alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Laird *v.*City of De Soto.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

May 8, 1885.)

1. Municipal Corporations—Liability of Successor—Invalid Reorganization.

An invalid reorganization of an incorporated town as a city cannot affect its corporate existence; and where the invalid reorganization is dissolved by a decree in *quo warranto*proceedings, and a valid city organization, composed of the same people and trustees, is created in the place of the town, the new organization becomes liable, as the successor of the town, upon its bonds.

2. Same.

Where in such a case the city contains a trifle less land within its limits than the town, that fact does not affect its liability.

3. Practice—Motion for Rehearing.

Query, whether a motion for a rehearing of a motion for a new trial should he entertained.

Petition for a Rehearing of a Motion for a New Trial.

For opinion upon motion for a new trial, see 22 Fed. Rep. 421.

*Mills & Flitcraft,*for plaintiff.

*Joseph A. Williams,*for defendant.

1

 Reported by Benj. P. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.

Miller, C. J.

This motion for a rehearing of the motion for a new trial is a very unusual proceeding, and I have great doubt whether it ought to be entertained, even if the motion ought originally to have been granted; but looking over the case again, in the light of the pleas and agreed statement of facts, I am still of opinion that the defendant, the city of De Soto, is the lawful successor of the town of De Soto, which issued the bonds on which the judgment was rendered. The fact that the present city contains 400 acres less land in its lim* *781its than the former town, does not change the liability of the people who constitute that town, nor does the change from a town to a city, nor does the decree attempting to abrogate the city organized in 1877, destroy the obligations of the town of 1872. When these people became organized into a city which is now in existence, that city, as the successor of the town of 1872, is liable for the debts of the former.

The motion for a rehearing is overruled.
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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4317-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4317-DR), dated June 2, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued July 13, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 2, 2017.

Christian, Crawford, Dent, Iron, Wanye, and Wright Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

Greene and Ste. Genevieve Counties for Individual Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-17769 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-01-1996
<CASH>                                      10,496,689
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               99,939,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                12,948,170
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            97,488,513
<PP&E>                                       1,827,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                 225,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             114,140,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,300,113
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 13,548,129
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (32,247,165)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               114,140,089
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,052,048
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,660,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               643,885
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            17,991,569
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          12,587,987
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,831,525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (22,690,956)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (11.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1554

___________

James Kenneth Tegeler, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 6, 2010

 Filed: August 17, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Kenneth Tegeler appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial

of disability insurance benefits. Tegeler alleged disability since October 2005 from

a seizure disorder. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ)

determined that (1) Tegeler’s seizure disorder was a severe impairment, but did not
2

We decline to address those arguments that are irrelevant, entirely new, or

undeveloped. 

-2-

meet or medically equal the requirements of any relevant listing; (2) his anxiety was

not a severe impairment; (3) his testimony was not entirely credible; (4) as to his

residual functional capacity (RFC), he had no physical limitations and his only

nonexertional limitations were typical seizure precautions; and (5) while a vocational

expert (VE) testified that Tegeler’s RFC precluded his past relevant work, in response

to the ALJ’s hypothetical the VE identified other jobs Tegeler could perform. The

Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Having carefully

reviewed the record and considered Tegeler’s arguments for reversal,2

 see Dipple v.

Astrue, 601 F.3d 833, 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review), we affirm.

Specifically, we find that the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to

deference as it was based on several valid reasons, see Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d

922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010); and that the ALJ properly relied on the VE’s response to a

hypothetical, see Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 808-09 (8th Cir. 2004). We also

find that the evidence Tegeler offered for the first time on appeal did not meet the

requirements for remand. See Hepp v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 798, 808 (8th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
exv10w95





Exhibit 10.95









September 9, 2011




Mr. Jeffrey D. Buchanan

Smith & Wesson Holding

2100 Roosevelt Avenue

Springfield, MA 01104





Re: Letter of Amendment



Dear Mr. Buchanan:



We are parties to a Severance and Change in Control Agreement dated as of January 3, 2011 (the
“Agreement”). This will confirm the amendment to the Agreement to delete Clause (a) of Section 3
of the Agreement effective on the execution of this Letter of Amendment. Except for this change,
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,



Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ P. James Debney
 	 




Agreed and Accepted:



	 	 	 
	/s/ Jeffrey D. Buchanan
 

Jeffrey D. Buchanan

	 	 






2100 Roosevelt Avenue • PO Box 2208 • Springfield, MA 01102-2208 • 1-800-331-0852 • www.smith-wesson.com
Exhibit (23)(d)CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8(Nos. 333-32229, 333-58686, 333-76347), S-3 (Nos. 333-125553, 333-52560, 333-120611, 333-27849,333-74958, 333-45556, 333-37241), and S-4 (Nos. 33-60007, 33-55805) of Consumers Energy Company ofour report dated February 20, 2008 relating to the financial statements, financial statementschedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in thisForm 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPDetroit, MichiganFebruary 20, 2008
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Health Fitness
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2003 (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Wesley W. Winnekins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    1.   The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of
         section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
         (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

    2.   The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.



/s/    Wesley W. Winnekins


Wesley W. Winnekins
Chief Financial Officer
Health Fitness Corporation
August 12, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000887022
<NAME> EVE HOLDINGS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     4
<PP&E>                                               1
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,699
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,122
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,660
<INCOME-TAX>                                       379
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,281
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Paul I. NOEL, Claimant-Appellant, v. Gordon H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2007-7238.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 11, 2007.

