continue in full effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as conclusive evidence of the adoption of the foregoing, Tesoro Corporation has caused its corporate seal to be affixed hereto and these presents to be fully executed in its name and behalf by its proper officers thereunto this 30th day of December, 2010. 




    	
			
	 
	 
	TESORO CORPORATION

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	    /s/ SUSAN A. LERETTE

	 
	 
	Susan A. Lerette

	 
	 
	Senior Vice President, Human Resources 

	 
	 
	& Communications




    



1
|                                         | 31.2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|---------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|                                        
|I, Lisa Norman, certify that:           
|1.                                       | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Home Alliance Corporation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|2.                                       | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results from operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.                





|By:  /s/Lisa NormanLisa Norman
Chief Financial Officer | Date:  July 26, 2013
|------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16214]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel; Time Sensitive Applications.
    Date: July 16, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Aileen Schulte, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental 
Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd, Room 6140, 
MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1225, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8feefcece7fae3fbeacfe2eee6e3a1e1e6e7a1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a3b2939322f362e3f1a373b333674343332743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-16214 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,218,173               1,914,014
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                          8,775,472               7,628,080
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,993,645               9,542,094
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                      82,735                  62,779
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,910,910               9,479,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,993,645               9,542,094
<TRADING-REVENUE>                            1,841,964               1,161,421
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           588,693                 453,093
<COMMISSIONS>                                    4,894                   2,938
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,154,550               1,424,396
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,154,550               1,424,396
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,154,550               1,424,396
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    52.21                   31.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    52.21                   31.67
        

</TABLE>