alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Hillsborough,

June, 1900.

#### Jellison *v.*Jellison.

Libel fob Divorce, charging habitual drunkenness. It was found that the charge was not proven, that the libelant had deserted the libelee without cause, and that justice required that an order be made that the libelant contribute to the support of liis family. Upon the libelee’s motion it was so ordered, subject to exception.

*Henry B. Atherton,*for the plaintiff.

*Doyle*& *Lueier,*for the defendant.

Peaslee, J.

The question of whether justice required the granting of the motion is not one of law. As justice required that the order be made, and the court had power to make it (P. S., *■c.*176, s. 4), it is immaterial whether the application was called a petition or a motion. The parties were already in court, the libel-ant was given an opportunity to be heard, and if a further hearing is needed it can be had upon application.

*Exception overruled.*

Young, J., did not sit: Chase, J., dissented: the others concurred.
#### CELLU-CRAFT PRODUCTS CORP., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DAVID LUBBEN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued April *14, 1952*

Decided May *14,*1952.

*363Before Judges McGeehan, Jayne and Goldmann.

Mr. *William G. Nowels*argued the cause for appellant *(Messrs. Stein •& Stein,*attorneys; *Mr. Frederick Z. Feldman,*on the brief).

*Mr. James A. Major*argued the cause for respondent *(Messrs. Major & Garlsen,*attorneys).

Peb Ctibiam.

Plaintiff brought suit on four counts, each alleging a separate cause of action on contract. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all four counts was granted. At the oral argument the plaintiff conceded that summary judgment on counts one, three and four were justified.

Count two was for money loaned on May 9, 1949, by plaintiff to the defendant. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was based on (1) accord and satisfaction and *(2)*assignment. As to the first ground of accord and satisfaction, there was a genuine issue as to material facts. In his brief and on the oral argument, the defendant relies only on the second ground.

The writing relied on as an assignment by this plaintiff of the claim set forth in count two of the complaint reads as follows:

> “KNOW ALL MEN, that the undersigned CELLOPRINT, INC., a corporation having its principal place of business at 133-23 35th Avenue, Flushing, New York, in consideration of the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar, and other good and valuable considerations paid by Marie Levy and Dorothy Gilbert, hereby assigns to said Marie Levy and Dorothy Gilbert all of its right, title, and interest in all monies *364due or that may become due or any and all contract, deeds, bonds and mortgages that may be due from David Lubben or his nominee, or from Edwin Dane, or from General Confections, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation.

> “IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said CELLOPRINT, INC., has caused its hand and seal to be affixed hereto on this 21st day of October, 1950.

> “CELLOPRINT, INC.

> By Samuel J. Leeds Sec.

> Samuel J. Leeds Sec.

> (Seal)

> “The undersigned hereby consent to the above assignment insofar as the same may affect any interest they may have.

> CELLU-CRAFT PRODUCTS CORP.,

> By Samuel J. Leeds Pres.

> Samuel J. Leeds

> (Seal)”

The defendant argues that although this plaintiff, CelluCraft Products Corp., did not join in the body of the assignment, the annexed consent was a separate assignment so far as it operated on any rights which Cellu-Craft might have. Whatever effect the annexed consent may have, it certainly does not, on its face, constitute a full assignment by this plaintiff of all its right, title and interest to the claim set up in the second count of this complaint. Nor were uncontroverted facts before the court which could support a finding that it was intended to have any such effect. The claimed assignment cannot support the summary judgment.

The summary judgment as to counts one, three and four is affirmed, and the summary judgment as to count two is reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001040257
<NAME> ZMAX CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,242,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,622,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,160
<INVENTORY>                                    308,383
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,156,978
<PP&E>                                         935,054
<DEPRECIATION>                                 336,263
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,727,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,141,642
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,117
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,519,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,727,405
<SALES>                                      7,078,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,078,731
<CGS>                                        2,764,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,764,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,339,741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (28,797)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,003,117
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,003,117
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,003,117
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 9/7/15 12:20 PM

Received: September 07, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8kzr-cwej

Comments Due: September 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule- Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-5143

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Steve Kremenski

Address: 

1154 Fairview Club Circle

Dacula, GA, 30019

Email: kremenski@bellsouth.net

Phone: 7706537146

General Comment

I have been retired for 10 years and my main source of income is my IRA. I have been able to 

enhance the income in my IRA by trading in covered calls and cash secured puts. I understand 

the risks in these transactions and my income would be negatively impacted if I was not able to 

continue in trading them. The bottom line is that I do not want the government to limit my ability 

to actively manage my retirement accounts.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 401

Congratulating the University of Connecticut Huskies for winning the 2002

National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I women’s basketball

championship.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 30, 2002

Mr. SIMMONS (for himself, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr.

LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. DELAURO, and Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

APRIL 30, 2002

Committee on Education and the Workforce discharged; considered under

suspension of the rules and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the University of Connecticut Huskies for

winning the 2002 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I women’s basketball championship.

