alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 49260

#### Protests 721707-G (A), etc., of Psaki Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to the Pecorino Romano cheese the subject of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284), which record was incorporated herein. The protests were therefore sustained to this extent.
EX-99.3
                                 PATENT

United States Patent No. 5,603,288

Dennis A. Ferber, February 18, 1997

Restraint Device.

ABSTRACT

An animal restraint having two similar haves, each half having an
arcuate shaped cage portion and a flat elongated base for
reversible attachment thereto.  Each cage portion includes
generally parabolically shaped ribs of differing heights wherein
the shortest rib is located at a distal end of the cage and the
tallest rib is located medially.  Each rib is attached,
respectively, at each of its ends, to a base frame.  A pair of
arcuate strengthening members is attached to the base frame and,
in turn to each one of the parabolic ribs.  The strengthening
members of one half of the cage ends medially in a sleeve for
receiving its corresponding strengthening member on the other
cage half, thereby reversibly joining the two cage halves.  A
pair of rectangular plates are reversibly held adjacent one
another to form the elongated base which, in turn, is reversibly
attached to the joined cage portions.
#### Sam Weiss v. J. M. Lee, as State Comptroller.

180 So. 345.

Opinion Filed April 8, 1938.

*Edgar M. Felson*and -S’. *P. Robineau,*for Appellant;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *H. E. Cartel, W. P. Allen*and *Lazvrence A. Truett,*Assistant Attorneys General, for Appellee.

Terrell, J.

The facts presented and the questions raised in this case are identical with those raised and urged, in DeLuxe Packing House, Inc., v. Lee, decided this date. The judgment below is accordingly reversed on authority of that case and what we said in Henry Borrego and Tom Borrego v. Lee, decided this date.

Reversed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 82 

AN ACT 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the 

Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. 

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

•HR 82 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Fair3 ness Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVI5 SION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202(k) of the Social Secu7 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking para8 graph (5). 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

10 (1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act 

11 (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub12 sections (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

13 (q)’’. 

14 (2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

15 402(c)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsections 

16 (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. 

17 (3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 

18 U.S.C. 402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub19 section (k)(5), subsection (q),’’ and inserting ‘‘sub20 section (q)’’. 

21 (4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

22 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection 

23 (k)(5), subsection (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

24 (q)’’. 
3 

•HR 82 EH

1 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 215 of the Social Security 

3 Act (42 U.S.C. 415) is amended— 

4 (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7); 

5 (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); 

6 and 

7 (3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9). 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsections (e)(2) 

9 and (f)(2) of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are 

10 each amended by striking ‘‘section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), 

11 or 215(f)(9)(B)’’ in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and in12 serting ‘‘paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f)’’. 

13 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

14 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

15 respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title 

16 II of the Social Security Act for months after December 

17 2023. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Secu18 rity Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust 

19 primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take 

20 into account the amendments made by section 3. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 12, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 82 

AN ACT 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to reelimination provisions. peal the Government pension offset and windfall
#### Daniel Day and another v. Eliza V. Watson.

Where a landlord, during the continuance of a lease, without the consent of the tenant enters upon the demised premises, which have been vacated^ by the tenant, and the entry is followed by a continuous possession inconsistent with the possessory right assured to tho tenant by the lease, such possession amounts to an eviction, and precludes the recovery of rent while it continues

And this is so whether the entry be for condition broken or not. If for condition broken, it signifies an intention to terminate the lease entirely; while if the landlord regard the lease as still continuing, the right to rent. is suspended during the occupancy.

*Heard October 9th.*

*Decided October 13th.*

Error to Wayne Circuit. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*536
      *J. IS. Bigelow,*for plaintiffs in error.

*L.*Bishop, for defendant in error.

Campbell J.;

It appears in this case, that the plaintiffs in error, being in arrears for rent, and having left the demised premises, the defendant in error gave the key of the house to one Harvey Burns, who was employed to take care of the place and occupy it until defendant in error could rent it. She brings an action for rent for a period including the time when Burns was in possession.

There is no proof in the case from which an inference could be legitimately drawn, that the entry of defendant in error was by consent of her tenants, or under any arrangement with them. This being so, and the entry being followed by a continuous possession, which was inconsistent with the possessory title assured to the tenants under the lease, that possession amounts very clearly to an eviction:— *Lewis v.*Payn, 4 *Wend.*423 ; *Dyett v.*Pendleton, 8 *Cow.*72; *Lawrence v.*French, 25*Wend. 443. A*tortious entry not followed by possession stands on a different footing, and is a mere trespass. *Ibid.*

So far as the present case is concerned, it makes no difference whether the action of the defendant in error be considered as an entry on condition broken or otherwise, If she be regarded as entering on condition broken, that would signify an intention to terminate the lease entirely, If she regarded the lease as still continuing, the right to rent-was supended during the *occupancy:-*— Taylor *on L. & T.*§§378, 380. In the absence of any evidence showing an understanding with the tenants, she had no right to reassume possession, whether the premises were vacant or not, if she designed to regard the lease as continuing. The plaintiffs in error had the right, therefore, to have the instructions given which they asked of the court be*537low, and the refusal of the court to give them was erroneous.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.
#### WILLIAM EISBERG, PROSECUTOR, v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CLIFFSIDE PARK AND JOSEPH J. COHN, RESPONDENTS.

