alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DELOISE PRICE, | 

 | 

 PLAINTIFF | 

 | 

VS. | CASE NO. 2:06-CV-721-MHT 

 | 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., | 

et al., | 

 | 

 DEFENDANTS | 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

 COMES NOW Bethany L. Bolger of the law firm Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & 

Garrett, P.A., and hereby gives the Court and parties notice of her appearance as 

additional counsel on behalf of Extreme Performance, Inc. and Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

 /s/ Bethany L. Bolger__________________ 

 Dennis R. Bailey 

 Bethany L. Bolger 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

Of counsel: 

RUSHTON, STAKELY, JOHNSTON & GARRETT, P.A. 

184 Commerce Street 

Post Office Box 270 

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0270 

(334) 206-3234 (phone) 

(334) 481-0031 (fax) 

drb@rsjg.com (Bailey e-mail) 

bbolger@rsjg.com (Bolger e-mail) 

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 21 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have filed the foregoing pleading through the ECMF 

system on this the 27th day of February, 2007, which will forward same to: 

 Jock M. Smith

 Brian P. Strength 

 Valerie Rucker Russell 

 Cochran, Cherry, Givens, Smith, Lane & Taylor 

 Post Office Box 830419 

 Tuskegee, Alabama 36083 

 

 /s/ Bethany L. Bolger______________ 

 Of counsel 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 21 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### Erasmo A. Marsh, Respondent, v Paul D. Hasbrouck, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted June 18, 2007;

decided September 4, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3164 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3164

  To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to extend trade benefits to certain 
                 tents imported into the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to extend trade benefits to certain 
                 tents imported into the United States.

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

SECTION 1. DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN TENTS.

    (a) Articles Not Designated as Sensitive.--Section 503(b) (19 
U.S.C. 2463(b)) of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``and, with respect 
        to countries designated under section 503(a)(1)(B), paragraph 
        (5),'' after ``paragraph (4)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Certain tents.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(A), the 
        President may designate as an eligible article or articles 
        under subsection (a) certain tents with a sewn in floor and 
        base size less than 6.096 meters by 6.096 meters classifiable 
        under subheading 6306.22.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
        of the United States.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any article entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date on which the President makes a 
designation with respect to the article under section 503(b)(5) of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as added by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### Carl CLAXTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. Larry YARBROUGH; Roger Strimpel, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-40228

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 5, 2007.

Steven E. Clark, The Clark Firm, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Charles Phillips, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Carl Claxton appeals from an adverse summary judgment dismissing his claim for breach of fiduciary duty and shareholder oppression. Appellees Larry Yarbrough and Roger Strimpel insist that the district court which adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation correctly dismissed Claxton’s claims based on res judicata. We agree.

Claxton had previously brought suit against Transcontinental Management *&*Marketing Group, Inc. (“TMMG”), a Texas corporation in which the parties to the case sub judice were 1/3 shareholders of the stock of TMMG. TMMG filed a counterclaim based on a promissory note signed by Claxton. Shortly before trial in state court, Claxton non-suited his untimely asserted claim for minority oppression. He did not non-suit his lawsuit, only his claim for minority oppression. The state court proceeding resulted in a judgment against Claxton as to his claims and in favor of TMMG on its promissory note claim against Claxton. The claims docketed in the state court lawsuit and the action sub judice are based on the same nucleus of operative facts and could have been litigated in the first state lawsuit and there is clearly privity between the appellees herein and the defendant in the state suit, *865TMMG, which was solely owned by the parties to this action.

We have reviewed the briefs and record and having considered the arguments and authorities cited therein, we see no reason to write further inasmuch as the magistrate’s report carefully and correctly addresses the issues presented. Any additional writing would be superfluous. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the same reasons set out in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate dated December 7, 2006.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Parrish *v.*O’Neal.

May 15, 1913.

Processioning. Before Judge Thomas. Thomas superior court. April 19, 1912.

*W. G. Snodgrass, Louis Moore,*and *Boscoe Luhe,*for plaintiff in error. *Theodore Titus,*contra.

Hill, J.

