alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

FEBRUARY 20, 2002 Session

JOYCE MARIE HOWELL v. PHILLIP DAVID HOWELL

Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Madison County

No. 51574; The Honorable Joe C. Morris, Chancellor 

No. W2001-01167-COA-R3-CV - Filed August 15, 2002

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

ALAN E. HIGHERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM B. ACREE, JR. SP. J.,

JOINED AND W. FRANK CRAWFORD CONCURRED IN PART AND DISSENTED IN PART.

Don G. Owens, III, Memphis, TN, for Appellant

James F. Butler, Jackson, TN, for Appellee

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

I concur in the majority Opinion in all respects except the trial court’s forgiveness of the

arrearage in pendente lite alimony. Appellee took no action to be relieved of his obligation to pay

pendente lite alimony, if, in fact, he was unable to pay it. He deliberately did not comply with the

Order of the trial court setting the alimony pendente lite payments; therefore, he should not be

relieved of that obligation. If, in fact, he was unable to comply with the Order, he should have filed

a petition for modification or to terminate pendente lite support payments. His action indicates a

deliberate disregard of the Order of the trial court, and there should be no forgiveness of the

arrearage.

Therefore, I dissent from that part of the Opinion of the majority affirming the trial court and

would reverse that part of the Order and remand for further proceedings as necessary.

