alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-1362
STEVE ALLEN HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WEAVER R EALTY COMPANY; MICHAEL R. HOLOMAN; KATHY PEELER, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-458-3-P) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 14, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steve Allen Hall, Appellant Pro Se. William Pinkney Herbert Cary, Wayne A. Logan, John R. Archambault, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY, LEONARD, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order entering judgment in favor of Appellees in this labor employment action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hall v. Weaver Realty Co. , No. CA-92-458-3-P (W.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 1995). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2239

___________ Jerrold Ryan Kemmer, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Beltrami County; Beltrami County * Appeal from the United States Sheriff's Department, a municipal * District Court for the corporation; Scott H. Hinners, * District of Minnesota. individually and in his capacity as * Investigator for the Beltrami County * [UNPUBLISHED] Sheriff's Department; Lee Anderson; * Brian Ball, individually and in his * capacity as Investigator for the * Beltrami County Sheriff's Department; * Sam Lundquist, individually and in his * capacity as Investigator for the * Beltrami County Sheriff's Department; * Danelle Haugen, individually and in * her capacity as Investigator for the * Beltrami County Sheriff's Department, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 25, 2010 Filed: March 31, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- PER CURIAM. Jerrold Kemmer appeals the district court’s 1 order granting defendants summary judgment and denying Kemmer’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) motion for a continuance in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Following careful de novo review, see Sheets v. Butera , 389 F.3d 772, 776 (8th Cir. 2004), we conclude thatthe district court properly granted summary judgment, and we also find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of Kemmer’s request for a continuance, see Rakes v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am. , 582 F.3d 886, 893 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for denial of Ru le 56(f) motion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2960

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that amounts

derived from Federal grants in connection with revolving funds established in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act will

not be treated as investment property for purposes of section 148 of

such Code.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 1, 1996

Mr. ZIMMER (for himself and Mr. BLUTE) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that amounts derived from Federal grants in connection

with revolving funds established in accordance with the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act will not be treated

as investment property for purposes of section 148 of

such Code.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2960 IH

1 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF FEDERAL GRANTS IN CONNEC2 TION WITH REVOLVING FUNDS ESTABLISHED

3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL WATER POL4 LUTION CONTROL ACT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 148 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to higher

7 yielding investments) is amended by adding at the end the

8 following new paragraph:

9 ‘‘(4) CERTAIN FEDERAL GRANTS NOT TREATED

10 AS INVESTMENT PROPERTY.—In no event shall the

11 term ‘investment property’ include any amount de12 rived from any Federal grant made in connection

13 with any revolving fund established in accordance

14 with title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control

15 Act (or any subsequent reauthorization thereof).’’

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

17 this section shall apply to obligations issued after the date

18 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
# C_2006108EN.01000701.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/7

---

Appeal brought on 1 March 2006 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA and Fedon America Inc. against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2005 in Case T-135/01 Girogio Fedon & Figli SpA, Fedon America Inc. v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union

(Case C-121/06 P)

(2006/C 108/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants:Girogio Fedon & Figli SpA, Fedon America In. (represented by: I. Van Bael, A. Cevese, F. Di Gianni and R. Antonini, Avvocati)

Appellants:Girogio Fedon & Figli SpA, Fedon America In

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005;

| — | on the basis that the state of the proceedings so permits, give a substantive ruling confirming the appellants' entitlement to compensation arising out of the defendants' liability for an unlawful act or for a lawful act; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the basis that the state of the proceedings so permits, give a substantive ruling confirming the appellants' entitlement to compensation arising out of the defendants' liability for an unlawful act or for a lawful act;

| — | in any event, order the defendants to pay the costs both of these proceedings and those before the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the defendants to pay the costs both of these proceedings and those before the Court of First Instance;

| — | in the alternative, grant the appellants fair compensation as a result of the unreasonable length of the procedure before the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, grant the appellants fair compensation as a result of the unreasonable length of the procedure before the Court of First Instance;

| — | grant such further and other relief as equity might require. |
| --- | --- |

—

grant such further and other relief as equity might require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the judgment under appeal is defective in that it fails totally to state any grounds concerning one of the principal arguments raised, namely, that in the specific factual circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to rely on the decision adopted by the Appeal Board of the World Trade Organisation to establish unlawful conduct on the part of the Community for the purposes of their claim for compensation.

