alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 40248.

#### Protests 964242-G, etc., of American Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

R.C. THOMAS a/k/a ROBERT THOMAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3545

[January 31, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 92-17415-CF-10A and 98-6260-CF-10A.

R.C. Thomas, Lake City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### J. E. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants in Error.

*Excise lam*— *indictment for a violation of it*— when *the offense is sufficiently charged in the indictment.*

Writ of Error to the Court of Session of Wyoming county.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of violating the excise law, and sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars, to stand committed until it was paid, not to exceed however one day for each dollar of said fine.

The plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted tor selling strong and spirituous liquors and wines by retail to be drank on the premises, in quantities less than five gallons, without having a license therefor as an inn, tavern or hotel keeper.

*53Evidence was given upon the trial “ tending to show that on or about the 3d of May, 1881, at the town of Attica, in the county of Wyoming, the defendant sold strong and intoxicating liquors, in quantities less than five gallons, *to be drank*on his premises, in Attica aforesaid, and that the same were so drank on his premises.”

It was admitted that he had a license to sell strong and spirituous liquors in quantities less than five gallons, *not*to be drank upon the premises, known as a storekeeper’s license.

A motion was then made to quash the indictment, because it did not state facts constituting a cr.ime, and because it did not state the exception provided for by the law of 1869, authorizing the sale of ale and beer to be drank upon the premises of a person licensed under that statute.

The court at General Term said: “ Undoubtedly the act of 1869 (ch. 856), is to be read with and construed with the excise law of 1857. (Ch. 628.) *(People*v. Smith, 69 N. Y., 176; *O'Rourke*v. *The*People, 3 Hun. 225.) But the omission to refer to the act of 1869, in the fourth count of the indictment, was not an error which should lead us to hold the indictment invalid.

If the plaintiff in error could bring himself within the provisions of the act of 1869, he should do so by proof. *(Fleming*v. *The People,*27 N. Y., 329.)

Sufficient evidence was given, we must assume, to warrant the verdict of the jury, and as the case contains no evidence of any valid defense, we should sustain the verdict.

*E. M. Bartlett,*for the plaintiff in error.

*I Samuel*Johnson, district-attorney, for the people.

Opinion by

Hardin, J.;

Smith, P. J., and Haight, J., concurred.

Conviction and judgment affirmed, and case remitted to the Court of Sessions of Wyoming county, with directions to proceed thereon.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

In the document appearing on page 10640, FR Doc E7-4255, Procurement List Additions and Deletions, in the issue of Friday, March 9, 2007, in the second column, the Committee published addition of a product NSN: 8950-01-E61-0103—Cayenne Pepper. This notice corrects that addition of the product to read as follows NSN: 8950-01-E61-0103—Spice Blend Canadian Style for Beef. The other additions announced in the Notice remain the same. The effective date of April 8, 2007 remains the same. 

Sheryl D. Kennerly, 

Director Information Management.

[FR Doc. E7-5420 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

August 16, 2024

SC-2024-0399

Ex parte Darryl Jevon Joyce PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Darryl Jevon Joyce v. 

State of Alabama) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CC-96-1980.61; Criminal 

Appeals: CR-2023-0827).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on August 16, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Cook, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, 

Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8225 

To require income from the first year of an apprenticeship to be disregarded 

in determining eligibility for assistance under the program of block grants 

to States for temporary assistance for needy families. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Ms. DELBENE (for herself and Ms. SA ́NCHEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require income from the first year of an apprenticeship 

to be disregarded in determining eligibility for assistance 

under the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families. 

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 ‘‘Apprenticeship Oppor5 tunity Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8225 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO DISREGARD INCOME FROM 

2 FIRST YEAR OF AN APPRENTICESHIP IN DE3 TERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE 

4 UNDER THE TANF PROGRAM. 

5 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Section 408(a) of the Social Se6 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at 

7 the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(13) REQUIREMENT TO DISREGARD INCOME

9 FROM 1ST YEAR OF AN APPRENTICESHIP IN DETER10 MINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE.—A State to 

11 which a grant is made under section 403 shall dis12 regard all income received on account of the 1st year 

13 of an apprenticeship registered under the Act of Au14 gust 16, 1937 (commonly known as the ‘National 

15 Apprenticeship Act’; 50 Stat. 664, chapter 663; 29 

16 U.S.C. 50 et seq.), in determining the eligibility of 

17 the recipient for assistance under the State program 

18 funded under this part.’’. 