______________________________

W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDING

JUDGE, W.S.
Editorial Note on Part 159
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93023, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 159.4 Alcoholic beverages. ( a ) *Quantities subject to duties.* Customs duties and internal revenue taxes on alcoholic beverages provided for in headings 2207 and 2208, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), (19 U.S.C. 1202), and subject to internal revenue taxes shall be collected only on the number of proof gallons and fractional parts thereof, entered or withdrawn for consumption. No internal revenue tax shall be collected on distilled spirits in bulk which have been transferred to Internal Revenue bonded premises in accordance with § 141.102(b) of this chapter. Customs duties and internal revenue taxes on alcoholic beverages other than subheadings 2206.00.30 and 2206.00.90, HTSUS, and distilled spirits provided for in headings 2207 and 2208, shall be collected only on the number of wine gallons and fractional parts thereof, entered or withdrawn for consumption.
( b ) *Computation of duties.* In the computation of Customs duties on alcoholic beverages provided for in headings 2207 and 2208 (19 U.S.C. 1202), which are also subject to internal revenue taxes, the methods prescribed for the computation of internal revenue taxes on such beverages shall be followed. The following methods apply to the specific beverages shown: ( 1 ) *Distilled spirits.* The quantity of distilled spirits imported in barrels, kegs, or similar containers shall be ascertained in accordance with the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Where distilled spirits are imported in bottles, jugs, or similar containers, Customs duties and taxes shall be collected on the exact quantity contained in each case or other outer container, fractional parts of a gallon being carried out to three decimal places utilizing the proof gallon method of computation.
( 2 ) *Wine.* Customs duties and taxes on wines shall be on the basis of a wine gallon of liquid measure equivalent to 231 cubic inches and shall be paid proportionally on all fractional parts of a wine gallon. Fractions of less than one-tenth gallon shall be converted to the nearest one-tenth gallon, and five-hundredths gallon shall be converted to the next full one-tenth gallon.
( 3 ) *Beer and similar fermented beverages.* Customs duties and taxes on beer, ale, porter, stout, and other similar fermented beverages, including sake, of any name or description containing one-half of 1 percent or more of alcohol by volume, brewed or produced from malt, wholly or in part, or from any substitute therefor, shall be collected in accordance with section 5051(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. 5051(a)).
[T.D. 73-175, 38 FR 17482, July 2, 1973, as amended by T.D. 78-329, 43 FR 43455, Sept. 26, 1978; T.D. 80-271, 45 FR 75641, Nov. 17, 1980; T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51270, Dec. 21, 1988]
```

[106th Congress Public Law 365]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ365.106]

Public Law 106-365
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
      To provide for the placement at the Lincoln <<NOTE: Oct. 27, 
 2000 -  [H.R. 2879]>> Memorial of a plaque commemorating the speech of 
    Martin Luther King, Jr., known as the ``I Have A Dream'' speech.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in <<NOTE: 40 USC 1003 note.>> Congress 
assembled,

SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF PLAQUE AT LINCOLN MEMORIAL.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall install in the 
area of the Lincoln Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable 
plaque to commemorate the speech of Martin Luther King, Jr., known as 
the ``I Have A Dream'' speech.
    (b) Relation to <<NOTE: Applicability.>> Commemorative Works Act.--
The Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) shall apply to the 
design and placement of the plaque within the area of the Lincoln 
Memorial.

SEC. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

    The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept and expand 
contributions toward the cost of preparing and installing the plaque, 
without further appropriation. Federal funds may be used to design, 
procure, or install the plaque.

    Approved October 27, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2879:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-448 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-334 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 145 (1999):
                                    Nov. 9, considered and passed House.
                                                        Vol. 146 (2000):
                                    Oct. 5, considered and passed 
                                        Senate, amended.
                                    Oct. 10, House concurred in Senate 
                                        amendment.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 36 (2000):
            Oct. 27, Presidential statement.

                                  <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 181

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 181 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93026, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 181.61 Applicability.

This subpart sets forth the rules which apply for purposes of duty-free entry of commercial samples of negligible value as provided for in Article 306 of the NAFTA and for purposes of the re-entry of goods after repair or alteration in Canada or Mexico as provided for in Article 307 of the NAFTA.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-23325-WPD

BRIGHTSTAR CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID MAYLAND,

Defendant.

________________________________/

DAVID MAYLAND,

Counter-Plaintiff,

v.

BRIGHTSTAR CORP.;

BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL GROUP, INC.,

Counter-Defendants.

 / 

ORDER ON MOTION TO ACCEPT REPLY AS TIMELY FILED

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Counter-Defendants Brightstar Corp. and 

Brightstar Global Group, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Accept as Timely Filed Their Reply to 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims [DE 18] 

(“Motion”). The Court has carefully considered the Motion and is otherwise fully advised in the 

premises.

It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Counter-Defendants’ Motion [DE 18] is 

GRANTED. Counter-Defendants shall file their reply on or before December 10, 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-23325-WPD Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 1 of 2
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 

8th day of December, 2020.

Copies furnished to:

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23325-WPD Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2020 Page 2 of 2
