alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered February 15 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 22 - 00592 - CR THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant V. RUBEN A. LARAALVARADO , Appellee On Appeal from the 2 91st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20 - 61117 - U O RDER The clerk’s record filed in this appeal is defective. Many of the entries i n the index of the clerk’s record do not contain the page number for the listed document

. Some of the entries that do list a page number are incorrect. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appendix C, Rule 1.1(i) requires the clerk to “prepare and include after the front cover of the clerk’s record a detailed t able of contents identifying each document in the entire record (including sealed documents ) , the date each document was filed, and, except for sealeddocuments, the page on which each document begins .” T EX . R. A PP . P. , App. C., R. 1.1(i) (emphasis added)

. Because the clerk’s recor d for this appeal does not contain a n index or table of contents that complies with the rule , we STRIKE the clerk’s record filed in this appeal, and we ORDER Fel icia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk, to file within FIFTEEN DAYS from the date of this ord er the clerk’s record for this appeal that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate P rocedure

. (The clerk’s record for the companion case, court of appeals cause no. 05

- 22

- 00593

- CR, trial court cause no. F20

- 61118

- U , appears to compl y with th e rule rega rding table of contents .)
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk , and to counsel for all parties

. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
(V. D. 46)

Entry No. 950636.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided July 25, 1957)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States,*37 Cust. Ct. 396, Abstract 60287, and it has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> *526IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above remand of protest consists of Magnifiers and Microscopes and Wooden Cases, containers for said magnifiers and microscopes, which were the subject of a judgment and decision by the First Division of this Court in the case of *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States,*Abstract 60287, on October 18, 1956, wherein it is stated “(we) remand the matter, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, U. S. C. § 2636 (d), for further proceedings before a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the imported merchandise in the manner provided for by law.”

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States was as follows:

> United States dollars per

> Merchandise each

> 5 Prism Magnifiers Ludas $103. 35

> 5 wooden containers to fit 3. 60

> 5 Polarizing Microscopes III-M IIVNE 273. 00

> 5 wooden containers to fit 18. 20

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above remand of protest may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and I hold such statutory-value for each of the articles to be as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### J. M. Lee, as Comptroller, v. Holsum-Miami Corporation, *et al.*

177 So. 724.

Division A.

Opinion Filed December 22, 1937.

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *H. E. Carter*and *W. P. Allen,*Assistant Attorneys General, and *J. Velma Keen,*for Appellant;

*Herbert U. Feibelman, Louis M. Jepeway*and *William K. Whitfield,*o? Tallahassee, for Appellees.

*Stockton, Ulmer & Murchison,*as *Amici Curiae.*

Terrell, J.—The

facts presented and the questions raised in this case are similar to those raised and urged in Lee, Comptroller, v. The Cloverleaf, Inc., *et al.,*decided this date.

In addition to restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, lunch counters, and sandwich stands, it is' contended that some of the defendants in this case were operating hotels and bars that *441were amenable to the tax brought in question. The court below found as a matter of fact that the Comptroller had announced his intention to enforce the taxing provisions of Chapter 166848, Acts of 1935, against hotels and bars a's well as restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, lunch counters, and sandwich stands.

We find nothing in Chapter 16848 that could be construed as extending its taxing provisions to hotels. Hotels as such have been repeatedly defined by the statutes of this State and the laws defining them have provided a complete scheme for their regulation and taxation. Chapter 3353, Compiled General Laws of 1937, and Chapter 17062, Acts of 1935.

We find nothing in the bill of complaint with reference to bars except those operated in connection with the hotel, a large part of the patronage of which consists in dispensing drinks with the meals. Chapter 16774, Acts of 1935, provides a complete scheme for manufacturing, selling, and taxing alcoholic beverages of all kinds wherever sold. The tax imposed by this Act was considerable, it was imposed by the same Legislature that imposed the chain store tax and we find nothing in the Act laying the latter ,tax that would indicate a purpose to extend it to bars operated as an incident to the hotel.

All other questions raised are concluded by what we said in J. M. Lee, Comptroller, v. The Cloverleaf, Inc., *et*al., decided this date.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Buford, J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
May 20, 2015 

 

 

During the past several years, we have worked hard to position our region as a premier convention and 

leisure travel destination. Our major conventions, attractions and events—including the 2015 Super Bowl—

draw a large number of international visitors. Growth in travel to our destination is only possible if 

international travelers find it easy and affordable to come to the United States. 

That is why we support Open Skies agreements with other countries. For 30 years, Open Skies has 

increased the number of flights to all regions of the United States, leading to more airline competition, 

access to growing markets and lower fares. It is good for travelers, the travel industry and the entire U.S. 

economy. 

If we are to effectively compete in the market for global travelers, we need to preserve policies like Open Skies 

that grow the market for international travel of all types. 

We compete aggressively with other destinations across the country and around the world. We are not afraid 

of competition. We believe that more competition in all aspects of the travel industry is good for consumers 

and good for the growth of our industry, producing a better, more attractive travel “product” and encouraging 

more visitors to come here. 

