alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 9

- 2 0 6 2 9 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,
P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.
X A V I E R O M A R M A R T I N E Z L A Y T O N , a l s o k n o w n a s O m a r X a v i e r M a r t i n e z , a l s o k n o w n a s X a v i e r O

. M a r t i n e z , a l s o k n o w n a s X a v i e r O m a r M a r t i n e z
- L a y t o n , a l s o k n o w n a s X a v i e r O m a r M a r t i n e z ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o

. 4 : 0 9

- C R

- 2 0 3

- 1

B e f o r e J O L L Y , S T E W A R T , a n d O W E N , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. P E R C U R I A M : *

T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t X a v i e r O m a r M a r t i n e z L a y t o n h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v

. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. M a r t i n e z L a y t o n h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f , a n d
M a r t i n e z L a y t o n ’ s r e s p o n s e d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 22 , 20 10
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-20629 Document: 00511150278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010N o

. 0 9

- 2 0 6 2 9

A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 09-20629 Document: 00511150278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
(Reap. Dec. 10410)

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 753.

(Decided December 27, 1962)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (Allerton JeO. Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Ouilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(James F. O’Sara,*trial attorney), *for the*defendant.

RichardsoN, Judge:

The merchandise which is the subject of this reappraisement appeal consists of birch veneer that was exported from Canada and entered at Cincinnati, Ohio. The appeal was submitted for decision upon a stipulation as follows:

> Mb. Tompkins : * * * X offer to stipulate that the merchandise before the court consists of birch veneer exported from Canada on or about February 14, 1960, and that at the time of exportation the export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, was the invoiced price, net packed, less 31.35 percent.

Also, I offer to stipulate that the merchandise is not on the final list, T.D. 54521.

> Mb. O’Haba: I have discussed the matter with Deputy Appraiser Jedlicka and with his concurrence we so stipulate.

On the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in 19 U.S.C.A., section 1401a(b) (section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956), is the proper basis for the determination of the value of said merchandise and that said value is represented by the invoice price, net packed, less 31.35 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REX CHAPPELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1183 LKK DAD P

vs.

C.K. PLILER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 21, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Defendants

requested and were granted an extension of time to January 23, 2007, to file objections. On

January 23, 2007, defendants filed a notice that, after further consideration of the matter, they

will not file objections to the findings and recommendations. Neither party has filed objections

to the findings and recommendations.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB Document 23 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 21, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendants’ April 3, 2006 motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

is denied; and

3. Defendants are directed to file an answer to plaintiff’s complaint within the

time provided by Rule 12(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED: January 26, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB Document 23 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 2
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

994 CA 16-00178
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MICHELE MOORE-HAARR, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DOING BUSINESS AS PROPEL TECHNOLOGY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Z-AXIS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND MICHAEL ALLEN, DEFENDANT.

BARCLAY DAMON LLP, ROCHESTER (SCOTT P. ROGOFF OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GALLO & IACOVANGELO, LLP, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH B. RIZZO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered August 17, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of the motion of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant Z-AXIS, Inc. and granted that part of the cross motion of plaintiff seeking to compel responses to her notice to admit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the cross motion is denied in its entirety, the motion is granted in its entirety, and the complaint against defendant Z-AXIS, Inc. is dismissed.

Memorandum: In this action for breach of contract, plaintiff seeks to recover sales commissions totaling over $89,000 from Z-AXIS, Inc. (defendant). The sales for which plaintiff seeks the commissions were made by defendant, and the goods were shipped to and paid for by defendant’s customers, after defendant terminated its relationship with plaintiff. According to plaintiff, however, she earned the commissions before her termination, because they were brought about by sales quotes or solicitations prepared before such termination. Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment only in part, dismissing the complaint against defendant Michael Allen, and we agree with defendants that the court should have granted their motion in its entirety. An at-will sales representative, agent, or employee is not entitled to posttermination commissions absent an agreement expressly providing for such commissions ( see Devany v Brockway Dev., LLC , 72 AD3d 1008, 1009; Gordon v Wilson , 68 AD3d 1058, 1060; UWC, Inc. v Eagle Indus. , 213 AD2d 1009, 1011, lv denied 85 NY2d 812). On their motion, defendants established as a matter of law that there was-2- 994 CA 16-00178

no such express agreement between the parties and indeed that the subject of posttermination commissions was never discussed during the parties’ relationship, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact in opposition to the motion ( see Devany , 72 AD3d at 1009; UWC, Inc. , 213 AD2d at 1011). Moreover, the record establishes that, during the course of dealing between the parties, at no time was plaintiff paid a sales commission prior to defendant’s shipment of the goods to its customer and receipt of that customer’s payment for such goods ( see Linder v Innovative Commercial Sys. LLC , 127 AD3d 670, 670). Thus, there is no support in the record for plaintiff’s claim that she earned the commissions in question before her termination.