Whereas the University of Connecticut Huskies women’s basketball team won its second National Collegiate Athletic

Association championship in 3 years by defeating the

University of Oklahoma by the score of 82–70;

Whereas the team, coached by NCAA Division I women’s

basketball Coach of the Year, Geno Auriemma, finished

the 2002 season with a perfect 39–0 record, becoming
2

•HRES 401 ATH

only the 4th NCAA Division I women’s basketball team

to finish a season undefeated;

Whereas Sue Bird was chosen as the national women’s Player

of the Year;

Whereas Swin Cash was named the Final Four Most Outstanding Player;

Whereas Sue Bird, Swin Cash, Diana Taurasi, Asjha Jones,

and Tamika Williams were selected as All-Americans;

Whereas the University of Connecticut Huskies’ 35-point average margin of victory during the regular season was

the largest average margin of victory in NCAA Division

I women’s basketball history;

Whereas the University of Connecticut Huskies dominated

this year’s championship tournament, averaging 83.3

points and a 27-point margin of victory en route to the

championship;

Whereas the high caliber of the University of Connecticut

Huskies in both athletics and academics has significantly

advanced the sport of women’s basketball and provided

inspiration for future generations of young men and

women alike; and

Whereas the University of Connecticut Huskies’ championship season has rallied Connecticut residents of all ages

behind a common purpose and triggered a wave of euphoria across the State: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives com2 mends the University of Connecticut Huskies women’s

3 basketball team for winning the 2002 National Collegiate

4 Athletic Association Division I women’s basketball cham-
3

•HRES 401 ATH

1 pionship and for completing the 2001–2002 season with

2 a 39–0 record.

Æ
Feb. 20: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
 By CJTF - Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
  February 20, 2015 Release # 20150220FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **SOUTHWEST ASIA -**
 On Feb. 19, U.S. and Coalition military forces continued to attack ISIL
 terrorists in Syria, using attack, fighter, bomber and remotely piloted
 aircraft to conduct five airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and Coalition 
military forces conducted 10 airstrikes in Iraq, using attack, fighter 
and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists. All strikes took 
place between 8 a.m., Feb. 19, and 8 a.m., Feb. 20, local time. The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last press release: **Syria*** Near Al Hasakah, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL mobile oil rig. * Near Kobani, four airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL building. **Iraq*** Near Haditha, an airstrike destroyed three ISIL boats. * Near Kirkuk, an airstike struck an ISIL fighting position. *
 Near Mosul, five airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed 
three ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL armored vehicle, an ISIL building
 and an ISIL excavator. * Near Sinjar, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed three ISIL buildings. * Near Tal Afar, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, an ISIL culvert, an ISIL bunker and an ISIL fighting position. Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely. The
 strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the 
operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose
 to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The 
destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the 
terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. 
Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Iraq include the 
U.S., Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands, and the 
United Kingdom. Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in 
Syria include the U.S., Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United 
Arab Emirates.
#### Davis *v.*Hazen.

A division of a partition fence made by the fence-viewers without giving the notice required by Gen. Laws, c. 43, s. 2, is not binding upon a party who did not attend the hearing, and who has not waived want of notice, and he is not liable for any part of the fence-viewers’ fees arising from malting the division.

Appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace nonsuiting the plaintiff in a suit for one half the fees of fence-viewers. The fence-viewers, on a petition of the plaintiff to divide the partition *384fence of tbe parties, gave them ten days’ notice of the hearing. At the time appointed, the fence-viewers attended and divided the fence. The plaintiff was present at the hearing, but the defendant did not appear. Judgment was ordered for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted.

Sulloway, *Topliff O’ Connor*and *T. 0. Jfnowlton,*for the plaintiff.

*Burnham $*McAllister, for the defendant.

Allen, J.

Due notice of the hearing by the fence-viewers, required by Gen. Laws, *c.*43, *s.*2, to be fourteen days before the day appointed, was not given to the defendant. He did not appear at the hearing, and want of legal notice was not waived by him, nor cured by any act of his. The fence-viewers acquired no jurisdiction of the defendant, and their proceedings did not bind him, and furnished no foundation for the suit.

*jExceptions overruled.*

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
#### § 1.215 Relationship to previous issuances.

Although some of the guidance was organized differently within OMB circulars or other documents, much of the guidance in this subtitle existed prior to the establishment of title 2 of the CFR.
1210-AB32-2-1574.html[7/26/2015 8:19:33 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jxo-2831

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2071

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jeremiah Lukers

General Comment

Dear government, 

Please abstain from trying to run another facet my life-retirement. Thank you for the concern, but I can handle it

 myself.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

# Foreign Trade

Skip top of page navigation

###### You are here: Census.gov › Business & Industry ›Foreign Trade › U.S. International Trade Data

                - Main
                - About
                - Data
                - Outreach
                - AES
                - Regulations
                - Reference
                - Definitions
                - Schedule B
                - FAQs

### More DATA

                          - Trade Highlights
                          - Balance by Partner Country
                          - Country/Product Trade
                          - State/Metropolitan Data
                          - Historical Series
                          - Notices and Corrections
                          - Related Party Trade
                          - Press Releases
                          - Data Products

