alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Smith, et al. *v.*Overstreet.

In Banc.

Feb. 28, 1949.

(38 So. (2d) 923)

A. T. L. Watkins, for appellants.

Ben Stevens and H. D. Young-, for appellee.

*489Smith, J.

Appellants filed their original bill for cancellation of appellee’s title to certain land in Perry County. There was no deraignment of title.

 Appellee demurred on two grounds, one of which was the failure to deraign title. This important requisite of a bill for cancellation of title is made mandatory by Section 1325, Code 1942, which provides that “the complainant must set forth in plain and concise language the deraignment of his title; and a mere statement therein that complainant is the real owner of the land shall be insufficient, unless good and valid reason be given why he does not deraign his title”. Appellants, as stated, failed to comply with this rule.

• The Chancellor sustained the demurrer, and offered appellants, as complainants, sixty days within which to amend the original bill. But, although alerted, by the plain language of the demurrer, to the specific defect therein, appellants’ counsel refused to amend. Instead, he filed in the record of the case, and served on solicitors for appellee, the following written notice: “That the Court having sustained Defendant’s demurrer and gave complainant sixty days to amend his bill. Counsel having found that there are no new issues of either law or fact to be presented, declines to amend or change his bill.”

Thereupon, on motion of appellee, the Chancellor dismissed the bill ‘ ‘ without prejudice ’ ’. "Why, without prejudice, does not appear, but since there is no cross-appeal, that matter is not before us.

We have repeatedly declared that the requirements of this statute must.be followed in title cancellation suits. Russell et al. v. Town of Hickory, 116 Miss. 46, 76 So. 825; Gilchrist-Fordney Co. v. Keyes, 113 Miss. 742, 74 So. 619; Longmire v. Mars et al., 124 Miss. 77, 86 So. 753; Chiles v. Gallagher et al., 67 Miss. 413, 7 So. 208, and others.

*490In Dorsey et al. v. Sullivan, 199 Miss. 602, 24 So. 2d 852, 853, it was pointed out that: “A hill of complaint in a proceeding requiring deraignment of title does not state a case against defendants thereto unless the deraignment he sufficient, since complainant must depend upon the strength of his own title and not the weakness of that of his adversary.”

 In Long v. Stanley et al., 79 Miss. 298, 30 So. 823, we held that by deraignment of title was meant that complainant must show either (a) Title in himself from the Government down, or (b) Title in himself by adverse possession, or (c) Title in himself from the defendant, or (d) That the parties to the suit claim under a common source, the complainant having the better title from that source.

Since there was no deraignment or “good and valid reason given for its absence”, in accordance with the statute, as interpreted by this Court in the cases cited, the Chancellor was correct in sustaining the special demurrer on that ground, and, upon complainants’ refusal to amend, in dismissing the bill. The decree of the Chancery Court is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5772]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP07-184-000 Through RP07-304-000]


Unassigned Gas Docket Numbers; Notice of Unused RP Docket Number

March 23, 2007.
    Take notice that Docket Numbers RP07-184-000 through RP07-304-000 
were not assigned to any filing due to computer error. These docket 
numbers will not be assigned to any filings with the Commission.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5772 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Tedman Importing Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6298.

Entry No. 770380, etc.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, April 28, 1941, etc.

Certified April 29, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 25, 1941, etc.

(Decided July 29, 1946)

*Jordan & Klingaman (Edward F. Jordan*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule Á, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> *264It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and ehinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. Wm. *S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and ehinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser ;n similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the count ry from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and ehinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Seifi Ghasemi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. for the fiscal quarterended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc..

 
| Date:  November 15, 2004              |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  SEIFI GHASEMI                    |   |
| Seifi  Ghasemi                        |   |
| Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 11859 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A201