Entered: November 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 SACRAMENTO DIVISION

RONALD DWANE BROOK,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM L. CAREY, WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV-S-04-1254 EJG GGH P

ORDER

Defendants Traqunia, McIntyre, Cheung, Carey and Cervantes’ nunc pro tunc

application for an extension of time to file their responses to plaintiff’s second request for

production of documents was considered by this court, and, although defendants failed to

respond timely, the court finds that the error was inadvertent. Nevertheless, defendants’ error

should not devolve solely to the prejudice of plaintiff; therefore, the court finds that all

objections, with the exception of those based on attorney-client privilege or related to

institutional security, are waived.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Defendants’ November 18, 2005 application for an extension of time nunc pro tunc

to respond to plaintiff’s second request for production of documents is granted, but, with the

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 60 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

exception of those based on the attorney-client privilege and on institutional security concerns,

all objections are waived; and

2. Defendants must serve their responses and production to these requests within ten

(10) days.

DATED: 11/30/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

broo1254.po2

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 60 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4302 

To provide that individuals convicted of certain crimes relating to institutions 

of higher education are ineligible for Federal student financial assistance 

under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2024 

Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mr. RISCH, Mr. CRAPO, Ms. ERNST, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. RICKETTS, Mr. DAINES, Mr. HAWLEY, and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To provide that individuals convicted of certain crimes relating to institutions of higher education are ineligible for 

Federal student financial assistance under title IV of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, 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 ‘‘No Higher education 

5 Assistance for Mobs of Antisemitic and terrorist Sympa6 thizing Students Act’’ or the ‘‘No HAMAS Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4302 IS

1 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL AS2 SISTANCE UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION 

3 ACT OF 1965. 

4 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 484 of the Higher Edu5 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091) is amended by add6 ing at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(u) INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF TRESPASSING OR

8 DAMAGING INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An individual described in 

10 paragraph (2) shall not be eligible to receive any 

11 grant, loan, or work assistance under this title. 

12 ‘‘(2) AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS.—An individual 

13 described in this paragraph is an individual who is 

14 convicted of any offense under any Federal or State 

15 law— 

16 ‘‘(A) based on conduct occurring at and 

17 during the course of a protest that occurs at an 

18 institution of higher education; and 

19 ‘‘(B) involving— 

20 ‘‘(i) unlawful assembly, rioting, or 

21 trespassing on the campus (as such term is 

22 defined in section 485(f)(6)) of an institu23 tion of higher education; or 

24 ‘‘(ii) damaging property of an institu25 tion of higher education.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4302 IS

1 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub2 section (a) shall take effect on the date of enactment of 

3 this Act and apply with respect to any grant, loan, or work 

4 assistance provided under title IV of the Higher Education 

5 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) on or after July 

6 1, 2025. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**K-tel International, Inc.**

**2002 Form 10-K**

**Exhibit 21**

SUBSIDIARIES OF THEREGISTRANT

 

Subsidiaries of the Companyand the jurisdiction in which each company was incorporated are listed below.Unless otherwise indicated, all of the voting securities of each subsidiary areowned by K-tel International, Inc. or one of its subsidiaries.

 

K-telInternational (USA), Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

DominionEntertainment, Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

K-telIreland Limited

Dublin,Ireland (an Ireland Corporation)

 

K-telEntertainment (CAN) Inc.(formerly ERA International, Ltd.)

Winnipeg,Manitoba (a Canada corporation)

 

K-telMarketing Limited

London,England (an England corporation)

 

K-telEntertainment (U.K.) Ltd.

London,England (an England corporation)

 

K-telLicensing (UK) Ltd. (formerly K-tel International (U.K.) Ltd.)

London,England (an England corporation)

 

K-tel(Australia) Pty. Limited

Southport,Queensland, Australia (an Australian corporation)

 

SeminarsDirect, Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

K-telConsumer Products, Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

K-telDirect, Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

K-telTV, Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

K-telVideo, Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

K-telDVD, Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

K-telOnline, Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

K-telEntertainment, Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

K-telServices, Inc.

Minneapolis,Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

 

DominionVertriebsGmbH

Frankfurt,Germany (a German corporation)

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4351 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.4351

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty four

                                 An Act

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize certain poison 
                            control programs.