### Important Links

                          - Global Reach Blog
                          - Newsletters
                          - ACE AESDirect
                          Related Sites- Business and Industry
- Briefing Room
- North American Industry                Classification System (NAICS)
Economic Indicator Database
                          Textile Concordance - Monthly SubscriptionDownload a file- Click on the appropriate month below to download your file.
-  If you are having technical difficulties or need help, feel free to email us at eid.international.trade.data@census.gov or call 301-763-2311 for immediate assistance.
- Record	      layouts of the files are  available	      online .
Select Statistical Month:-    January 2020  
-    February 2020 
-    March 2020 
-    April 2020 
-    May 2020 
-    June 2020 
-    July 2020 
-    August 2020 
-    September 2020 
-    October 2020 
-    November 2020 
-    December 2020 

                          Export Training
Collection of videos to enhance export training.

Spanish Language Webinars 2020-2021 (Seminarios en Línea en Español 2020-2021)
2017 And Prior Year Webinars Archive.
Upcoming Outreach Activities
Upcoming Outreach Activities
Contact Us
				Contact the International Trade Macro Analysis Branch: Email us! or use our feedback form!

                  Call us: (301)763-2311 or 1-800-549-0595 option 4			  
CONNECT WITH US**********- Information Quality
- Data Linkage Infrastructure
- Data Protection and Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- FOIA
- Inspector General
- No FEAR Act
- U.S. Department of Commerce
- USA.gov

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
✕Is this page helpful?YesNo✕NO THANKS255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached✕Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions?  Source: U.S. Census Bureau | Foreign Trade |  ftdwebmaster@census.gov |     Last Revised:  June 17, 2022
SUPREME COURT.

#### Emanuel Consalus agt. John Brotherson.

The usual expense of printing cases may be taxed by the prevailing party, without regard to the price *actually*paid.

*Third Department, General Term, November,*1872.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment before the referee. The defendant made a case and appealed to the general term. The case contained about 100 pages, and the defendant paid for printing one dollar a page, being the usual price for printing, including extra copies. The general term reversed the judgment and granted a new trial, with costs to abide the event. The plaintiff gave the usual stipulation, and appealed to the court of appeals, whére the order granting a new trial was affirmed, and final judgment rendered against the plaintiff for costs. The plaintiff procured the extra copies of the printed case to use in the court of appeals, and paid the defendant thirty dollars for them.

On the taxation, the defendant claimed to recover the full printing bill, without deducting or allowing the thirty dollars so refunded. The clerk allowed the whole amount on taxation. The plaintiff appealed to the special term, where the thirty dollars was stricken out. The defendant appealed from that order to the general term, where it was argued November, 1872.

*E. F. Bullard,*for plaintiff.

First. The prevailing party only recovers costs by way of indemnity. As thirty dollars of the printing was refunded *63by the plaintiff, it was not just to tax the same amount against him the second time. The only *necessary*disbursement was the balance which the defendant had paid.

*John*Brotherson,

in person, contended that he was entitled to recover the *usual price*for printing. It was immaterial to the plaintiff how cheap he obtained them, nor how much he made by selling surplus copies.

The Court

reversed the order of the special term, with ten dollars costs, and affirmed the adjustment by the clerk.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45747

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

PHILLIP LEE COOLEY

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: November 8, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony injury to a child, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lo ri A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Jud ge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Phillip Lee Cooley pled guilty to felony injury to a child . I.C. § 18

- 1501(1)

. In exchange

for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Cooley to a

unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years

. Cooley filed an

I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Cooley appeals,

ar guing that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and2 need not be repeated here

. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Cooley ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### § 601.40 Applicability.

This part prescribes procedures that apply to FTA grantees and subgrantees when the President has declared a national or regional emergency, when a State Governor has declared a state of emergency, when the Mayor of the District of Columbia has declared a state of emergency, or in anticipation of such declarations.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    This annual report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Comarco, Inc.
 Date: May 1, 2009
    
    
    
    /s/ SAMUEL M. INMAN, IIISamuel M. Inman, IIIChief Executive Officer
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 123

Amending the rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the inclusion

in any legislation of any provision which makes a decrease in Federal

income taxes contingent upon another event or circumstance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 25, 2001

Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr.

DEMINT, Mr. OTTER, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. SAM JOHNSON

of Texas, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, and Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the inclusion in any legislation of any provision

which makes a decrease in Federal income taxes contingent upon another event or circumstance.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING INCLUSION IN LEGISLATION OF

3 PROVISION PLACING TRIGGER ON INCOME

4 TAX REDUCTION.

5 Clause 5 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of

6 Representatives is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new paragraph:
2

•HRES 123 IH

1 ‘‘(d) It shall not be in order to include in any bill,

2 joint resolution, amendment, or conference report any pro3 vision which makes the taking effect of a decrease in Fed4 eral income taxes contingent upon another event or cir5 cumstance. A point of order against such a provision in

6 any such measure may be raised at any time during pend7 ency of that measure.’’.

Æ