- 076

- 327

EDUARDO FERNANDO BRACAMONTE

- VERASTEGUI, Petitioner,

versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________ ( February 14, 2019 ) Before MARTIN , JORDAN, and NEWSOM , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-11859 Date Filed: 02/14/2019 Page: 1 of 32 Eduardo F. Bracamonte

- Verastegui , a Bolivia n citizen , petition s this c ourt to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to sua sponte reopen the proceedings on his application for cancellation of removal. Mr.
Bracamonte

- Verastegui argues that the BIA denied him due process by failing to
reopen the proceedings to reconsider the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that removing him to Bolivia would not cause exceptional a nd extremely unusual hardship to his son . After review ing the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

W e have declined to review the issues presented by Mr. Bracamonte

Verastegui ’s petition twice before

. In 2015, we concluded that we did not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order concerning whether Mr. Bracamonte

Verastegui ’s son would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship

. See
Bracamonte

- Verastegui v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , No. 14

- 14293, slip op. at 2

– 3 (11th Cir. May 13, 2015) (unpublished)

. We reasoned that the BIA’s hardship determination involved a form of discretionary relief which we cannot review

. See Alhuay v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 661 F.3d 534, 549 (11th Cir. 2011 ) (per curiam) (concludin g that we lack jurisdiction to review BIA orders denying discretionary relief, such as cancel l ations of removal); Alvarez Acosta v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 524 F.3d 1191, 1196

– 97 (11th Cir. 2008) (same ). For the same reason, i n 201 7, we concluded that we did not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order denying Mr. Bracamonte

- Verastegui ’s earlier

Case: 18-11859 Date Filed: 02/14/2019 Page: 2 of 33 motion to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings

. See Bracamonte

- Verastegui v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , No. 16

- 10339 , slip op. at 3

– 4 (11th Cir

. Feb. 3, 201 7 ) (unpublished)

.
We see no reason to depart from our prior decisions in this case , and Mr.
Bracamonte

- Verastegui presents no basis for us to review the BIA’s order denying his motion to sua sponte reopen his proceedings

. See Brooklyn Water Bagel Co. v. Bersin Bagel Grp., LLC , 817 F.3d 719, 728 (11th Cir. 2016) (“ Under the law of the case doctrine, the findings of fact and conclusions of law by an appellate court are generally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same c ase . . . on a later appeal. ”). Our previous decisions are controlling under the law of the case doctrine , and we incorporate their reasoning here.
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the petition.

PETITION DISMISSED. Case: 18-11859 Date Filed: 02/14/2019 Page: 3 of 3
No. 64956.

#### M. Ashizawa and Joseph A. Paredes & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/18304, etc. (San Francisco).

*391Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal stoves similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63217, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

LUMENTUM OPTICS INC., Appellant

v.

OYSTER OPTICS, LLC, Appellee

______________________

2019

- 1820

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017

- 01881.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J OEL S AYRES , Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Denver, CO, argued for appellant. Also represented by

N ICHOLAS P OLI C HAN , East Palo Alto, CA; L AUREN M ARIE
W ILLIAMS S TEINHAEUSER , Minneapolis, MN.

W AYNE M ICHAEL H ELGE , Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP , McLean, VA, argued for appellee. Also represented by J AMES T HOMAS W ILSON

, A LDO N OTO

.

______________________ Case: 19-1820 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 08/04/2020T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (W ALLACH

, C HEN

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

August 4, 2020

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court Case: 19-1820 Document: 71 Page: 2 Filed: 08/04/2020
No. 50537.

#### Protests 41303-K, etc., of United States Rubber Co. (Providence).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day 'of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests-were sustained to this extent.
#### Christiana Harrison, *Respondent, v.*The Brooklyn, Bath and Coney Island Railway Company, *Appellant.*

— Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Dykman, J.;

Pratt, J., not sitting.
March 2 4 , 2015

Mr. Stephen Kashat

Bird’s Eye Digital Imaging

1721 Dogwood Trail

Commerce Township, MI 48390

Dear Mr. Kashat :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your February 19 , 2015 exemption request on behalf of Bird’s Eye Digital

Imaging into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0436 ) , but we are unable to process your

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For u s to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interes t; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
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 amended Annual Report of Basset Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report), I, Madam Sun Zhaozhong, 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, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations. January 5, 2009 /s/ Madam Sun Zhaozhong Chief Financial Officer
No. 53637.

protest 106427-K (Boston).