---
# C_2006022EN.01001401.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/14

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2005 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-178/05) (1)

1

(Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Proposed amendment to national allocation plan - Refusal by the Commission - Action for annulment)

(2006/C 22/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially, C. Jackson, Agent, M. Hoskins, barrister, then R. Caudwell, Agent, and M. Hoskins)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and X. Lewis, Agents)

Defendant(s):

:

Application for

annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 1081 final of 12 April 2005 concerning the proposed amendment to the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the United Kingdom in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 1081 final of 12 April 2005 concerning the proposed amendment to the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 1081 final of 12 April 2005 concerning the proposed amendment to the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

| 2) | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

1

---
EXHIBIT 14


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
  Utah Medical Products, Inc.
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-89394, 333-127946 (on Form S-8), and 333-153361 (on Form S-3) of Utah Medical Products, Inc. of our audit report dated February 25, 2011, on the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting of Utah Medical Products, Inc., which report appears in this annual report on Form 10-K of Utah Medical Products, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008.
 
 
 /s/ Jones Simkins, P.C.
 
 JONES SIMKINS, P.C.
 Logan, Utah
 February 25, 2011
# C_2006043EN.01000101.xml

| 21.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 43/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 February 2006

(2006/C 43/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1932 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,11 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4628 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68480 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3635 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5617 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 75,42 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0555 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5746 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,410 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,68 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7665 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5030 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,48 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,298 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5732 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6108 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3715 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2603 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7844 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9427 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 154,72 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,1977 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6032 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3035 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 014,43 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,438 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,927 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,6150 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,958 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1932

JPY

Japanese yen

141,11

DKK

Danish krone

7,4628

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68480

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3635

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5617

ISK

Iceland króna

75,42

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0555

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5746

CZK

Czech koruna

28,410

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,68

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7665

RON

Romanian leu

3,5030

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,48

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,298

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5732

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6108

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3715

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2603

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7844

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9427

KRW

South Korean won

1 154,72

ZAR

South African rand

7,1977

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6032

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3035

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 014,43

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,438

PHP

Philippine peso

61,927

RUB

Russian rouble

33,6150

THB

Thai baht

46,958

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### § 1008.51 Exclusivity of OIG advisory opinions.

The only method for obtaining a binding advisory opinion regarding any of the subject matters set forth in § 1008.5(a) is through the procedures described in this part. No binding advisory opinion, oral or written, has or may be issued by the OIG regarding the specific matters set forth in § 1008.5(a) except through written opinions issued in accordance with this part.
# Saudi Arabia

369 items

        -    Report  		Saudi Arabia	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Saudi Arabia	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Saudi Arabia	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Saudi Arabia	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Saudi Arabia	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Saudi Arabia	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Saudi Arabia	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Saudi Arabia (17-228) – Agreement to Improve International Tax Compliance and to Implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act	  February 28, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Saudi Arabia (16-829.1) – Agreement on the Implementation of Article 83 bis of the Convention on International Civil Aviation	  August 29, 2016 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Peace and Security  		Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction – Metrics Implementation (Summary)	  February 29, 2016 

previous page1…34353637next page

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1068 Administrative Law Judge's decision. ( a ) *Timing, basis and content.* As soon as practical after the close of the hearing, the ALJ issues a written decision in the case. The decision is based on the evidence of record and contains separate numbered findings of fact and conclusions of law.
( b ) *Notice and effect.* A copy of the decision is mailed to the parties and is binding on them unless— ( 1 ) A party requests review by the Departmental Appeals Board within the time period specified in 422.846, and the Board reviews the case;
( 2 ) The Departmental Appeals Board denies the request for review and the party seeks judicial review by filing an action in a United States District Court or, in the case of a civil money penalty, in a United States Court of Appeals;
( 3 ) The decision is revised by an ALJ or the Departmental Appeals Board; or
( 4 ) The decision is a recommended decision directed to the Board.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Supporters of Iran’s Malign Agenda

# 									Designating Supporters of Iran’s Malign Agenda							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

January 22, 2024

The United States is today designating Iraqi airline Fly Baghdad and its CEO for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and Iran-aligned militia groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.  We are also identifying two Iraq-registered aircraft that Fly Baghdad owns as blocked property.  Additionally, the United States is designating three leaders and supporters of Kata’ib Hizballah, one of the IRGC-QF’s Iran-aligned militias in Iraq, and one business that facilitates and launders funds for Kata’ib Hizballah.

The IRGC-QF and Iran-aligned militia groups pose a significant threat to the Middle East region.  Kata’ib Hizballah has been responsible for a series of drone and missile attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria since Hamas’s horrific attack on Israel on October 7.

The United States remains committed to exposing and taking actions against individuals and groups that abuse their local economies and engage in illegal activities that support terrorist groups destabilizing the region.

