alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Rest Periods, Washup, Work Clothing, and Military Leave Provisions in Major Union Contracts

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Rest Periods, Washup, Work Clothing, and Military Leave Provisions in Major Union Contracts : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1279*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										April 1961,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4554,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMRY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FROM FEBRUARY
18, 1998 (INCEPTION) TO DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH DISCUSSION AND AYALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE FORM 10K FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         139,487
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,890)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,764<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,764
<SALES>                                          8,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,628
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,386
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,386
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,386
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97
<FN>
<F1>CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME REFLECTS OPERATIONS FROM FEBRUARY 18, 1998
(INCEPTION) TO DECEMBER 31, 1998
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 56666.

protests 174259-K, etc. (New York).

#### Chong Lung Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7613

WINSTON WILKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-99-496-5-O)

Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Winston Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have

been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. P.

4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Winston Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001)

petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

Appellant’s notice was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,

361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

February 14, 2000. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on July

16, 2001.* Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### DAUBRA UTRA FAMILY TRUST; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Scott NOBLE, King County Assessor; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-35050.

D.C. No. CV-04-01380-JCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 9, 2005.*

Decided May 16, 2005.

*8Gary Fujita, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Karen Fujita, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Margaret A. Pahl, Michael J. Sinsky, King County Courthouse Civil Division, Seattle, WA, Alan L. Miles, Office of The Prosecuting Attorney Kitsap County Courthouse, Port Orchard, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before PREGERSON, CANBY and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Gary Fujita and Karen Fujita appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for injunctive and declaratory relief against Scott Noble, King County Assessor, and Barbara Stephenson, Kitsap County Treasurer.

The district court correctly dismissed appellants’ complaint. Their claims that they are not subject to Washington State property taxes lacks merit, because they are “persons” within the meaning of Wash. Rev.Code § 84.04.075 for purposes of Washington State property tax laws. In addition, appellants’ real property is subject to tax because property tax authority is exercised in rem. *County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Reservation,*502 U.S. 251, 112 S.Ct. 683, 116 L.Ed.2d 687 (1992).

Appellants’ action, which challenges the state’s assessment and collection of real property taxes, is also barred by the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, because an adequate remedy exists in the state courts. *Patel v. City of San Bernardino,*310 F.3d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir.2002).

On February 23, 2005, this court issued an order for appellant Daubra Utra Family Trust to obtain counsel or show cause why it should not be dismissed as a party to this appeal. *C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States,*818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir.1987). Trust, having failed to comply with the order, is dismissed as a party.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT


          This
amendment (“Amendment”) dated as of December 31, 2007 is by and between
Barington Capital Group, L.P., a New York limited partnership with an address
at 888 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10019 (“BCG”),
and Sielox, Inc., a Delaware corporation formerly known as Dynabazaar, Inc. with
an address at 170 East Ninth Avenue, Runnemede, New Jersey 08078 (the “Company”).


RECITALS:


          WHEREAS,
the Company and BCG are parties to that certain Services Agreement, dated as of
December 17, 2004, as amended (the “Agreement”); 


          WHEREAS,
the Company and BCG desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein,
effective as of January 1, 2008, to extend the term of the Agreement.


          NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants expressed herein and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby,
agree as follows:


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 1.

 	
 Section 4 of
 the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the term of the Agreement until
 December 31, 2008.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 2.

 	
 This
 Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2008. The Agreement, as amended
 by this Amendment, is in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and
 confirmed.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.

 	
 This
 Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto in separate counterparts,
 each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all
 such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.

 








          IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed by their authorized representative as of the date set forth above.


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 BARINGTON
 CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.

 
	
  

 	
 By: LNA
 Capital Corp., General Partner

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 By:

 	
 /s/ James A
 Mitarotonda

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 


 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 James A.
 Mitarotonda

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 Chairman

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 SIELOX, INC.
 

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 By:

 	
 /s/ Rory Cowan

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 


 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 Rory Cowan

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 Chairman

 



-2-
No. 55541.

#### Dr. Halfdan Hebo *v.*United States,

protest 138763-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *Dr. Halfdan Hebo v. United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 93, C. D. 1270). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
r 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION '" 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

Joyce Epps, Director 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

400 Market Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17101 

Dear Ms. Epps: 

1 5 OCT 2007 

On August 17, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to 

the Pennsylvania State hnplementation Plan (SIP) from your department. The SIP revision 

consists of changes to the nonattainment New Source Review regulation. EPA has deteImined 

that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

Ifmembers of your staff have any "questions, they may direct them to Michelle L. Moyer, 

Permits and Technical Assessment Branch, at (215) 814-2098. She is the principal contact for 

this rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

Judith M. Katz, Director 

Air Protection Division 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.159


                                   DEMAND NOTE

$250,000.00                                               New York, New York
                                                          December 3, 2000

        FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a
California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby
unconditionally PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor,
New York, NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may
designate from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of
America and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($250,000.00), together with interest on the
unpaid principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from time to time from
the date hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate of interest plus
3.0%, or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

        The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

        Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

        Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

        Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

        This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

        All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

        This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.

                                             Wilshire Technologies, Inc.

                                             By : /s/ Kathleen E. Terry
                                                  ------------------------------
                                             Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                             Title: Chief Financial Officer
33646.

#### FRAZIER v. WILLIAMSON et al.

Nichols, Chief Justice.

Appeal is taken from the sustaining of a motion to dismiss.