On the application of J. B. O’Neal to have the lines adjoining his entire tract of land (describing it) surveyed and marked anew, the processioners, with the county surveyor, traced and marked certain lines and made their return. Attached to the return was a plat alleged by them to have been made by the county surveyor, and duly certified by the latter, and which plat and certificate the report alleged “correctly represents said tract as marked o,ut by said processioners and said surveyor.” On the plat were written the words “Mrs. O’Neal.” The certificate of the surveyor accompanying the plat was as follows: “I hereby certify that this plat correctly shows the lines marked anew and established around the land of Mrs. Helen O’Neal by the processioners appointed by the ordinary for that purpose, surveyed by me this August -, 1910. A. J. Stanaland, County Surveyor, Thomas County, G-a.” On the trial of the case the applicant offered the return of the processioners, including the plat and certificate of the surveyor, in evidence. The protestant objected to the return as evidence and moved to dismiss it upon various grounds, among others, “that the return of the processioners does not show that the lines around the entire tract of J. B. O’Neal’s land as applied for in his application were run at all and old lines marked anew around the whole tract.” *Held,*that, the plat and certificate of the surveyor showing only that lines around the land of Mrs. Helen O’Neal were run, and not showing that any lines were run around the land of the applicant, the court erred in not sustaining the motion of protestant to rule the return out of evidence and to dismiss the case.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 1040.124 Responsibility of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The FERC has authority under section 402(b) of the DOE Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, to promulgate regulations regarding the conduct of hearings to deny or terminate Federal financial assistance. Rules for conduct of hearings will be published by the FERC and will be placed in title 18 CFR.
Exhibit 10.1


 


	
  

  	
  Law
  Offices

   

   

   

   

  Intellectual
  Property Law

  and Related Litigation

  	
  1420
  Fifth Avenue, Suite 2800

  Seattle, Washington 98101-2347

   

   

  206.682.8100
  phone

  206.224.0779 fax

  www.cojk.com

  



 


November 23,
2009


 


VIA
E-MAIL (Please confirm receipt)

E-mail: marla.park@thq.com


 


Ms. Marla
Park


Contracts
Analyst


Business
and Legal Affairs

THQ Inc.


29903
Agoura Road


Agoura
Hills, CA 91301


 


	
  Re:

  	
  (1)
  AMENDMENT LETTER to Confirm Change in Confidential First Renewal License
  Agreement for Nintendo DS and Nintendo DSi (EEA, Australia and New Zealand),
  and

  
	
   

  	
  (2)
  REVISED Confidential First Renewal License Agreement for the WiiTM Console (EEA, Australia and New Zealand) 

  Our References: NCLD-7-12269 / -12827

  



 


Dear
Marla:


 


This
Amendment Letter is in response to THQ’s advice
regarding the closing of its offices THQ Nordic and THQ International GmbH, as confirmed by
instructions received from Nintendo of Europe.


 


This
Amendment Letter confirms that the above-referenced Confidential First Renewal
License Agreement for Nintendo DS and Nintendo DSi (EEA, Australia and New
Zealand) (“DS Renewal”), having an effective date of July 20, 2008, is
amended to delete reference to THQ’s offices THQ Nordic and THQ International
GmbH, as parties to the DS Renewal. Except for this change in Licensee’s
entities, the DS Renewal remains the same. Please add a copy of this letter to
your DS Renewal agreement records.


 


Further, attached is the REVISED Confidential First Renewal License
Agreement for the WiiTM  Console (EEA, Australia and New Zealand)
(“Wii Renewal”). From the Wii  Renewal agreement sent
to THQ Inc., on September 24, 2009, THQ’s offices THQ Nordic and THQ International
GmbH have been deleted at the Introductory Paragraph and in the signature block
therein.


 


If the revised Wii Renewal agreement is now in order, please print two
originals (or more, if THQ requires more than one original) for signature
by all the THQ entities, for return to us. We


 

















 


will
then have the Wii Renewal executed by Nintendo Co., Ltd., and will thereafter return
THQ’s original(s) to you.


