alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
33632.

#### McALLISTER v. CITY OF JONESBORO et al.

Submitted May 26, 1978

Decided September 7, 1978.

J. Dunham McAllister, *pro se.*

*Albert B. Wallace,*for appellees.

Jordan, Justice.

Appellee filed suit to condemn for the purpose of street improvement a five foot wide strip of property belonging to appellant. Appellant answered and counterclaimed that the taking of his property was unnecessary and that the plaintiff was proceeding in bad faith.

Appellant obtained a temporary order. After a hearing the trial court dissolved all restraining orders and injunctions and directed the city to proceed with their condemnation proceedings against the appellant. Appellant appeals.

The trial court’s order was issued after hearing argument and citation of authority on behalf of both parties. No transcript of this hearing appears in the record. Code § 6-806. The trial court’s order is not erroneous as a matter of law, and since we cannot determine what evidence was presented at the hearing, and on what basis the trial judge issued his order, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. *James v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta,*233 Ga. 447 (211 SE2d 738) (1975) and cits.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Before the First Division,

October 8, 1941

No. 46400.

#### Protests 979320-G, etc., of Bloomingdale Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of atomizers and atomizers contained in toilet sets, and that said atomizers are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 44140. In accordance therewith the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was therefore sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7580

RONNIE A. VAUGHAN, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

C.O. WATTS, Augusta Correctional Center, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (7:08-cv-00381-jlk-mfu) 

Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 16, 2009 

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ronnie A. Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Ronnie A. Vaughan appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

See Vaughan v. Watts, No. 7:08-cv-00381-jlk-mfu (W.D. Va. 

July 8, 2008). Because the district court’s dismissal was 

Vaughan’s third strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2000),* Vaughan may not proceed in forma 

pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) (2000). 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. 

AFFIRMED

 * See Vaughan v. Powell, No. 1:03-cv-898 (E.D. Va. January 

24, 2005); Vaughan v. Jail Deputies, No. 1:00-cv-364 (E.D. Va. 

August 8, 2000).
January 16, 1941

No. 45242.

#### Protest 995409-G of Ritter Carlton Co.

Abstract 45057. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Belvin J. BARKER, a/k/a B.J., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50552.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*891Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 20, 2005.

Elyssa Getreu, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff—Appellee.

Carlton Frederick Gunn, Esq., FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant— Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, THOMPSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Belvin Barker appeals a jury verdict and the district judge’s sentence for three counts of selling firearms to a felon.

We find that the judge’s jury instructions were not prejudicial and we affirm the conviction. Sentencing on the basis of the sale of a firearm listed in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) was not in error where defendant admitted sale of the weapon, but we remand the case under *Ameline*to determine whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence under advisory guidelines. *United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 915-916 (9th Cir.2005); *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005). On remand, the district judge shall give the defendant the opportunity to decline resentencing if he chooses. *Ameline,*409 F.3d at 1084.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; REMANDED

**

 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.
No. 6417.

#### JOHN G. KOSTMAYER vs. MRS. GRACE LANDRY.

Syllabus.

1. Where the contract of a real estate broker confers upon, him the exclusive right to sell the property, and negatives the right of the owner to sell or negotiate for its sale, the broker is entitled to his commission if, during the term of the contract, a sale is affected by the owner or by another broker in the latter’s behalf.

2. According to the great weight of authority if a special agreement has been performed in part by the plaintiff and its further performance has been prevented by the act of'the defendant the plaintiff may at his option either sue for the breach and recover damages or abandon the contract altogether and recover upon a general *iwdebtitatus assumpsit.*

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 1831. Honorable P. E. Edrington, Judge.

L. H. Marrero, Jr., Buck, Walshe & Buck, for plaintiff and appellee.

H. W. Robinson, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

' The defendant appointed plaintiff her .agent for the sale of her property with the exclusive authority during ninety days to .accept any offer to purchase the same provided the price be $18,000.