### §61–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 61–1 was editorially reclassified as section 4575 of this title.
J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the

State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2).

Appellant first claimed that he had good cause because he had been challenging his conviction in federal proceedings. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. The pursuit of federal habeas relief does not constitute good cause to excuse a late and successive petition in Nevada. See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236, 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).

Appellant next claimed that he had good cause because he was not represented by counsel during the first post-conviction proceedings. Appellant claimed that the decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), provided good cause because the lack of assistance ofpost-conviction counsel prevented him from complying with postconviction procedures. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. Appellant's reliance upon Martinez was misplaced as Martinez relates to federal procedural bars and not state procedural bars. Thus, the holding in Martinez would not provide good cause because it is inapplicable in state court. Further, as appellant never requested counsel in the first post-conviction proceedings, he cannot complain of the failure to appoint counsel in those proceedings. Finally, appellant failed to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre Cherry

2cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge Joe Kelly Armstead Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

61 Forsyth Street, S. W.

Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-97-53 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Wednesday, July

9, 1997)

email: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

email rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS INSPECTION TEAM FINDINGS WITH DUKE POWER

AT OCONEE NUCLEAR PLANT AT 1:00 P.M. ON JULY 10

Meeting Will Be Open To Public Observation

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with Duke

Power Company managers at the Oconee nuclear power plant near

Seneca South Carolina at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 10 to discuss

preliminary results of a team inspection the agency conducted at

the plant following failures involving the plant's emergency

electrical supply system last month.

The NRC formed a special Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) which

arrived at the plant June 30 to review the company's actions in

response to failure of an emergency electrical supply to properly

respond during a loss of offsite power test on June 20 and failure

of electrical breakers during testing restoration on June 23.

The AIT will establish a sequence of events, assess the

adequacy of Duke's response during the event and during recovery,

determine whether the company met regulatory reportability

requirements, determine causes and licensee corrective actions, and

examine possible generic aspects of the problem with respect to

possible applicability elsewhere.

The team's mission is to establish facts associated with this

event. A report will be issued within 30 days, and NRC officials

will then determine whether additional regulatory action is

required.

#

Editors: This meeting is between the NRC and Duke Power

Company officials. It is open to public observation, and NRC

officials will be available at its conclusion to answer questions

from interested observers.
#### § 207.15 Written briefs and conference.

Each party may submit to the Commission on or before a date specified in the notice of investigation issued pursuant to 207.12 a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. Briefs shall be signed, shall include a table of contents, and shall contain no more than fifty (50) double-spaced and single-sided pages of textual material, and shall be filed electronically, and nine (9) true paper copies shall be submitted on the same business day (on paper measuring 8.5 × 11 inches, double-spaced and single-sided). Any person not a party may submit a brief written statement of information pertinent to the investigation within the time specified and the same manner specified for the filing of briefs. In addition, the presiding official may permit persons to file within a specified time answers to questions or requests made by the Commission's staff. If he deems it appropriate, the Director shall hold a conference. The conference, if any, shall be held in accordance with the procedures in § 201.13 of this chapter, except that in connection with its presentation a party may provide written witness testimony at the conference; if written testimony is provided, nine (9) true paper copies shall be submitted. The Director may request the appearance of witnesses, take testimony, and administer oaths.

[79 FR 35924, June 25, 2014]
§ 162.48 Disposition of perishable and other seized property. ( a ) *Disposition of perishable property.* Seized property which is perishable or otherwise enumerated in section 612, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1612), and is covered by the provisions of section 607, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1607), shall be advertised for sale and sold at public auction at the earliest possible date. The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer shall proceed to give notice by advertisement of the summary sale for such time as he considers reasonable. This notice shall be of sale only and not notice of seizure and intent to forfeit. The proceeds of the sale shall be held subject to the claims of parties in interest in the same manner as the seized property would have been subject to such claims.
( b ) *Disposition of other seized property.* ( 1 ) If the expense of keeping any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise or baggage is disproportionate to the value thereof, destruction or other disposition of such property may be ordered by the appropriate Customs officer. Storage expenses are presumed to be disproportionate to the value of the property where the expense has reached or is anticipated to reach 50 percent of the value of the property. The right of a claimant to seized property which has been destroyed or otherwise disposed of shall not be extinguished.
( 2 ) Publication of a notice of the seizure, regardless of the disposition of the property, will be required pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1607. Claimants to seized property will be permitted to file a petition for remission of the forfeiture pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1618, and part 171 of this chapter. A claimant receiving full or partial relief from the forfeiture shall be reimbursed the difference between the value of the merchandise at the time of the seizure, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1606 and § 162.43 of this part, and any remitted forfeiture amount that the claimant is required to pay.