 


Please confirm receipt of this e-mail. Please contact
us if you have any questions, and please include our reference numbers in all
correspondence regarding these matters.


 


	
   

  	
  Very
  truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CHRISTENSEN
  O’CONNOR

  
	
   

  	
  JOHNSON
  & KINDNESSPLLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/
  Jerald E. Nagae

  
	
   

  	
  Jerald
  E. Nagae

  
	
   

  	
  Direct
  Dial (206) 695-1705

  
	
   

  	
  E-mail:
  nagae@cojk.com

  



 


JEN:hjd


 


Attachments:


Amendment
Letter for DS Renewal (EEA)

REVISED Wii Renewal (EEA)


 


2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 3:06CR208-MEF

)

JASON EDWARD COFIELD )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion to continue detention hearing (doc. # 8) filed by

the defendant, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and is hereby GRANTED and that the detention

hearing be and is hereby CONTINUED from September 6, 2006, to September 8, 2006, at

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street,

Montgomery, Alabama. 

Done this 6 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 9 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 9 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 1083

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 15, 2006.

Resolved, That the following Member be and is hereby 

elected to the following standing committees of the House of 

Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE: Ms. 

Sekula Gibbs. 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Ms. Sekula Gibbs. 

Attest:

Clerk.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

#### § 989.8 Natural condition raisins.

*Natural condition raisins* means raisins the production of which includes sun-drying or artificial dehydration but which have not been further processed to a point where they meet any of the conditions for “packed raisins”, as defined in § 989.9.

[25 FR 12813, Dec. 14, 1960, as amended at 42 FR 37201, July 20, 1977]
Editorial Note on Part 91
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear at 61 FR 51350, Oct. 2 1996.

§ 91.10 Information required in connection with an application. ( a ) An application for laboratory service shall be made in the English language and may be made orally (in person or by telephone), in writing, or by facsimile. If an application for laboratory service is made orally, written confirmation may be required by the laboratory involved.
( b ) In connection with each application for a laboratory service, information that may be necessary to perform analyses on the processed product(s) shall also be furnished. The information shall include, but is not limited to, the name of the product, name and address of the packer or plant where such product was packed, the location of the product, its lot or load number, codes or other identification marks, the number of containers, the type and size of the containers, the analytical test requested, and the size of the sample. In addition, information regarding analysis of the lot by any federal agency previous to the application and the purpose of the desired laboratory service may be requested.
Case 2:06-cv-00727-WKW-CSC Document 13 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00727-WKW-CSC Document 13 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00727-WKW-CSC Document 13 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00727-WKW-CSC Document 13 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 4 of 4
Editorial Note on Part 94
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 94 appear at 61 FR 51352, Oct. 2 1996.

§ 94.304 Fees and charges. ( a ) The fee charged for any single laboratory analysis of processed poultry products shall be obtained from the schedules of charges in paragraph (a) of § 91.37 of this subchapter.
( b ) The laboratory analyses for processed poultry products shall result in an additional fee, found in Table 7 of § 91.37 of this subchapter, for sample preparation or grinding.
( c ) The charge for any requested laboratory analysis of processed poultry products not listed shall be based on the standard hourly rate specified in § 91.37 (b) of this subchapter.
COURT OF APPEAL S OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judg es Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Baker Argued at Rich mond, Virginia

JAMES MARLON WINN, IV MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0996-98- 2 JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER MAY 18, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Robert W. Du ling, Judge Esther J. Windmueller for appellant. Eugene Murphy, Assist ant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

James Marlon Winn, IV (appellant) appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (trial court) requiring that he post $1,000 of a $1 0,000 "appeal" bond in cash. 1 Appellant is indigent. At oral argument, ap pellant conc eded the trial court's auth ority to set reasonable post-convi ction bail, including requ iring a cash "freedom" bond to secure the bail. See Code § 19.2-319. Like wise, the Common wealth conceded that the trial court could not require appe llant to post a cash appeal