She bound herself to refer to him during the term of the contract all applicants for the purchase of the property, and agreed to pay him as brokerage charges for negotiating the sale, five per cent commission on the gross amount.

*386Opinion and decree, June 14th, 1915.

Rehearing refused, June 30th, 1915.

Plaintiff was to nse his best endeavors to effect a sale, and did so, though unsuccessfully.

Before the expiration of the ninety days defendant sold her property for $13(,i00 to a purchaser not procured by plaintiff and without referring said purchaser to plaintiff.

The latter, setting forth the above facts, sues for *5%*on the last named sum.

We are unable to distinguish this case from Freeman vs. Diboll, No. 6037 of our Docket, decided April 6th, 1904, (Yol. XI, Court of Appeal, 199) wherein we held that “where the contract of a real- estate broker confers upon him the exclusive right to ' sell the property, and negatives the right of the owner .to sell or negotir te for its sale, the broker is entitled to his commission if, during the term of the contract, a sale is effected by the owner or by another broker in his behalf.” '

The doctrine which is thus stated is one the equity of which needs no defense. It is quite as sound from the standpoint of strict law. “According to the great weight of authority, if a special agreement has been performed in part by the plaintiff and its further performance has been prevented by the act of the defendant, the plaintiff may at his option either sue for the 'breach and recover damages or abandon the contract altogether and recover upon a general indebitatus assumpsit.”

9 Cyc., 688 (Verbo: Contracts, XII, A. 4). See also, Rightor vs. Aleman, 4 Robinson, 45, and Brown vs. Bark Laura Snow, 14 An., 848.

The judgment below for plaintiff was correct.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 142 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 142

Expressing the sense of the Congress that there should be established a 
                           National Pet Week.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2007

Mr. Shays (for himself, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. 
  DeFazio, Mr. Moore of Kansas, and Mr. Kirk) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress that there should be established a 
                           National Pet Week.

Whereas May 6 to May 12, 2007, marks 26th anniversary of ``National Pet Week'', 
        sponsored by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the 
        Auxiliary to the American Veterinary Medical Association;
Whereas animals and pets give companionship and pleasure in daily living, share 
        the homes of nearly 69,000,000 individuals or families in the United 
        States, and provide special benefits to elderly persons and children;
Whereas the people of the United States have a firm commitment to promote 
        responsible care of animals and pets and guard against cruel and 
        irresponsible treatment;
Whereas teaching kindness and respect for all living animals through education 
        in schools and communities is essential to the basic values of a humane 
        and civilized society;
Whereas the people of the United States are grateful to the veterinary medical 
        profession for providing preventive and emergency medical care and 
        assistance to animals, spaying and neutering animals to combat 
        overpopulation, and contributing to the education of animal owners; and
Whereas the people of the United States are indebted to animal protection 
        organizations, State humane organizations, and local animal care and 
        control agencies for promoting respect for animals and pets, educating 
        children about humane attitudes, and caring for lost, unwanted, abused, 
        and abandoned animals: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That it is the sense of the Congress--
            (1) that there should be established a National Pet Week; 
        and
            (2) the people of the United States should observe National 
        Pet Week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Mechanization,employment, and output per man in bituminous-coal mining
v 1|v 2|
 
SuDoc Number:FW 4.7:E-9/V.1-2

Item Number: 0830-D (online)

CGP systemNumber:001084744
November 8, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26349-26350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8844]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-412-000]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

May 2, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets with a proposed effective date of June 1, 2007:

First Revised Sheet No. 85
First Revised Sheet No. 86
Second Revised Sheet No. 333
Original Sheet No. 333A
Original Sheet No. 333B
Original Sheet No. 333C