Frazier bought real estate giving in return a note and deed to secure debt. The deed to secure debt required Frazier to keep the property insured and to pay the taxes due on it. The deed contained a clause stating that "waiver of a breach of any of the terms and conditions of this contract in one or more instances shall not operate as a waiver to any subsequent breach in any particular.” Williamson took sheriffs and marshal’s deeds to the property after seven years nonpayment of taxes by Frazier, and then Williamson took an assignment of the outstanding security deed. Williamson wrote Frazier notifying her of his actions and demanding payment of the taxes he had paid and those then due. Having received no response, he proceeded to exercise the power in the deed to secure debt after giving Frazier the required notice. Frazier thereafter filed the present action seeking to set the foreclosure aside and to enjoin dispossessory proceedings but making no tender of the sums due. Her complaint, as amended, was dismissed by a judgment sustaining Williamson’s motion to dismiss.

1. Frazier’s arguments regarding waiver are without substance because of the nonwaiver clause set forth above.

2. Frazier’s contention that the proceedings were unconstitutional because of the alleged inadequacy of the notice required by the security deed will not be considered since they were not passed on by the trial court.

3. Frazier failed to tender the amount due. Williamson did not need to file a motion for summary judgment supported by an affidavit as to the absence of tender because the absence of tender is established by Frazier’s verified complaint, as amended. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in sustaining the motion to dismiss. Bedgood *v. Employees Retirement System of Ga.,*237 Ga. 786 (229 SE2d 627) (1976).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*506Submitted May 26, 1978

Decided October 25, 1978

Rehearing denied November 7, 1978.

*Clarence L. Martin,*for appellant.

*Harry L. Silverman, Julian F. Corish,*for appellees.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio , Texas
January 22, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00288

- CR

Neil Howard MCGINNIS, Appellant

v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court , Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6773 Honorable Kirsten Cohoon , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R After we granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file the brief, A ppellant’s brief was due on January 23, 2021

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). After the once

extended due date , Appellant filed a second motion , which seeks a t hirty

- day extension of time to file the brief

. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED ; Appellant’s brief is due on February 22, 2021

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court o n this 22nd day of January, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ , Clerk of Court
34010.

#### SHELL v. BROWNLOW et al.

Submitted September 1, 1978

Decided October 31, 1978.

*James A. Robbins, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Rogers, Magruder & Hoyt, Raymon H. Cox,*for appellees.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

This appeal is from the grant of a partial summary judgment decreeing specific performance of a written contract for the sale of land. Requests for admission were not answered by appellant within the time prescribed by Code Ann. § 81A-136, thus the contract sued upon was established as genuine. The contract is enforceable and the trial court’s judgment was not error for any reason assigned by appellant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 53277.

#### Asheville Mica Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 65467-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). 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 involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                               U S WEST, INC.
                            AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES
                           AS OF FEBRUARY 11, 2000

     U S WEST, INC., A DELAWARE COMPANY

          U S WEST Advanced Technologies, Inc., a Colorado company

          U S WEST Broadband Services, Inc., a Delaware company

          U S WEST Business Resources, Inc., a Colorado company
               U S WEST Business Resources, Inc., a Delaware company

          U S WEST Capital Funding, Inc., a Colorado company

          U S WEST Communications, Inc., a Colorado company
               El Paso County Telephone Company, a Colorado company
               Malheur Home Telephone Company , an Oregon company
               Mubeta Development Co., a Colorado company
               Training Partnerships, Inc., a Colorado Non-profit company
               U S WEST Database Services, Inc., a Colorado company
               U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C., a Delaware company
                     TW Wireless, L.L.C., a Delaware company

          U S WEST Communications Federal Services, Inc., a Colorado company

          U S WEST Communications Services, Inc., a Colorado company
               Please Hold Promotions, Inc., an Arizona company

          U S WEST Dex Holdings, Inc., a Delaware company
               U S WEST Dex, Inc., a Colorado company
               Interactive Video Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado company

          U S WEST Enhanced Services, Inc., a Washington company

          U S WEST Federal Relations, Inc., a Delaware company

          U S WEST Information Technologies, Inc., a Colorado company

          U S WEST Internet Ventures, Inc., a Colorado company



<PAGE>


          U S WEST Interprise America, Inc., a Colorado company
               U S WEST Interprise America of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia company

          U S WEST IP Holdings, Inc., a Delaware company

          U S WEST Investment Management Company, a Colorado company

          U S WEST Long Distance, Inc., a Colorado company

          U S WEST SPF Co., a Colorado company

          U S WEST Transoceanic, Inc., a Delaware company
               Transoceanic Operations, Inc., a Delaware company
               U S WEST Hong Kong, L.L.C., a Delaware company
                    U S WEST (Asia), Limited, a Hong Kong company

          U S WEST Y2K, Inc., a Delaware company

          Western Re, Inc., a Vermont company
No. 96-7803.

#### Keys *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 62088.

#### General Systems Service, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 308064-K (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 54297.

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

protest 155758-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

An examination of the official record disclosing nothing to disturb the decision of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Wood Preserving Industry On-site Releases0.0200,000.0400,000.0600,000.0800,000.01,000,000.01,200,000.02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Year

Pounds
No. 42059.

#### Protest 689581-G of Langfelder, Homma & Hayward, Inc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel beach balls identical with those the subject of *United States*v. *Woolworth*(24 C. C. P. A. 338, T. D. 48770), footballs of the Rugby type, similar to those the subject of Abstract 27179, and tennis rackets like those passed upon in *May*v. *United States*(T. D. 47760) and *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 48573) were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 1502 as claimed.