Paul I. Noel, pro se.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Paul I. Noel’s appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Noel has not responded.

Noel served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from June 1954 to August 1958 and from February 1961 to January 1979. He filed an application for, inter alia, entitlement to Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits for a skin condition, right-ear condition, a lung condition, hypertension, and sterility. Noel asserted that all of his conditions were caused by exposure to ionizing radiation during service.

In a January 3, 2005 decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals, Noel was denied entitlement to disability benefits on the ground that there was no evidence *257establishing his conditions were due to in-service exposure. He appealed, through counsel, to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. On April 11, 2007, the court affirmed the Board’s decision. Noel now appeals, seeking review by this court.

The court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is limited. *See Forshey v. Principi,*284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), this court has jurisdiction over rules of law or the validity of any statute or regulation, or an interpretation thereof relied on by the court in its decision. This court may also entertain challenges to the validity of a statute or regulation, and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions as needed for resolution of the matter. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). In contrast, except where an appeal presents a constitutional question, this court lacks jurisdiction over challenges to factual determinations or laws or regulations as applied to the particular case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

Noel asserts in his informal brief that his appeal involves both constitutional questions and issues of statutory interpretation. Specifically, he contends that he was denied due process under the Fifth Amendment and that 38 U.S.C. § 5103A was unconstitutional as applied to him. However, a mere assertion of a constitutional claim does not confer jurisdiction on this court. *See Helfer v. West,*174 F.3d 1332 (Fed.Cir.1999). Nothing in Noel’s brief presents a true constitutional question or any other issue that gives this court jurisdiction. Therefore, this court is unable to review them. Because we agree with the Acting Secretary that this court lacks jurisdiction, we must dismiss Noel’s appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motions are granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) The revised official caption is reflected above.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Thomas Lanny V l asak as Trustee for the Silber Family Trust v.

TAXCO, INC.

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00191

- CV

Trial cou rt case number: 2014

- 49207

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: December 13, 2017

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting individually Acting for the Court

En B anc Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Hig ley,

Bland, Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey

Date: January 1 8 , 2018
II 

Calendar No. 65 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 612 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ‘‘George P. Kazen 

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2015 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

MAY 4, 2015 

Reported by Mr. INHOFE, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, 

as the ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and United 

States Courthouse’’. 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 612 RS

1 SECTION 1. GEORGE P. KAZEN FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United 

4 States courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in La5 redo, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States 

7 Courthouse’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the Federal building and United States court11 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

12 a reference to the ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and 

13 United States Courthouse’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 65 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 612 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United 

eral Building and United States Courthouse’’. in Laredo, Texas, as the ‘‘George P. Kazen FedStates courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street 

MAY 4, 2015 

Reported without amendment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### JOHNSON v. WILSON LINES, Inc.

No. 8805.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 26, 1952.

*454Stark & Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

WELSH, District Judge.

In his oral depositions plaintiff testified that the injuries sustained as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant in this action caused him to receive medical, dental and psychiatric treatments while he was serving in the Air Force of the United States between December 11, 1947 and August 31, 1948. The defendant has moved this Court to request the Air Surgeon-General to produce the reports of the treatments received by the plaintiff.

We are informed that the policy of the Department of the Army is to furnish certified copies of such reports provided: (a) The person whose records are requested, or his authorized representative, has been given notice of the application for the production of records and an opportunity to be heard thereon; (b) The records requested are material to the issues of the case and necessary to the proper administration of justice and (c) The certified copies of the records when received by the Court pursuant to an order or request will be impounded by the Clerk of the Court and will not be opened or subject to inspection prior to the trial except with the consent of the individual whose records are involved, or his authorized representative.

We are of the opinion that the granting of defendant’s motion would be in keeping with both the letter and spirit of the Department’s policy as outlined above, and accordingly an order requesting the Air Surgeon-General to produce the reports will ¡be prepared and submitted. Since the plaintiff refuses to consent to an inspection of the reports by the defendant the order after directing the Clerk of 'Court to impound the records will provide (in accordance with subdivision c of the Department’s policy) that no inspection of said records be permitted prior to trial. Finally, said order will provide that matters, such as, the materiality, relevancy, privilege, etc. of the records so impounded will be disposed of •by the trial judge.