19 (b) PENALTY FOR VIOLATION.—Section 409(a) of 

20 such Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended by adding at the 

21 end the following: 

22 ‘‘(17) PENALTY FOR NOT DISREGARDING IN23 COME FROM 1ST YEAR OF AN APPRENTICESHIP IN

24 DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE.—If 

25 the Secretary determines that a State to which a 

26 grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year has 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8225 IH

1 violated section 408(a)(13) during the fiscal year, 

2 the Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the 

3 State under section 403(a)(1) for the immediately 

4 succeeding fiscal year by an amount equal to 1 per5 cent of the State family assistance grant.’’. 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st Fed8 eral fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment 

9 of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Concetta Frato, Appellant, v Roadway Express, Inc., et al., Appellants, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendant. Helen Zakinthinos, Appellant, v Roadway Express, Inc., et al., Appellants, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[633 NYS2d 480]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered September 1, 1994, which granted the motion of defendant General Motors Acceptance Corporation ("GMAC”) for summary judgment dismissing the complaints and cross-claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*188Under New York’s choice of law rules, the IAS Court correctly determined that New Jersey law is applicable to these personal injury actions by New Jersey domiciliaries and bars all claims against GMAC *(see, Schultz v Boy Scouts,*65 NY2d 189; *Haggerty v Cedeno,*279 NJ Super 607, 609, 653 A2d 1166, 1167-1168, *cert denied*141 NJ 98, 660 A2d 1197). New York’s and New Jersey’s conflicting rules relate to allocating losses that result from admittedly tortious conduct. Accordingly, New York has only a minimal interest in determining the extent of the remedy in these actions by foreign domiciliaries. Although plaintiffs have presented compelling evidence that GMAC is a New York domiciliary, it is clear that New Jersey has the most significant relationship with this case since GMAC leased, registered and insured the car in that State. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Asch, JJ.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20914

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL BLANCO-BELLO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-224-2

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Blanco-Bello

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Blanco-Bello has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~ ~ourt**  

# of**~peaI~** 

# fortbe jf

# eberaI**~irtuit**

CENCAST SERVICES, L.P., CENEX SERVICES, L.P., DISC ACQUISITION CORP., DISC MANAGEMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC., DISC TALENT GROUP, INC., EP MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., EP PRODUCTION SERVICES, L.P., EP TALENT SERVICES, L.P., PIXPAY

SERVICES, L.P., AND 

### SCREENPAY, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,



### v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

2012-5142, -5143, -5144, -5145, -5146, -5147, -5148, -5149, -5150, -5151
Appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims in consolidated case nos. 02-CV-1916, 02-CV-1917, 02-CV-1918, 02-CV-1919, 02-CV-1920, 02-CV-1921, 02- CV-1922, 02-CV-1923, 02-CV-1924, and 02-CV-1925, Judge George W. Miller.



### ON MOTION

Before SCHALL, 

### CircuitJudge. Case: 12-5142 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 11/02/2012CENCAST SERVICES v. US 

### ORDER 2

The Alliance ofMotion Picture and Television Producers, Studio Transportation Drivers, Local Union No. 399 of the International Brotherhood ofTeamsters, and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Moving Picture Technicians, Artists andAllied Crafts ofthe United States, Its Territories and Canada, AFL-CIO, CLC move for leave to file briefs amicus curiae in support ofCencast Services, L.P., et al. The United States moves to file an extended brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions for leave to file briefs amicus curiae are granted. (2) The United States' motion to file an extended briefis denied. (3) The United States' response briefis due within 40 days ofthe date ofthis order. FORTHE COURT

/s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s26 Case: 12-5142 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 11/02/2012
J

- S74014

- 14

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

– SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

HECTOR AYALA,

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3547 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 3, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0013066

- 2008

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DONOHUE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JANUARY 20, 2015

The PCRA judge and this Court’s Majority have concluded that the

bolstering testimony (I believe M.R. was raped and do no t believe her

recantation) from the sex crimes police officer, the school counselor, a DHS

social worker, and her boyfriend’s mother did not prejudice Appellant. As

the Majority points out (Majority Memorandum at 9), an ineffective

assistance of counsel c laim fails unless a petitioner proves all three

requirements: (1) the underlying legal issue has arguable merit, (2)

counsel’s actions lacked an objective reasonable basis, and (3) prejudice.