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date

[[Page 26350]]

need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than 
the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#25636077666a4b494c4b40765055554a575165434057460b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5b3b0a7b6ba9b999c9b90a68085859a8781b593908796db929a83">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8844 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN DR E S HE R MAN, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. DWI GH T NE VE N, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 15999 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 5 - CV - 0 0 3 6 2 - J CM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da J a m e s C . M a ha n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N ev ad a s tate p riso n erA n d re S h er m an ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED FEB 17 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 15999 2 S he rm a n c ont e nds tha tthe s t a t e c ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o e xc l ude u n d u lys u g g e s tiv e f

ie lda n dp r e - tr ia l in - c o u rt id e n tif ic a tio n s v io la te dh is const i tut i on al ri gh t s. T he st at e c ou rt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe chal l enged id e n tif ic a tio n s w e r e s u f

f ic ie n tlyr e liab le w a s n o t c o n tr a ryto , o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f

, c le a r lye s tab lis h e dU n ite dS ta te s S up r e m e C o u rt p r e c e d e n t. See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1); see a l so N ei l v. B i g g ers , 4 0 9 U .S . 1 8 8 , 1 9 9 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . W e c ons true S he rm a n’ s a ddi t i ona l a r gum e nt s a s am ot i on t o e xpa nd the c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility . S o c o n s tru e d , th e m o tio n is d e n ie d . See 9 th C ir . R . 2 2 - 1 ( e ) ; s e e al

s o Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 19 5 F . 3d 10 98 , 11 04 -05 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per curi am ). AF F I RME D.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, James W. Cruckshank, certify that:

 

1.   Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MathStar, Inc.;

 

2.          Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.          Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)         Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)        [intentionally omitted];

 

c)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

d)        Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)         All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

----

 

b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| May 15, 2006 |   |
|--------------|--------|
|         |   |
|         | By     | /s/ James W. Cruckshank |
|         |   | James W. Cruckshank |
|         |   | Vice President of  Administration and  Chief Financial Officer |
|              |        |  |  |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 2 3

- 7244

PATRICK NILO GIL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JANE DOE, C.O. 1; LT. FOWLKES; SGT. WARD; CAPTAIN HITE; WALTON, C.O.; SGT. SHERWOOD; SGT. ROBINSON; JANE DOE, C.O. 2 , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Rossie David Alston, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 00618

- RDA

- JFA )

Submitted : July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Patrick Nilo Gil , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7244 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Patrick Nilo Gil appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Gil v. Doe , No.
1:22

- cv - 00618

- RDA

- JFA (E.D. Va. Nov. 16, 2023) . 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.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-7244 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 21.1

            SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                       STATE OR OTHER
                                      JURISDICTION OF
                                      INCORPORATION OR
            NAME                        ORGANIZATION

   1.  ClassroomDirect.com, LLC           Delaware
   2.  Sax Arts and Crafts, Inc.          Delaware
   3.  Childcraft Education Corp.         New York
   4.  Bird-in-Hand Woodworks, Inc.      New Jersey
   5.  Don Gresswell, Ltd.              United Kingdom
   6.  Sportime Acquisition,              Delaware
   7.  Sportime, LLC                      Delaware
   8.  SSI Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc.   Delaware
   9.  SSI Acquisition Corp.              Delaware
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF
KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors,
SonoSite, Inc.:

We consent
to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-97973, 333-89518, 333-51820, 333-82739, 333-49401, 333-74833, 333-60112 and
333-110913) on Form S-8 and registration statements (Nos. 333-68610, 333-91083
and 333-83278) on Form S-3 of SonoSite, Inc. of our report dated February 6,
2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of SonoSite, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, cash flows and shareholders equity and comprehensive
loss for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003 and
the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December
31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc.

| | /s/  KPMG LLP
| | -------------

Seattle, Washington
March 11, 2004

63

---

---
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**

 

US LEC of North Carolina Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Georgia Inc. (Delaware Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Tennessee Inc. (Delaware Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Florida Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of South Carolina Inc. (Delaware Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Alabama Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Maryland Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Pennsylvania Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC Communications Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Virginia L.L.C. (Delaware Limited Liability Company) 

 

US LEC Acquisition Co. (North Carolina Corporation)