Submitted December 5, 1918

Decided February 19, 1919.

A trial of a policeman for delinquency, in which, of the six councilmen who heard the case, one preferred the charges and three of the remaining members were called as witnesses aginst him, one of whom heard only a portion of the testimony, is not a “fair trial” under the express language of chapter 152 of the laws of 1917.

On *certiorari.*

Before Justices Parker and Minturn.

For the prosecutor, *Mackay & Mackay.*

For the respondents, *Arthur M. Agnew.*

The opinion of idle court was delivered by

Minturn, J.

The writ of *certiorari*in this ease was sued out for the purpose of reviewing the proceedings of the borough council in dismissing the prosecutor from the police force, for general disobedience and insubordination and inefficiency, the details of which were alleged in certain charges preferred against him in a written complaint.

He was entitled under the express language of the act of 1917, chapter 152, to “a fair trial” upon the charges preferred against him. Tie was convicted by a vote of four to two of the council. Of those voting in the affirmative one councilman preferred the complaint against him and three councilmen were called as witnesses against him. One of the councilmen who, under the theory of a fair trial required by the mandate of the statute, was supposed at least to have heard the testimony upon which he was called upon to base his judgment, was not present at the first hearing, and, consequently, heard none of the testimony presented at that session. He, subse*322quently, was called as a witness against the prosecutor and eventually assisted in determining the inquiry adversely to the prosecutor. It is hardly necessary- in considering the legislative prerequisites of a fair trial to say more than that it is obvious that this proceeding did not conform to the recognized rules governing such procedure. A fair trial, in the generic language of Mr. Webster in the *Dartmouth College*Case, 4 *Wheat.*518, 581, is a proceeding “which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.” Specifically, it is held to be that a hearing shall be accorded to the alleged delinquent by an impartial and disinterested tribunal. 2 *Abb. Mun. Corp.*1663; *Pinkermann*v. *Rusling,*64 *Conn.*517; *Streeter*v. Worcester, 177 *Mass.*29.

The rule is fundamental that a person who has not- heard the testimony in a given case occupies no legal status as arbiter or judge to adjudicate upon the cause.

This infirmity was accentuated by the fact that the police rules of schedule of alarm calls for failure to' comply Avith which he was adjudged guilty, were not introduced in evidence, and this omission presents a clear failure of proof in the case to sustain the conviction.

The resolution in question will be set aside.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

B.K.
, the Mother, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD

LITEM
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 583

[ August 8, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Robert B. Meadows , Judge; L.T. Case No.

562021DP000079A

.

Ashley Nicole Minton of Minton Law, P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellant

.

Andrew Feigenbaum, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children and Families

.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sarah Todd Weitz, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian Ad Litem Pr ogram

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, K UNTZ and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 46806.

#### Protests 67188-K, etc., of James D. Irwin & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protests were therefore overruled.
No. 52685.

protest 140189-K (New York).

#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of knitted wool scarves similar in all material respects to those passed upon in Abstract 50303, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERNEST A. WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CR-92-113-MU, CA-96-66-3-MU)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-92-113-

MU; CA-96-66-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 1996). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### •^-PARTMEN TO F /-AlsSPORTATlO N August 16 , 201 0 " ' ' - ^ ^ Th e Honorabl e Ra

yLaHood , Secretary U . S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n 40 0 7^ ^ Street , S

WRoo m 1020 0 Washington , D

C 2059 0 Subject : Smal l CommunityAi rServic e Developmen t Gran t Application ; Docke t OST-2010-0124 , fo rSavannah/Hilto n Hea d Internationa l Airpor t (SAV ) Secretar yLaHood , I a m v/ritin g t o support Savannah/Hilto n Hea d Internationa l Airpor t (SAV ) i n it s effor t t o acquir e th e Departmen t o fTransportation' s Smal l Communit yAi r Servic e Developmen t Progra m grant . JetBlu e has keenl ynote d th e importanc e o fai rservic e developmen t i n th e improvemen t an d support o floca l economies . Indeed , lov

