alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WITT v. MERRILL et ux.

No. 6740.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 11, 1954.

Decided Jan. 30, 1954.

*133See also 208 F.2d 285.

William E. Chandler, Jr., Greenville, S. C., and Charles J. Henderson, Charlotte, N. C. (Henderson & Henderson. Charlotte, N. C., and Chandler & Chandler, Greenville, S. C., on the brief), for appellant.

Alfred F. Burgess and C. T. Wyche, Greenville, S. C. (Wyche, Burgess & Wyche, Greenville, S. C., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a verdict and judgment for defendant in an action for damages growing out of an automobile collision. Plaintiff contends there was error in admitting in evidence a motion picture taken of plaintiff without his knowledge showing that he did not display at that time the disabilities which he manifested in the presence of the jury, in allowing testimony as to another accident, in refusing to charge that the defendant was guilty of negligence per se in failing to control the speed of her automobile so as to avoid colliding with plaintiff’s automobile and in refusing to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. There is no merit in any of these contentions. The motion picture was clearly admissible and it was not rendered inadmissible merely because it was torn when being shown before the trial judge and had to be spliced for the showing before the jury. An examination of the picture clearly demonstrates that no prejudice could have resulted to the plaintiff from this circumstance. The testimony as to the injury and damage sustained in a subsequent collision in which plaintiff was involved was ad*134missible as tending to show that the injury and damage of which plaintiff complains may have originated otherwise than out of the collision for which defendant is sued. The trial judge correctly charged the jury on the question of negligence and no more specific instructions were seasonably requested in writing as required by the rules of civil procedure. Even if the statute relating to control of speed had application to the case, therefore, and we do not think that it does, the plaintiff could not complain of the charge. So far as the motion for new trial is concerned, this was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge; and we cannot say that there was any abuse of discretion here shown. Kirstner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 422. While the evidence shows that there was negligence on the part of defendant in running into plaintiff’s automobile, there was also evidence to the effect that plaintiff did not sustain any substantial damage as a result thereof.

The case was fairly tried before an able and experienced trial judge, the jury was fully and correctly instructed upon the simple principles of law applicable to the case and we see no ground upon which the verdict and judgment can justly be disturbed.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Brewerton Coal Company, Plaintiff in Error.

*415Opinion filed June 5, 1929.

West *&*Eckhart, for plaintiff in error; William M. Klein and Lewis O. Jesseph, of counsel.

Marion M. Hart, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.

The transcript of the record contains no *placita.*To enable this court to review a cause upon its merits the record must contain a *placita. Hardy v. Jones,*307 Ill. 149. The purported judgment of the court below appears in the bill of exceptions and not in the common-law record. The bill of exceptions must not contain the findings and judgment of the court as they are a part of the common-law record and must be found therein. *Miller v. Anderson,*269 Ill. 608; *People v. Kuhn,*291 Ill. 154.

A recital of the judgment in the bill of exceptions does not show a judgment in the legal sense of the term and where that is the only evidence in the record that a judgment was entered in the court below, this court is without jurisdiction. *O’Donnell v. Quinn,*100 Ill. App. 5; *Riva v. City of Spring Valley,*129 Ill. App. 167; *Ashmore v. Skene Lead Co.,*150 Ill. App. 381.

The purported bill of exceptions is included in the transcript of the record. . It shows that the case was tried and judgment entered on September 22,1928, and 60 days were allowed for the filing of the bill of excep*416tions. ■ The certificate of the trial judge is to the effect that the bill of exceptions was presented to him and signed on December 29, 1928, long after the time for filing the same had expired. There is nothing in the record to show that the time was extended by the trial court. If a bill of exceptions is not presented within the time originally fixed, or within the time as • extended, the judge of the trial, court has no power or authority to sign and settle, the same. *Davis v. Wirth,*249 Ill. App. 544. In the state of the record the bill of exceptions is not properly á part thereof and could not be considered even if we had jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of the case.

For the reasons aforesaid the writ of error is dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Trauma-informed Care and Outcomes Among Youth      

# Trauma-informed Care and Outcomes Among Youth

This report released by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration illustrates that children and youth participating in community-based programs, who are involved in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems, demonstrate improved outcomes after receiving trauma-informed services.

http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/press-announcements/201205140115
#### § 160.56 Compensation of licensed inspectors.

Each licensed inspector shall be paid directly by the accredited processor for his services as an official inspector and for such other services or duties to which he may be assigned in accordance with § 160.44: *Provided,* That whenever the Administrator shall deem it to be in the best interest of the Federal inspection service, he may require such processor to report to him the terms and amounts of compensation paid to a licensed inspector during any specified period.
2006-0478.

#### Medlink Group, Inc. v. Glickman.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of relators’ application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1916 

To require the collection of up-to-date information on tariff and non-tariff 

laws, regulations, and practices of foreign countries affecting exports 

of United States goods and services, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2013 

Mr. TIPTON (for himself, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. 