Because the Majority has found the Appellant has failed to pro ve

prejudice, it need not address the other two prongs.

This Concurring Memorandum is written merely to observe that the

bolstering here was egregious and should have been objected to.
Before the First Division,

March 16, 1950

No. 54121.

#### Fries Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 137640-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of eucalyptus oil the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *United States*v. *Fries Bros., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 36, C. A. D. 416), the claim at 15 percent under paragraph 58 was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED




PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of U.S. Rare Earths, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, F. Scott Chrimes, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates and periods covered by the Report.




This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.




/s/ F. Scott Chrimes


F. Scott Chrimes


Chief Financial Officer





March 6, 2015
Before the Third Division,

March 2, 1944

No. 49247.

#### Protests 30826-K, etc., of Henry Kaltman (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The sole question is whether or not the kegs or small barrels in the shipments were airtight or watertight containers. At the trial the importer testified that he had been importing Dalmatian sour cherries for about 20 years, and his contracts for the shipments in the case at bar were admitted in evidence. He further testified that the cherries were packed in. kegs like those used in *Kirsch*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 254, C. D. 616), but counsel for the Government objected to the incorporation of the record in that case, which objection was sustained. However, the barrel which was exhibit 1 in said *Kirsch*case was received in evidence as exhibit 3 in the instant case. The defendant called several witnesses and various exhibits were received in evidence. It appeared from the uncontradicted evidence produced by the defendant that the types of barrels represented by exhibit 3 were airtight and watertight at the time of construction. There was no evidence produced in the case at bar tending to show that the kegs herein were not in an-airtight or watertight condition at the time of shipment or at the time that the cherries were packed. T. D. 44253 and *Moscahlades*v. *United States*(T. D. 49417) cited but not followed. From the record presented it appeared that the cherries in question were packed in airtight or watertight containers. *Kirsch*v. *United States, supra,*not followed,. as that decision rested on the statements of the witnesses to the effect that the barrels were leaking at the time of importation and upon an ocular examination of the sample by the court. On the record presented- the protests" were overruled.
#### Jean W. Peek, Respondent, v Williamsville Board of Education, Also Known as Williamsville School Board, et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[635 NYS2d 547]

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Empire Ins. Co. v Food City,*167 AD2d 983, 984). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Reargument.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
No. 64230.

protest 58/16720 (New York).

#### Iceland Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *481
      *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 10.49


November 11, 2000

                              Employment Agreement

Employment  agreement as agreed upon between the parties Wade B. Cook, president
of Wade Cook Financial Corp and Cynthia C. Britten CPA.

The job of Chief Financial Officer of Wade Cook Financial  Corporation  includes
the following compensation factors:

     (1)  The first year Base Salary of $115,000 a year until November 11, 2001.
          A $10,000 dollar increase will occur for the next 4 years as follows:

                           November 11, 2001 $125,000
                           November 11, 2002 $135,000
                           November 11, 2003 $145,000
                           November 11, 2004 $155,000

     (2)  The SEC bonuses of $2,500 a quarter  will  continue  if timely  filing
          occur.

     (3)  Workweek is Monday thru Thursday.  Friday's Cynthia C. Britten will be
          available by phone.

     (4)  Either party may terminate this  Agreement.  WCFC will give Cynthia C.
          Britten 30 days advance notice of termination. Cynthia C. Britten will
          give WCFC 30 days advance notice of resignation. If both parties agree
          that Cynthia C. Britten will cease to work for WCFC, then the required
          notice  period  is 60  days.  Regardless  of what  notice  is given or
          whether  Cynthia C. Britten  actually works for WCFC during the notice
          period,  Cynthia C. Britten will receive her salary set forth above in
          (1).