    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 ``Poison Control Centers 
Reauthorization Act of 2024''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF POISON CONTROL PROGRAMS.
    (a) National Toll-Free Number and Other Communication 
Capabilities.--Section 1271(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 300d-71(c)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 2020 through 
2024'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2025 through 2029''.
    (b) Promoting Poison Control Center Utilization.--Section 1272(c) 
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-72(c)) is amended by 
striking ``fiscal years 2020 through 2024'' and inserting ``fiscal 
years 2025 through 2029''.
    (c) Poison Control Center Grant Program.--Section 1273(g) of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-73(g)) is amended by striking 
``fiscal years 2020 through 2024'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2025 
through 2029''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00642-CR

Naquan Tyreek Boyd, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 62071, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of

deadly conduct. Appellant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and,

according to the trial court’s judgment, agreed to the terms of a plea bargain and pled guilty to the

lesser-included charge of deadly conduct. Appellant filed his notice of appeal in the trial court on

about September 26, 2008. The trial court has certified that the cause was a plea-bargain case and

that appellant has no right of appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 19, 2008

Do Not Publish
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           EXHIBIT 12


                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
                      COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
          COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                             (dollars in thousands)


                                         FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 24, 1999
                                         ---------------------------------------------
                                         MERRILL LYNCH                  MERRILL LYNCH
                                           PREFERRED                      PREFERRED
                                         CAPITAL TRUST V               FUNDING V, L.P.
                                         ---------------               ---------------
<S>                                        <C>                          <C>
Earnings                                    $ 15,949                     $ 18,698
                                            ========                     ========



Fixed charges                               $   -                        $   -

Preferred securities distribution
  requirements                                15,470                       15,949
                                            --------                     --------

Total combined fixed charges and
  preferred securities distributions        $ 15,470                     $ 15,949
                                            ========                     ========

Ratio of earnings to combined
  fixed charges and preferred
  securities distributions                      1.03                         1.17






                                         FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 24, 1999
                                         --------------------------------------------
                                          MERRILL LYNCH                MERRILL LYNCH
                                            PREFERRED                    PREFERRED
                                         CAPITAL TRUST V              FUNDING V, L.P.
                                         ----------------             ---------------

Earnings                                    $ 47,846                     $ 56,087
                                            ========                     ========



Fixed charges                               $   -                        $   -

Preferred securities distribution
  requirements                                46,410                       47,846
                                            --------                     --------

Total combined fixed charges and
  preferred securities distributions        $ 46,410                     $ 47,846
                                            ========                     ========

Ratio of earnings to combined
  fixed charges and preferred
  securities distributions                      1.03                         1.17

</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

September 7, 1950

No. 54638.

#### Arnhold Export & Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 125556-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/4/2023 1

Right to Vote Absentee 

Cunningham v. Leigh 

(W. Allen Pepper, Jr., N.D. Miss. 1:10-cv-49) 

A federal complaint, which was filed four days before a meeting of 

voters to select trustees for a school district, sought an injunction 

requiring absentee ballots for the meeting. After a telephonic hearing two days after the complaint was filed, the district judge determined that voters do not have a fundamental right to absentee ballots, the plaintiffs had shown no discriminatory intent, and the 

plaintiffs’ evidence of discriminatory impact was weak, so the judge 

denied immediate relief. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topic: Absentee ballots. 

On Tuesday, March 2, 2010, three voters filed a federal complaint in the 

Northern District of Mississippi’s Eastern Division seeking an injunction requiring absentee ballots for a March 6 meeting of voters to select trustees for 

Aberdeen’s school district.1 On March 3, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a 

preliminary injunction.2

After a fifty-minute telephonic hearing on March 4,3 Judge W. Allen 

Pepper, Jr., denied the plaintiffs injunctive relief.4

 He determined that voters 

do not have a fundamental right to absentee ballots, the plaintiffs had shown 

no discriminatory intent, and the plaintiffs’ evidence of discriminatory impact was weak.5

1. Complaint, Cunningham v. Leigh, No. 1:10-cv-49 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 2, 2010), D.E. 1. 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Mar. 3, 2010), D.E. 4; see Amended PreliminaryInjunction Motion, id. (Mar. 4, 2010), D.E. 5. 

3. Minutes, id. (Mar. 4, 2010), D.E. 7. 

4. Order, id. (Mar. 5, 2010), D.E. 8. 

Judge Pepper died on January 24, 2012. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of 

Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

5. Order, supra note 4.