CHABOT, Mr. HANNA, Mr. COLLINS of New York, Mr. COFFMAN, Mr. 

HINOJOSA, and Ms. CHU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the collection of up-to-date information on tariff 

and non-tariff laws, regulations, and practices of foreign 

countries affecting exports of United States goods and 

services, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparent Rules 

5 Allow Direct Exporting for Small Businesses and Jobs 

6 Act’’ or ‘‘TRADE for Small Businesses and Jobs Act’’. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1916 IH

1 SEC. 2. FOREIGN TARIFF AND NON-TARIFF LAWS, REGULA2 TIONS, AND PRACTICES AFFECTING EXPORTS 

3 OF UNITED STATES GOODS AND SERVICES. 

4 (a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to as5 sist exporters of United States goods and services to ac6 cess new markets in foreign countries. 

7 (b) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.—The Secretary 

8 of Commerce shall, in consultation with the United States 

9 Trade Representative and the Secretary of State, collect 

10 information on changes in tariff and non-tariff laws, regu11 lations, and practices of foreign countries affecting exports 

12 of United States goods and services other than United 

13 States agricultural commodities. 

14 (c) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.— 

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 

16 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec17 retary of Commerce shall make available the infor18 mation collected under subsection (b) to United 

19 States exporters on the Web site Export.gov or a 

20 successor Web site. 

21 (2) FORMAT.—The information collected under 

22 subsection (b) shall be presented in a clear and easy23 to-understand format to allow United States export24 ers to better understand and comply with tariff and 

25 non-tariff laws, regulations, and practices of foreign 

26 countries described in subsection (b). 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1916 IH

1 (3) UPDATE.—The Secretary of Commerce 

2 shall update the information collected under sub3 section (b) on the Web site Export.gov or a suc4 cessor Web site not less than once every 60 days 

5 after the date on which the Secretary of Commerce 

6 makes available the information collected under sub7 section (b). 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Blue Dolphin  Energy  Company (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A-1  for the period  ended  December  31,  2003 (the
"Report"),  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof,  I, G. Brian Lloyd,  Vice  President,  Treasurer  (Principal  Accounting
Officer) of the  Company,  certify,  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, as amended; and

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



 /s/ G. Brian Lloyd
--------------------------------
G. Brian Lloyd
Vice President, Treasurer



April 28, 2004
§ 1774.12 Eligibility. The following eligibility requirements must be met: ( a ) The applicant must be: ( 1 ) A public body, such as a municipality, county, district, authority, or other political subdivision or a State, territory or commonwealth, or
( 2 ) An organization operated on a not-for-profit basis, such as an association, cooperative, or private corporation. The organization must be an association controlled by a local public body or bodies, or have a broadly based ownership by or membership of people of the local community, or
( 3 ) Indian Tribes on Federal and State reservations and other Federally recognized Indian Tribes.
( b ) The area to be served must be financially distressed and rural as defined in § 1774.2 of this part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEITHROY NOEL CLARKE, a/k/a Michael St. Clair

Davis, a/k/a Tyrone Roberts, a/k/a Capone,

a/k/a “T”, a/k/a Khadafi,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-97-166, CA-01-738-2)

Submitted: November 1, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keithroy Noel Clarke, 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:

Keithroy Noel Clarke seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning

of the district court that Clarke has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States

v. Clarke, Nos. CR-97-166; CA-01-738-2 (E.D. Va. filed May 29,

2002; entered May 30, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

(2000). 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
§ 15a.140 Dissemination of policy. ( a ) *Notification of policy.* ( 1 ) Each recipient shall implement specific and continuing steps to notify applicants for admission and employment, students and parents of elementary and secondary school students, employees, sources of referral of applicants for admission and employment, and all unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient, that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in the educational programs or activities that it operates, and that it is required by Title IX and this part not to discriminate in such a manner. Such notification shall contain such information, and be made in such manner, as the designated agency official finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by Title IX and this part, but shall state at least that the requirement not to discriminate in education programs or activities extends to employment therein, and to admission thereto unless §§ 15a.300 through 15a.310 do not apply to the recipient, and that inquiries concerning the application of Title IX and this part to such recipient may be referred to the employee designated pursuant to § 15a.135, or to the designated agency official.
( 2 ) Each recipient shall make the initial notification required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 90 days of the date this part first applies to such recipient, which notification shall include publication in: ( i ) Newspapers and magazines operated by such recipient or by student, alumnae, or alumni groups for or in connection with such recipient; and
( ii ) Memoranda or other written communications distributed to every student and employee of such recipient.
( b ) *Publications.* ( 1 ) Each recipient shall prominently include a statement of the policy described in paragraph (a) of this section in each announcement, bulletin, catalog, or application form that it makes available to any person of a type, described in paragraph (a) of this section, or which is otherwise used in connection with the recruitment of students or employees.
( 2 ) A recipient shall not use or distribute a publication of the type described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that suggests, by text or illustration, that such recipient treats applicants, students, or employees differently on the basis of sex except as such treatment is permitted by this part.
( c ) *Distribution.* Each recipient shall distribute without discrimination on the basis of sex each publication described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and shall apprise each of its admission and employment recruitment representatives of the policy of nondiscrimination described in paragraph (a) of this section, and shall require such representatives to adhere to such policy.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1846 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1846