     (5)  The above (4) provision does not apply if a change in upper management
          occurs,  including the retirement of Wade B. Cook or implementation of
          new managers,  Cynthia C. Britten is granted the ability to reduce the
          notice of termination to 2 weeks.

     (6)  The proprietary  information agreement singed by Cynthia C. Britten in
          July  of  1997  is  replaced  by  the  attached  and  signed   current
          proprietary agreement dated November 2000.



         _ /s/ Wade B. Cook______                  __/s/ Cynthia C. Britten___
          Wade B. Cook   [Dated 1-17-01]             Cynthia C. Britten
Before the Third Division,

December 6, 1960

No. 64945.

#### R. C. Williams & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 946808-G (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
OFFICE OF THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL OF ?EXAG 

AUSTIN 

‘. ‘:’ 

aahLm~~~ 

-o- - 

:.; 

i Donorable Gco. U. Sheppard 

Co~ptrollcr Of mbl.iO.A~oouuts 

dustin, Tasaa 

of' such fees rezaining on hrtnrl at the end ::; ;,.,.:'< 

of thif fkscal year, are hereby appropriated for the purpose of supervising employment BgOnOieS*~ 
Section 4 ol Ilcuse Xl1 264, 43th Legislature, I 

ail-'lots: 

;'thi Septcdx9 I, 1943, 3Sl. maneys rcxxdninz in such. special fun2 (I?zploym?nt &enog 

37X22) al3.i all JXueys tiicrcaPtcr PCCciVCd by 

the Corxissicner from liccnsa Pees under this 

Act shall bo 'paid into ml beeGEm a 3art of ..'.. 

the General Wvenuc Z'uud." 

In our opinion X0. C-3126, we callor attention 

to the legislative >ractioe, n_npmring in previous appropriation bills, to measure tho Labor Cozxl.ssionerts authority.to draw ag+inst certain appro$riati.ons fro= the General 

Fund by the yardstick of t&o at;ount of fees he do;josited to 

the or&it of- that J&md. ,~ The provisionsof the cumcnt itp3ropriation evi.de~m3 a continuance 0P that praotice.~ 

Your attention is directed specifically to the 

quote;2 rider. This rider appropristos, f’or e~cla fiscal 

year, from the~Genera1 Pun0 fan ex.ouut equivalent to the 

amount,oP license foca~colleotod and depcsited to the ored& 

it cr the tlentfral Fund undeti the provisions of' House 3111. 

234 durini the fisoirl year, plus an amunt equivalent to 

that amount ubich would remin afim deducting at the and 

of the precediug fiscal year all~oxpenditures from the 

Gcnoral Fun2 for supervising emplcyzcnt agencies from the 

.total.foos deposited to the oredit Gf the Cteneral Fund. 

This appropriation is War the purpose af aupemisfns euployizent agencies.* It is not, as are the item listed 

above it, limited to an amount equivalent to part of the 

foes, but apprGl;riatea an avimmt equivalent to all the 

Pow. Yet the iteam ezbracc every expenditure that might 

be ninde *for the puPpose of supe~isin~ employment agen- 

.c.ies ." Z&ore. is, then, a conflict betiioen the rider and 

the itetizations which cnmot be rccnricilckl. In such case, 

the rider, being last in point oF position,-rust be rcgarded as the lzst expressian OP the legislative will, and 

sugerseclcs tho itWzation esoopt in the Toll0v-J.n~ rospcctr 

Items 16 md 17 control arxl Pis the naximm salaries which 

cau bo.prrLd fron the appropriation pmvidod in the rider to 

tha Supervisor and AssSntant +%qcrv%sor. (me Senate3 Bill 

~333, Acts 43th Ee~ialaturo), 

.~ 

; . 

. 
Trusting that the for~oin:: sotb3faotorily 

. ..'., anslpers your question, we are‘ 

Very truly your8 

-. 

: : : . . 

_. :.:: . 

,.". i., :