While I do not speak on behalf of our city aviation department, I believe that same spirit applies to 

competition in international aviation as well. So I urge you to preserve all existing Open Skies 

agreements and work to expand this successful policy. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Moore 

President & CEO

 The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

 Secretary of Transportation 

 U.S. Department of Transportation 

 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

 Washington, DC 20590 

The Honorable Penny Pritzker 

Secretary of Commerce 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20230

The Honorable John Kerry

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20520
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8208 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8208

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to finalize, implement, or enforce 
the interim final rule of the Bureau of Industry and Security relating 
 to enhancing the control structure for firearms and related items and 
 advancing human rights issued on April 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 34680).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2024

 Mr. Green of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. Ogles, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. 
    Duncan, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, Mr. Cline, Mr. Higgins of 
  Louisiana, Mr. Weber of Texas, Ms. Boebert, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Bean of 
   Florida, and Mr. Babin) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of Federal funds to finalize, implement, or enforce 
the interim final rule of the Bureau of Industry and Security relating 
 to enhancing the control structure for firearms and related items and 
 advancing human rights issued on April 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 34680).

    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 ``Stop the Bureaucratic Ineptitude 
Shuttering Respectable and Upstanding Lawful Exporters Act'' or the 
``Stop the BIS Rule Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO FINALIZE, IMPLEMENT, OR 
              ENFORCE PROPOSED BIS RULE.

    No Federal funds may be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the 
interim final rule of the Bureau of Industry and Security relating to 
enhancing the control structure for firearms and related items and 
advancing human rights issued on April 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 34680).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.1


 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY


 


	
        In the Matter of: 

        Atlantic Coast Bank

        Jacksonville, Florida
	)

)

)	
        Terminates

        Order# AA-EC-12-104



 


ORDER TERMINATING THE CONSENT ORDER


 


WHEREAS, in an effort to protect the depositors,
other customers and shareholders of Atlantic Coast Bank, Jacksonville, Florida (“the Bank”), and to ensure the Bank's
operation in a safe and sound manner and in accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, the Bank, by and through
its duly elected and acting Board of Directors, consented to the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order (“Order”) dated
August 10, 2012, Order# AA-EC-12-104, against the Bank by the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States of America (“Comptroller”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the Comptroller believes that the
protection of the depositors, other customers and shareholders of the Bank as well as the Bank's operation in accordance with all
applicable laws, rules and regulations, do not require the continued existence of said Order because the Bank has attained compliance
with the Order;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Comptroller directs
that the Order dated August 10, 2012, be and it hereby is, TERMINATED.


 


IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned, designated
by the Comptroller as his authorized representative, has hereunto set his hand.


 





	/s/ Steven D. Jacobs	 	03/26/2015
	Steven D. Jacobs	 	Date
	Director for Special Supervision
[KPMG LETTERHEAD]




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



To the Board of Directors
Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology, Inc.



We consent to the use in Form 10K  (annual  report  pursuant to section 13 or 15
(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934) for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2000 of Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology, Inc. (the "Corporation") of our
report,  incorporated  herein,  on  our  audits  of the  consolidated  financial
statements of the  Corporation  for the year ended June 30, 2000,  the six-month
period ended June 30, 1999 and for the periods from inception (March 2, 1998) to
December 31, 1998 and to June 30, 2000.  We also consent to the reference to our
firm under item 14 in such Form 10K.








/s/ KPMG LLP
Chartered Accountants


Montreal, Canada
September 6, 2000
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132680 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132680 

 COA: 273276 
 Otsego CC: 05-003388-FC 

OTHA RICHMOND CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 27, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4604 

To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a trident 

refit facility expansion at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, Georgia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2024 

Mr. OSSOFF introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a trident refit facility expansion at Kings Bay 

Naval Submarine Base, Georgia. 

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 ‘‘Kings Bay Trident 

5 Modernization Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4604 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF AMOUNTS FOR CONSTRUCTION 

2 OF A TRIDENT REFIT FACILITY EXPANSION 

3 AT KINGS BAY NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE, 

4 GEORGIA. 

5 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec6 retary of Defense for fiscal year 2025 $115,000,000 for 

7 the construction of a trident refit facility expansion at 

8 Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, Georgia. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Delegation of Authority No. 297] 

      ( print page 14162)    
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and Executive Order 13313 of July 31, 2003 (68 FR 45151), I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security the authority to submit the annual report on the implementation of the Moscow Treaty by the United States and Russian Federation pursuant to Condition (2) of the March 6, 2003, Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (the Moscow Treaty). 

Any act, executive order, regulation or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation or procedure as amended from time to time. 

Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, or the Under Secretary for Policy may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated by this delegation of authority. 

                    This delegation of authority shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Dated: October 25, 2006. 

Condoleezza Rice, 

Secretary of State, Department of State. 

              Editorial Note            

#### Editorial Note:

This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on March 21, 2007.

[FR Doc. E7-5489 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
Case No. 15,108.

#### UNITED STATES v. FIVE BARRELS OF WHISKEY.

[11 Int. Rev. Rec. 11.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1869.

Internal Revenue—Forfeiture—Condemnation bt Default.

