alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frank B. Hodgkins, Resp’t, *v.*Sarah F. Mead, App’lt.

*(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,*

*Filed February 24, 1890.)*

1. Brokers—Commissions.

Plaintiff procured a purchaser for defendant’s premises, and an executory contract was executed and delivered in escrow. *Held,*that in the absence of an agreement that plaintiff should not be entitled to commissions till the contract was fully performed, such executory contract entitled him to commissions.

.2. Same—Evidence.

In an action for such commissions, the conversation between plaintiff and defendant’s agent at the time of his employment is admissible to show the character, nature and extent of such employments

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on verdict of a jury.

Action to recover commissions as broker on the sale of real •estate. Plaintiff produced purchasers and a contract was made, bonds and mortgages executed, which were delivered to Mr. Sergeant in escrow, to be delivered if the purchasers proceeded with the buildings on the premises within a specified time; if not, to be returned and cancelled.

*Sewall Sergeant,*for app’lt; *Henry Pressprich,*for resp’t

Van Wtck, J.

The largest part of appellant’s argument was •devoted to the contention that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. This is disposed of by the mere suggestion that the .appeal book contains no order refusing $0 set the verdict aside on that ground, and no notice of appeal from any such order; but, assuming that question to be before us regularly, the testimony satisfies us that the verdict should not be disturbed on that ground. The motion for non-suit was properly denied. The plaintiff was •employed to secure a purchaser for defendant’s premises. He procured Kennerly and Young, for the deed, mortgages, bonds, agreement of February 25,1888, and the alleged escrow contract, dated February 25, 1888, clearly and fully establish an executory contract between the parties for the sale of the lots for $80,000, to be secured by mortgage thereon, and with a building loan of $22,000 on mortgage thereon, title to pass ten days after the purchasers shall have diligently prosecuted the work on the houses, and not later than March 28,1888. Purchasers to be liable for damages in case of their failure to perform the contract on their part. Such ex-ecutory contract of sale between the parties entitled the broker to his commission, *Barnard*v. *Monnot,*3 Keyes, 203; *Bach*v. *Em*
      *672
      *erich,*3 J. & S., 548, unless there was an agreement between the parties that the plaintiff (broker) should not be entitled to his commissions till the executory contract of sale was fully performed. Whether there was any such agreement was submitted to the jury on conflicting evidence, and decided in favor of plaintiff. The conversation between the plaintiff and defendant’s agent was properly admitted to show the character, nature and extent of the employment. The only other point raised by appellant relates to the correction of the verdict by the trial court. This has been upheld by the court of appeals.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment must be affirmed, with, costs.

Osborne, J., concurs.
No. 48631.

#### Protest 807996-G of R. U. Delapenha & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was found from the record that the merchandise consists of casks containing orange pulp which is not capable of being marked; that the casks, which were the immediate containers, were not marked to indicate the country of origin of the orange pulp; and that the importer was required to mark the casks with the legend “Made in England” before they were released. As neither the merchandise nor the immediate containers bore marks to indicate the country of origin of the orange pulp, the protest was overruled.
#### Marks & Rosenfeld, Inc. v. United States

No. 6307.

Entry No. 722938/2, etc.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, September 30, 1941, etc.

Certified October 3, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 5, 1941, etc.

(Decided July 29, 1946)

*Siegel & Mandell*for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe, Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of chinaware and earthenware 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.*
>       *272
>       *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 chinaware and earthenware 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 in 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 country 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 chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer oh 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.
Order filed January 3, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00939-CV

____________

CHARLES FREEMAN JR, Appellant

V.

KENT DICKERSON, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 136th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-194,417

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due December 13, 2013. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant submits a brief to the clerk of this court on or before

February 3, 2014, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

 PER CURIAM
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8716 

To appropriate amounts to carry out the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2024 

Mr. MOSKOWITZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To appropriate amounts to carry out the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 

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 ‘‘Disaster Relief Fund 

5 Replenishment Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISASTER RELIEF FUND. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Out of amounts in the Treasury 

8 not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated for fis9 cal year 2023 $7,000,000,000, to remain available until 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8716 IH

1 expended, for necessary expenses to carry out the Robert 

2 T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) with respect to major disasters 

4 declared under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Dis5 aster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 5170). 

7 (b) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amounts provided by 

9 this section are designated as an emergency require10 ment pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay11 As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)). 

12 (2) DESIGNATION IN HOUSE AND SENATE.— 

13 The amounts provided by this section are designated 

14 as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to 

15 section 4001(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 14 (117th Con16 gress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for 

17 fiscal year 2022, and section 1(e) of H. Res. 1151 

18 (117th Congress), as engrossed in the House of Rep19 resentatives on June 8, 2022. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
January 30, 1943

No. 47984.