#### Eric A. Peterson *v.*United States,

*188Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7383
ROBERT L. NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1143-AM) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's motion for reconsideration of the district court's order dismissing without prejudice Appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nelson v. Tucker , No. CA-97-1143- AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF UTEK CORPORATION



|                                |  |                             
|------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Name                            |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|UTEK Europe, Ltd.               |  | United Kingdom              
|                                | 
|UTEK Real Estate Holdings, Inc. |  | Florida                     
|                                | 
|Ybor City Group, Inc.           |  | Florida                     
|                                | 
|22ndStreet of Ybor City, Inc.   |  | Florida                     
|                                | 
|Cortez 114 LLC                  |  | Florida
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8271 

To appropriate funds for the Office for Civil Rights of the Department 

of Education. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2024 

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York (for himself, Ms. MENG, Mr. NADLER, Mr. 

AUCHINCLOSS, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. MANNING, Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia, 

Mr. CARSON, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To appropriate funds for the Office for Civil Rights of the 

Department of Education. 

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 ‘‘Showing Up for Stu5 dents Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR THE OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF 

7 THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. 

8 In addition to amounts otherwise made available, 

9 there is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8271 IH

1 not otherwise appropriated, for expenses necessary for the 

2 Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education, 

3 as established under section 203 of the Department of 

4 Education Organization Act (20 U.S.C. 3413), 

5 $280,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

6 2024, to remain available until September 30, 2025. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-K of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2008, I, Richard J. Morgan, President andChief Executive Officer of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc., hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1) suchForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2) theinformation contained in such, fairly presents such Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2008, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|  /s/ Richard J. Morgan            |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Richard J. Morgan                      |   |
| President and Chief Executive  Officer |   |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5070 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5070

  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to remove certain age 
     restrictions on Medicaid eligibility for working adults with 
                             disabilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2024

  Mr. Casey (for himself and Mrs. Blackburn) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to remove certain age 
     restrictions on Medicaid eligibility for working adults with 
                             disabilities.

    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 ``Ensuring Access to Medicaid Buy-in 
Programs Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REMOVING CERTAIN AGE RESTRICTIONS ON MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY FOR 
              WORKING ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES.

    (a) Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XV) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XV)) is amended by striking ``, but less 
than 65,''.
    (b) Section 1905(v)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1396d(v)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``, but less than 65,''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v TRUMAN LEE BAILEY, Seaman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant

9 USCMA 59, 25 CMR 321

No. 11,132

Decided March 21, 1958

*Captain Frederick D.*Clements, USMC, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Beale, Jr.,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM :

In reviewing the accused’s conviction by general court-martial of three offenses under the Uniform Code, the staff legal officer noted that service record entries introduced into evidence by the prosecution “tended to prove” the offenses. He did not otherwise evaluate the adequacy and the weight of the evidence relating to these offenses, or refer to the third offense. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 85b. This was error. United States v Withrow, 8 USCMA 728, 25 CMR 232. However, we note that the accused pleaded guilty to one of the two charges, and, in his defense to the charge of desertion, introduced evidence which admits the unauthorized absence which constituted the basis of the conviction of the offenses in violation of Article 86. Consequently, as to these other charges, the accused could not have been prejudiced by inadequate review. United States v Flemings, 8 USCMA 729, 25 CMR 233. The board of review can cure the error in respect to the third charge by appropriate action. United States v Flemings, supra. Accordingly, the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for reference to a board of review for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES DUSTIN MCCAULEY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 262 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of March, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.