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

Returns of process having been made, and no claimants appearing for any of the following described property, it was condemned by default: Five barrels of whiskey, found at No. 548 West Seventeenth street; one still, etc., found in a saloon at No. 145 Bowery; 47 half boxes manufactured tobacco, found at No. 80 Front street; 25 boxes of snuff in bottles, found at No. 104 Pearl street; 2,000 cigars, found in Liberty street; 15 boxes cigars, found at No. 148 Water street; and 12 boxes cigars, found at No. 75 Fulton street.
[exhibit4002.gif]



EXHIBIT 4













CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS







We consent to the incorporation by reference herein of our report dated March 10, 2006, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd. (the Company) as at December 31, 2005 and 2004 and the consolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Toronto, Canada

Ernst & Young LLP

March 29, 2006

Chartered Accountants
#### SINGER MFG. CO. v. ADAMS, State Revenue Agent, et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 21, 1911.)

No. 1,972.

Appeal and Error (§ 14*) — Judgments Reviewable — Decree Entered Pursuant to Mandate. *

A Circuit Court of Appeals will not entertain an appeal from a decree . ' entered in accordance with its mandate by a Circuit Court.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 48-58; Dee. Dig. § 14.*]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Suit in equity by the Singer Manufacturing Company against Wirt Adams, State Revenue Agent of Mississippi, and others. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals. On motion to dismiss appeal.

Motion sustained.

See, also, 165 Fed. 877, 91 C. C. A. 461.

C. H. Alexander and Chalmers Alexander; for appellant.

J. B. Harris, for appellees.

Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

*769PER CURIAM.

This case has been heard and submitted on a motion to dismiss the appeal, as well as upon the merits.

In Merrill v. National Bank of Jacksonville, 78 Fed. 208, 24 C. C. A. 63, this court held, upon full authority, that an appeal to this court from a decree of the Circuit Court entered in accordance with our mandate upon a previous appeal will be dismissed, even though an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court. An examination of Merrill v. National Bank of Jacksonville, 173 U. S. 131, 19 Sup. Ct. 360, 43 L. Ed. 640, shows that our action in that case was sanctioned by the Supreme Court, if not formally approved. In the present case we find that the decree appealed from is one entered in accordance with our mandate on a previous appeal.

The motion is therefore sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.
#### In re KINGSLEY.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

April 5, 1911.)

Depositions (§ 71*) — Witnesses—Refusal to Testify — Authobity to Compel.

Where, in suits pending in a Circuit Court in Ohio, an order was made before issue joined authorizing defendants to take such evidence as could not be produced in open court in the form of depositions, under which defendants procured a subpoena 'for the appearance of a witness before a United States commissioner in tbe Southern district, of New York, the Circuit Court In New York, on the refusal of tbe witness to testify, had no power, inherent, or statutory, to compel the witness to testify or imprison him for contempt.

[Ed. Note.- — For other cases, see Depositions, Cent. Dig. § 132; Dec. Dig. § 71.*]

In the matter of the application to punish James R. Kingsley for contempt for refusal to testify.

Denied.

Kenneth B. Halstead, for the motion.

Frank H. Platt, opposed.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

Two equity suits are pending in the United States Circuit Court in Ohio. Issue has not been joined in either of them. Preliminary injunctions have been granted, and motions made to dissolve the same. The court in Ohio has made an order that:

> “Defendants may take in the form of depositions such evidence as cannot be produced in open court.”

Defendants procured a subpoena for the'appearance of a witness before a United States commissioner sitting in this district, and, upon the witness refusing to answer questions, have" made this application.

It is conceded that no provision of the federal statutes and no rule promulgated by the Supreme Court expressly authorizes the summoning and examination of a witness under these circumstances. Reliance is had upon what defendants contend is the “inherent power of a court” to issue a commission for the examination of any witnesses in any cause pending before it. The difficulty with that argument, however, is that the “inherent power” must he coterminous with the jurisdiction of the court. The Circuit Court in this district, before which the cause is not pending, is asked to compel the attendance of persons by subpoena, to constrain them to answer questions, and to imprison them if they refuse. It certainly has no “inherent power” in refer*1006ence to a suit with which it has nothing to do. Its jurisdiction is purely statutory,- and unless the federal statutes or the Supreme Court rules passed under authority of those statutes give it the power to interfere in this way with an individual, it cannot be held to possess such power,

I concur fully with Judge Colt’s opinion on denial of a similar application in Boston last week.

Motions denied.
Record of Discussio n Docket No. FAA- Di rectorate Identifier : 13-5-AD

With whom outs ide the FAA has thi s AD action b e en di s cu sse d ( i . e. , Des ig n Approv al Holder , m a nuf a ctu re r , ATA, N BAA , RAA , AOPA, ALPA , G A MA , et c)? ORGAN IZATION PE R SON CONTACTED DATE TOP I CS DI SCUSS ED 

### Boeing Douglas Bi ggs 05/ 1 9/2013 Concu r .

Other / Additiona l I nfo rm ation :
#### David M. Talmadge, Respondent, *v.*Edward N. Whiton and William H. Whiton, *Appellants.*

-Judgment add order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by DtKhan, J.