#### Protests 78786-K, etc., of Iwata Trading Co.

Government’s application for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of operations of Balanced Series.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                         
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund
Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                            
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC,
the Managing Owner of Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              
|                                                                                                                                           
|Date: August 12, 2008
(Reap. Dec. 8488)

#### Biddle Purchasing Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 912271.

(Decided October 14, 1955)

Barnes, *Richardson & Colburn for the*plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, that the instant appeal to reappraisement covers bamboo rakes imported from Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses, incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was $7.70 per one hundred pieces, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> *425IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the instant appeal to reappraisement 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 merchandise here involved, and that such value was $7.70 per one hundred pieces.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6160

MICHAEL ANTHONY LESLIE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; DANIEL P. O’BRIEN, Special Deputy Attorney 

General,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:23-cv-00266-WO-LPA)

Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 28, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Leslie, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6160 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Leslie seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s January 25, 2024, 

report in which the magistrate judge recommended dismissing Leslie’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition as time-barred. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

magistrate judge’s report does not qualify as a final order, or as an appealable interlocutory 

or collateral order, and review of the district court’s docket confirms that Leslie did not file 

a separate notice of appeal following issuance of the district court’s February 29, 2024, 

dispositive order adopting the report and recommendation. We further observe that the 

doctrine of “cumulative finality”—which “authorizes us to exercise appellate jurisdiction 

where all claims as to all parties are disposed of while the appeal is pending, and where the 

district court could have certified the challenged order for immediate appeal pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b),” Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 170 (4th Cir. 

2018)—does not cure this jurisdictional defect.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6160 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
No. 52716.

protest 138286-K (New York).

#### Skins Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed were not in fact landed. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the package of fur wearing apparel reported by the inspector as not landed, not found, is subject to. an allowance in duty as claimed. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1241. NIEKILETTA MCLOUGHLIN v. ROBERT MCLOUGHLIN.

The parties were divorced pursuant to a final judgment and divorce decree

entered on October 18, 2018. In a separate order, dated October 22, 2018, the trial

court addressed the issue of attorney fees. Niekiletta McLoughlin (the “Wife”) then

filed both a notice of appeal and an application for discretionary appeal seeking to

appeal the trial court’s October 22 order on attorney fees. We granted the Wife’s

application. See Case No. A19D0190 (granted Dec. 17, 2018). In the meantime, the

Wife’s appeal was docketed in Case No. A19A0970 pursuant to her notice of appeal.

Following the grant of her application for discretionary appeal, the Wife filed

a second notice of appeal on December 17, 2018, which has been docketed as the

instance case, Case No. A19A1241. Because this case is duplicative of Case No.

A19A0970, it is hereby DISMISSED as superfluous.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 25, 2019

01/25/2019
Order entered June 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00349-CV

DAVID AND WENDY MEISENBACH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellants

V.

SAMEER P. SETHI, SETHI OPERATING COMPANY, AND SETHI PETROLEUM, 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-01149-2014

ORDER

The Court has been notified that the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of Texas has rendered an order appointing a receiver in a case involving the appellees. Pursuant 

to that May 14, 2015 order, further action is this proceeding is stayed. Accordingly, we ABATE 

this appeal. For administrative purposes, the appeal will be treated as a closed case. It may be 

reinstated on motion by any party showing the stay has been lifted and specifying what further 

action, if any, is required from this Court.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, John R. Tuttle, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: August 11, 2006 

 

This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to DayStar Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by DayStar Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8484 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8484

 To amend the Buy Indian Act to include the Secretary of Agriculture, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2024

  Mrs. Peltola (for herself and Ms. Davids of Kansas) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Buy Indian Act to include the Secretary of Agriculture, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BUY INDIAN ACT MODIFICATIONS.

    Section 23 of the Act of the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 861, 
chapter 431; 25 U.S.C. 47; commonly known as the ``Buy Indian Act''), 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(3)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at 
                the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) the Secretary of Agriculture.'';
            (2) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and the 
                Department of Health and Human Services'' and inserting 
                ``, the Department of Health and Human Services, and 
                the Department of Agriculture''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and the Indian 
                Health Service'' and inserting ``, the Indian Health 
                Service, and the Department of Agriculture''; and
            (3) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``Committee on Indian 
        Affairs'' and all that follows through ``House of 
        Representatives'' and inserting ``Committees on Indian Affairs 
        and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate and the 
        Committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture of the House of 
        Representatives''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 40252.

#### Protests 964479-G, etc., of Bushwick Iron & Steel Co., Inc., et al. (New York and Memphis).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

On the records presented the protests were dismissed on the authority of Abstract 15400.
(Reap. Dec. 9569)

#### W. M. Stone & Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 895.

(Decided December 23, 1959)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

*George Goehran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain merchandise identified herein as “Grade No. 3 hard rubber dust,” exported from England and entered at the port of Norfolk, Va.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is foreign value, as defined by section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is 2 shillings, 3 pence, per pound, plus the cost of packing, as invoiced, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
The Balkans Regional Atlas
**Select Highlighted Country Name on Map or Use Text Options Below:**
**[Bosnia political map]****[Croatia political map]****[Serbia and Montenegro political map]****[The F.Y.R.O.M. political map]**

**Return to Publications Page**