( 3 ) A claimant to destroyed or otherwise disposed of seized property requesting relief in the form of payment may file a claim and cost bond and seek judicial hearing on the forfeiture pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1608.
( 4 ) Successful claimants shall be compensated from Customs Forfeiture Fund pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1613b.
[T.D. 72-211, 37 FR 16488, Aug. 15, 1972, as amended by T.D. 85-195, 50 FR 50290, Dec. 10, 1985; T.D. 92-69, 57 FR 30640, July 10, 1992; T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13676, Mar. 22, 1999; T.D. 00-57, 65 FR 53575, Sept. 5, 2000]
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas Nielsen, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of RealNetworks, Inc.; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30, 2012



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas Nielsen                          
|Thomas Nielsen                              
|Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.govNo. 98-228

No. 98-228 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, December 23, 1998)

COMMISSION AFFIRMS ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD DECISION

DENYING PETITION TO INTERVENE IN CALVERT CLIFFS LICENSE RENEWAL

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has upheld a denial by the Atomic Safety &

Licensing Board (ASLB) of a request by the National Whistleblower Center to participate in

Baltimore Gas & Electric’s license renewal application for the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant.

The Commission today let stand an October 16 decision by the ASLB that the National

Whistleblower Center failed to submit its contentions by a September 30 deadline, and failed to

adequately support two late-filed contentions, dismissing its petition to intervene in the licensing

proceeding.

On April 10, Baltimore Gas & Electric filed an application to renew for 20 years the

operating licenses of its two Calvert Cliffs plants, in Lusby, Maryland. That application is

currently under review by the NRC staff. The operating license for Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 expires

in 2014, and Unit 2 in 2016.

The National Whistleblower Center was the only group that requested a public hearing

on Baltimore Gas & Electric’s license renewal application.

The text of the Commission’s order will be posted on the NRC’s Internet web page at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/renewal.htm.

##
#### § 111.0 Scope.

This part sets forth regulations providing for the licensing of, and granting of permits to, persons desiring to transact customs business as customs brokers, including the qualifications required of applicants, and the procedures for applying for licenses and permits. This part also prescribes the duties and responsibilities of brokers, the grounds and procedures for disciplining brokers, including the assessment of monetary penalties, the revocation or suspension of licenses and permits, and the obligation for individual brokers to satisfy a continuing education requirement.

[T.D. 00-17, 65 FR 13891, Mar. 15, 2000, as amended by CBP Dec. 23-04, 88 FR 41258, June 23, 2023]
COURT M INUTES

U.S. MAG ISTRATE JUDG E LURANA S.SNOW - FO RT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA

DEFT: GltEGoltl JBRSON VENDEZ PALACIOS (J)# CASE NO:

CELL Bto cK

AusA: Larry Lavecchio N T-Z> N

AGENT: VIOL: 18:554, 922; 31:5332

20-6363-5N0W

#

'

-j' '

ATTY: DUTY CJA : Hector Flores (available by Zoom)

(If applicable-appeals colloquy)

PROCEEDING: INITIAL APPEARANCE RECOM M ENDED B0ND: PTD

BOND HEARJNG IIELD - yes / no COUNSEL APPOINTED:

BOND SET @: To be cosigned by:

Do not violate any law.

Appear in court as directed.

Surrender and / or do not obtain passports / travel

documents.

Q

Q Rpt to PTS as directed / or x's a weeldmonth by

phone; x's a weeldmonth in person.

Rule 77.1 advised Q -

* 6 . p'% o

###SPAM SH INTERPRETER ORDERED#**

% 3//,%'

X .u ' v >

Z -

& av >

< 

> x - wwx,.

Q Random urine testing by Pretrial Services.

Treatment as deemed necessary.

M aintain or seek full - tim e employment.

No contact with victim s / witnesses.

No firearms.

Q

Q

Q

Q Travel extended to: . .XA .-F

u ' Halfway House .

NEXT COURT APPEARANCE: DATE: . TEWE: . JUDGE: PLACE:

.- 

' ' j -. 

. .

m oulRv RB collxsEu. -- .f.-. // An .

p'r ps Hs xo. - - //--//-

PRELIM /ARRM GN.: 8-31-20 1 1:00. STM USS

CHECK IF For the re%ons stated by counsel for the Defendant and finding that the ends of justice selwed by granting the ore

APPLICABLE : tenus motion for continuance to hire counsel outweigh the best interests of the public & the Defendant in a Speedy

Trial, the Court tinds that the period of time from today, through and including . shall be deemed

excludable in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 USC 3 161 et seq..

DATE: 8-17-20 TIM E: 1 1 :00am DAW ZOOM : . 

'e - //e , a g: , g PAGE: - . i

t

Case 0:20-mj-06363-LSS Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### § 143.31 Applicability.

This subpart sets forth general requirements for the entry of imported merchandise processed electronically through the CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. Entries processed electronically are subject to the documentation, document retention and document retrievability requirements of this chapter as well as the general entry requirements of parts 141 and 142. Use of this system is voluntary and optional on behalf of the filer. Customs does not contemplate that processing of non-electronic filings shall be delayed.

[T.D. 90-92, 55 FR 49886, Dec. 3, 1990, as amended by CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61290, Oct. 13, 2015]
Exhibit 23.1



|     |  |                                                      
|---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |                                                      
|     |  | KPMG LLP 303 East Wacker
Drive Chicago, IL 60601-5212



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors of Midas, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Nos. 333-44625, 333-58363, 333-74094, 333-89226, 333-105458, 333-101559, 333-128503, 333-42196, 333-44797) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statement (No. 333-105458) on Form S-3 of Midas, Inc. of our reports
dated March 17, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Midas, Inc. as of the end of fiscal years 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and changes in shareholders equity for
each of the fiscal years 2010, 2009, and 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of January 1, 2011, which reports appear in the annual report on Form 10-K of Midas, Inc. for the fiscal year end 2010.

LOGO

Chicago, Illinois

March 17, 2011















| |  |                                                                                                                                                      |  | 
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
| |  | KPMG LLP Is a Delaware limited liability partnership, the U.S. member firm of KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG
International), a Swiss entity. |  |