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Act establishing the Lower East Side Tenement National 
                 Historic Site, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lower East Side Tenement National 
Historic Site Amendments Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Public Law 105-378 is amended--
            (1) in section 101(a)--
                    (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``the Lower East 
                Side Tenement at 97 Orchard Street in New York City is 
                an outstanding survivor'' and inserting ``the Lower 
                East Side Tenements at 97 and 103 Orchard Street in New 
                York City are outstanding survivors''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``the Lower East 
                Side Tenement is'' and inserting ``the Lower East Side 
                Tenements are'';
            (2) in section 102--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Lower East Side 
                Tenement found at 97 Orchard Street'' and inserting 
                ``Lower East Side Tenements found at 97 and 103 Orchard 
                Street''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``which owns and 
                operates the tenement building at 97 Orchard Street'' 
                and inserting ``which owns and operates the tenement 
                buildings at 97 and 103 Orchard Street'';
            (3) in section 103(a), by striking ``the Lower East Side 
        Tenement at 97 Orchard Street, in the City of New York, State 
        of New York, is designated'' and inserting ``the Lower East 
        Side Tenements at 97 and 103 Orchard Street, in the City of New 
        York, State of New York, are designated''; and
            (4) in section 104(d), by striking ``the property at 97 
        Orchard Street'' and inserting ``the properties at 97 and 103 
        Orchard Street''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1846

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Act establishing the Lower East Side Tenement National 
                 Historic Site, and for other purposes.
```
#### Wiseman’s Heirs *vs.*Reid.

'Chancery. Ca.,3 73.

Error to the (iarrard Circuit; Bridges, judge.

*.Vendor. Lien.-*

Person who far the (¡unveyance of y^an-i and8 assigns i tía title bond, retain* a lien on the land. for the paypúrcJha*eth8 *' m-.ney*in «une manner asTf* he had conveyed the lau<1by deed-

April 26.

Judge

opinion of Ihe.Court.

Reid sold to Wiseman a tract of land, and assigned to him the bond of Hendricks for the title. A balance of the purchase money remained due and unpaid, and being unable to make it out of the administrator of Wiseman, 'he filed his bill against the widow and heirs of yViseman, and the heirs of Hendricks, in order to obtain satisfaction by a sale of the land. The circuit court decreed tue -relief sought.

it is objected on the part of the plaintiff in error, that Reid had no lien on the land for the purchase money. We think otherwise. We can perceive no reason for the principle which allows the vendor a lien on the land for the purchase money., where he -conveys by deed, that does not equally apply to this •case, nor' can we discern the sufficiency .of the objections urged against .its allowance. J *° °*

We do not deem it necessary to notice the -other «assignments of error in detail; but will only observe, that the proof is abundant to show the mistake in not excepting -in the assignment of the bond, the «twenty’ three acres sold to Robert Reid; that, the widow of Wiseman has an important interest -in the land sought to he subjected to sale, and that therefore she was a necessary party; that the personal i;epresentatives of Hendricks were not necessary parities; that from the record as now amended, all the proper parties appear to have been regularly before sthe court; that the decree, though, not as precise in *250jts diseription of the land to be sold, nor as formal 'n ot*ier respects, as it might have been, yet it is substantially good and no way prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiffs in error.

*Turner,*for plaintiffs; *Breck*and *Caperton,*for defendants.

Decree affirmed with costs.
#### § 1724.73 Promulgation of new or revised contract forms.

RUS may, from time to time, undertake to promulgate new contract forms or revise or eliminate existing contract forms. In so doing, RUS shall publish notice of rulemaking in the Federal Register announcing, as appropriate, a revision in, or a proposal to amend § 1724.74, List of Electric Program Standard Contract Forms. The amendment may change the existing identification of a listed contract form; for example, changing the issuance date of a listed contract form or by identifying a new required contract form. The notice of rulemaking will describe the new standard contract form or the substantive change in the listed contract form, as the case may be, and the issues involved. The standard contract form or relevant portions thereof may be appended to the supplementary information section of the notice of rulemaking. As appropriate, the notice of rulemaking shall provide an opportunity for interested persons to provide comments. A copy of each such Federal Register document shall be sent by regular or electronic mail to all borrowers.

[63 FR 58285, Oct. 30, 1998]