*Both the IRGC-QF and Kata’ib Hizballah are U.S.-designated entities.  The Department of the Treasury action was taken pursuant to Executive Order 13224, as amended.  For more information on today’s action, see Treasury’s press release.*

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsCounterterrorismDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsIranOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1094 Notice and effect of revised decision. ( a ) *Notice.* The notice mailed to the parties states the basis or reason for the revised decision and informs them of their right to Departmental Appeals Board review of an ALJ revised decision, or to judicial review of a Board reviewed decision.
( b ) *Effect* — ( 1 ) *ALJ revised decision.* An ALJ revised decision is binding unless it is reviewed by the Departmental Appeals Board.
( 2 ) *Departmental Appeals Board revised decision.* A Board revised decision is binding unless a party files a civil action in a district court of the United States within the time frames specified in 423.1088.
[72 FR 68726, Dec. 5, 2007, as amended at 85 FR 72909, Nov. 16, 2020]
#### Pardue *v.*Bryant.

4-9633

244 S. W. 2d 135

Opinion delivered December 17, 1951.

*Jesse A. Pardue*and *Kincannon &*Kincannon, for appellant.

*Shaw & Spencer,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, J.

This was originally a suit in unlawful detainer brought by the appellant, but the *728case was transferred to equity and became in substance a suit to cancel a lease for non-payment of rent. The chancellor refused to cancel the lease.

On June 7, 1940, the appellant leased a small unimproved tract to R. L. Ward for a term of forty years at a rental of $10 a year. The written lease permits the lessee to make and to remove improvements. It provides that the property shall revert to the lessor if the rent is not paid when' due, but there is no provision restricting the tenant’s power to' assign his interest.

Ward took possession of the property, made improvements worth about $1,000, and paid the annual rent to and including the payment due June 7,1947. In August of that year Ward undertook to assign the lease to one of the appellees, W. T. Bryant, but the assignment was executed in Ward’s name by his wife. Bryant failed to tender the next installment of rent on June 7, 1948, because his wife’s funeral was held on that day. Not more than two days later Bryant did offer to pay the rent, but the appellant refused to accept the tender. Bryant at once mailed the appellant a money order for the rent, but she returned it. Bryant continued in possession, and in 1949 he mailed another money order for the rent due on June 7 of that year. The appellant retained this money order without cashing it, and on July 11, 1949, she filed this suit. Bryant later assigned his interest to appellee Loraine Miller, who mailed a money order for the 1950 rent. The appellant also retained this money order without cashing it.

Two principal arguments are made for reversal. First, it is said that Ward’s assignment to Bryant was void under the statute of frauds for the reason that Mrs. Ward did not have written authority to act for her husband. Ark. Stats. 1947, § 38-105. The appellant, however, was not a party to the assignment, and a third person cannot complain because a contract does not meet the requirements of the statute. Williston on Contracts, § 530; Rest., Contracts, § 218. Second, it is argued that Bryant’s 48-hour delay in tendering the 1948.rent worked a forfeiture by the terms of the lease. We have recog*729nized equity’s power to relieve against a forfeiture for nonpayment of rent, since the rent is the primary object of the parties and the forfeiture is merely an incident intended to secure its payment. *Pierce*v. *Kennedy,*205 Ark. 419, 168 S. W. 2d 1115. In the case at bar the tenants had made valuable improvements, the slight delay in tendering the rent was attributable to a good reason, the landlord permitted the tenant to remain in possession for more than a year before filing suit, subsequent tenders of rent were not returned, and the lease does not make time of the essence of the contract. In view of' all these circumstances the chancellor was fully justified in refusing to cancel the lease.

Affirmed.
# Niue

8 items

        -    		Niue	  October 2, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Daniel J. Kritenbrink, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Dr. Mira Rapp-Hooper, Special Assistant to the President and NSC Senior Director for East Asia and Oceania	  Daniel J. KritenbrinkSeptember 29, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken  At a Joint Statement Signing Ceremony with Niue Premier Dalton Tagelagi	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 25, 2023Treaty RoomWashington, DC 
        -    Media Note  		On the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Niue	  September 25, 2023 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL – Promoting Investigative Journalism and Anti-Corruption Efforts in Pacific Island Countries	  February 16, 2021 
        -    Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs  		Biological Weapons Convention – Notification of Deposit of Instruments; Niue and Central African Republic, New Zealand Niue declaration, December 23, 2019	   
        -    		U.S. Maritime Boundaries: Agreements and Treaties	   
        -    TIAS  		Niue (14-1007) – Treaty on the Delimitation of a Maritime Boundary	  October 7, 2014 

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          92,021
<SECURITIES>                                    59,477
<RECEIVABLES>                                  199,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,520
<INVENTORY>                                    945,218
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,351,354
<PP&E>                                       1,650,783
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,097,341
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,059,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          195,976
<BONDS>                                        106,221
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,768
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,697,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,059,284
<SALES>                                      1,017,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,020,915
<CGS>                                          484,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,110,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,355)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (50,405)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (50,405)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>