/ cos t carrier s suc h a s JetBlu e hel p t o foste rloca l economi c developmen t i n term s o fbot h loca l busines s trave l an d incomin g touris t dollars . I t i s m yhop e tha t th e Departmen t o fTransportatio n woul d loo k favorabl yo n Savanna h an d it s effort s t o serv e a communit ydevoi d o f[oY fcos t service . Whil e JetBlu e has mad e n o decision s o rcommitment s regardin g servic e t o Savannah , w e remai n intereste d i n th e prospec t o faddin g flights . Th e enthusias m Savanna h ha s show n i n it s pursui t o flow-cos t ai rservic e i s a testamen t no t onl yt o th e community' s interes t an d dedication , bu t als o t o th e nee d fo rth e lo wfare s tha t a low-cos t carrie rbrings . Th e presenc e o fa lo wfar e carrie ra t Savannah/Hilto n Hea d Internationa l Airpor t woul d pla ya majo rrol e i n satisfyin g th e need s o f th e communit yan d benefi t bot h Georgi a an d Sout h Carolina . I full ysupport Savannah/Hilto n Head' s efforts , an d wis h the m wel l i n thei rendeavor . Respectfully ,
Scot t M . Laurenc e Vic e Presiden t Rout e Plannin g JetBlu e Airway s
Exhibit 23.1     INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMS CONSENT     The Board of Directors Ableauctions.com, Inc.   We consent to the use in the Registration Statements of Ableauction.com, Inc. on Form S-8 and Form S-3 of our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 26, 2007 on the consolidated balance sheet of Ableauctions.com, Inc. as of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statement of operations, comprehensive income, cash flows, and stockholders equity for the year then ended.       /s/ TELFORD SADOVNICK, P.L.L.C.CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
       Bellingham, Washington, USA  March 28, 2007
StormKlear EPA Case Study

Project: The Cliffs at High Carolina, Fairview, NC

Owner: The Cliffs Communities,

Gary Player Group, Marietta, SC

Contractor: Medalist Golf, Inc., Greenville, SC

Product: StormKlear DPS‐MB Kits

Dose Rate: 5 mg/L

Description: The Cliffs at High Carolina is a new Cliff’s Community, Championship Golf Course locate

the Smokey Mountains near Asheville, NC;  with elevations above 4000’ and views that stretch some 

miles, it’s the first American course designed by Tiger Woods. Controlling and preventing turbidity

changes in adjacent trout streams was always a major concern of the developer during construction 

because there are 21 different clay soils present on the site, soil specific PAM (Polyacrylamide) was 

an option.  To eliminate any potential contamination of the pristine streams, in addition to standard 

BMP’s, StormKlear MB Kits were installed on top of 8’ single net excelsior matting upstream of the

skimmer basins and 12” x 10’ excelsior logs were used as check structures. The DBP‐2100 was insta

before the 1st check, and the GelFloc before the 2nd; the 3rd section was for settling and additional

filtration.

Results – Influent: 4000+ NTU, After 3rd Check: 731 NTU, Basin: 131 NTU

Residual Biopolymer Test: Negative
Before the Third Division,

July 25, 1941

No. 46203.

#### Protests 35400-K, etc., of Asbury Graphite Mills (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of amorphous graphite the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Starkey*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 444). In accordance therewith and the British Trade Agreement (T. D. 49753) the protests were sustained.
**Exhibit 32(b)**

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with theForm 10-Q of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30,2007, I, William R. Talley, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to thebest of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) theinformation contained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007,fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.
| William R. Talley, Jr.                               |        |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| William R. Talley, Jr.                               |   |   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

 

----
No. 50518.

#### Protests 987701-G, etc., of Daimaru Co. et al. (San Francisco).

*276Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith certain items of the merchandise were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1705 as kelp and other items were held dutiable at. 10 percent under paragraph 1540 as seaweeds, manufactured.
May 5, 1978

#### State Bar Grievance Administrator v Gillis.

(Docket No. 58940.)

Philip A. Gillis, *in propria persona,*respondent-appellant.

Rehearing denied.

Reported at 402 Mich *ante,*p 286.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000


<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                1,063
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         1,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                            182
<INVENTORY>                                             104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      2,793
<PP&E>                                                1,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                          819
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        3,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 1,267
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  9
<OTHER-SE>                                            1,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          3,529
<SALES>                                              10,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     10,098
<CGS>                                                 2,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         8,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       59
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       1,459
<INCOME-TAX>                                            483
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     976
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                            976
<EPS-BASIC>                                             .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .11



</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Jack W. Sessums, Jr.

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 106

- CV

Trial court case number: PR

- 0079203

Trial court: Probate Court of Galveston County

On February 13, 2019

, r elator, Jack W. Sessums, Jr. , filed a petition for writ of

mandamus and emergency motion to stay , requesting that we stay a hearing scheduled for February 20, 2019. W e grant relator’s emergency motion to stay the February 20, 2019 hearing

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(b). This stay is effective until the case in this Court is finally decided or the Court otherwise orders the stay lifted. Any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the stay. See id. 52.10(c).

Further, the Court requests that the real part y in interest respond to the petition for

writ of mandamus. It is ordered that the response of any interested party, if any, shall be

due no later than 20 days from the date of this order

.
It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ February 15, 2019

___