*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

1 Appellant's petition for appeal of the underlying criminal conviction was denied by this Court and is currently pending before the Virginia Supreme Court.bond. See Code §§ 19.2-322.1 and 8.01 -676.1(K). 2 Thus, the sole question for appeal is whether the trial court was se tting an appeal bond or a "freedom" bond. At the April 8, 1998 hearing, to refres h the judge' s memory of what had happ ened, counsel for appellant ad vised the co urt that "[a]n appeal bond [had been] set in the amou nt of $10,000; $2,000 of which was to be ca sh." The tria l court did not question or

correct counse l's use of the term "app eal bond." Counsel for appellant also referr ed to Code § 8.01-6 76.1, whic h solely addresses appeal bonds, without co mment from the co urt. Finally, the trial court's April 8, 1998 or der provides: "A n appeal bond is set at $10,000, with surety, $1,000 of said bond to be posted in cash." 3 "A court speaks throug h its written orders." Robinson v. Commonwealth , 28 Va. App. 148, 155, 50 2 S.E.2d 704, 708 (1998). While the April 8 hearing record is somewhat ambigu ous, the trial court, perhaps unintent ionally, entered an or der expressl y setting a cash "appeal bond." Because appell ant was indige nt, this was prohibited by statute. 4 Accordingly, the tr ial court's decision

2 Code § 8.01-676.1(K) provides that "[n]o person who is an indigent shall be required to post security for an appeal bond."

3 The trial court agreed to reduce the cash portion from $2,000 to $1,000.

- 2 - 4 We do not address appellant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the trial court's ruling violated his Eighth Amendment rights. See Rule 5A:18.is reversed, and the ma tter is remanded to the trial co urt with instructions to take all necessar y steps consiste nt with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.

- 3 -
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.15 Inshell handler carryover.

*Inshell handler carryover* as of any given date means all inshell hazelnuts (except restricted hazelnuts) wherever located then held by handlers or for their accounts, whether or not sold, including certified merchantable hazelnuts and the estimated merchantable content of those uncertified hazelnuts then held by handlers which are intended for handling as inshell hazelnuts.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

ROGAL : CIVIL ACTION

 :

 :

 v. :

:

 : 

SKILSTAF, INC. : NO. 05-6073

 

ROGAL : CIVIL ACTION

 :

 :

 v. :

:

 : 

SKILSTAF, INC. : NO. 05-6074

 

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 12 day of April, 2006, in accordance with the court's th

procedure for random reassignment of cases, it is hereby

ORDERED that the above-captioned cases are reassigned from the calendar

of the Honorable Herbert J. Hutton to the calendar of the Honorable J. Curtis Joyner.

 FOR THE COURT:

 HARVEY BARTLE III 

 Chief Judge

 ATTEST:

 s / Michael E. Kunz 

 MICHAEL E. KUNZ

 Clerk of Court

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 11 Filed 04/12/2006 Page 1 of 1 Case 2:05-cv-06074-JCJ Document 11 Filed 04/12/2006 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30643

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AMOS J. CONDE, JR.,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-95-1310

- - - - - - - - - -

February 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Amos J. Conde, Jr., appeals from the district court's order

denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that he was subjected to

multiple punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause

and that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel in

violation of the Sixth Amendment. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's order and find no reversible error. See

United States v. Conde, No. 92-451 (E.D. La. June 15, 1995).

 AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

TERRY L. THOMAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CASE NO. 3:06-CV-656-WKW

v. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER 

On February 15, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 18) that the

Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Upon an independent review of the file in this case, upon

consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and there being no timely objections

filed, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 18) is ADOPTED; 

2. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to amend the docket to reflect the change in

the style of the case. 

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE this 30th day of March, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-00656-WKW-TFM Document 19 Filed 03/30/07 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 48 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROGER WRIGHT, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:06-cv-0647-WKW

 )

PEMCO WORLD AIR SERVICES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Upon filing of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 30), it is

ORDERED that the defendant respond in writing on or before November 12, 2007.

DONE this 30th day of October, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 32 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 China Fortune Acquisition Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      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; and




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




Date:
                June 27, 2008
            /s/
                Bo YuName:
            Bo
                YuTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)
Case 2:06-mj-00075-DRB Document 6 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 8 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 8 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 2