alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MANUFACTURERS &c. BANK v. FREDERICKSON.

March 16, 1837.

*Rule to show cause why the fieri facias should not he set aside.*

If a year and a day have elapsed since the entry of a judgment by agreement, the plaintiff cannot issue an execution without a *scire*facias, although the agreement for judgment specifies that it is to be without stay of execution or appeal.

IN this case, judgment for the plaintiff was entered by agreement, dated December 30, 1834, which stipulated that it was “ without stay of execution or appeal.” The case so stood until February 23, 1837, when the plaintiff issued a *fieri facias. The*defendant took a rule to show cause why the *fieri facias*should not be set aside.

*JVewcornb,*for the rule,

contended that no execution could legally issue, there having been no *scire facias post an. el cli. et qua. ex. non.*

*Troubat,*contra,

argued that no *scire facias*was necessary under the terms of the agreement.

Per Curiam.

The terms of the agreement do not obviate the necessity of the issuing of a *scire facias,*as is usual in other cases, after the lapse of the year and a day, and where no previous execution has been issued. The phrase “ without stay of execution” only deprived the defendant of the privilege which he otherwise would have had of entering security, or pleading his freehold, for a *cesset*according to the act of assembly. The rule must be made absolute.

Rule absolute.
08/05/2015 11:34 KEN DANIEL

**J~\N';** 

### KENNETH DANIEL, P.C.
. . . .., i

**~**.._ ' ... N. KENNETH (KEN) DANIEL BY

**FACSIMILE~** TO: 

### FAA DOCKET OPERATIONS (202) 493-2251 ATTORNEYAT LAW 

### 3:

**2~67** PROFESSIONAL PARKWAY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA30907 August

**5~** 2015 Federal Aviation Administration Re: Petition for Exemption ofWilliam ScottRobertson Federal RegisterNo. 2015-17611 

### DocketNo. FAA-2015-2192 Dear Sir or Madam: If AX)7068604757

P.O. BOX 211790 AUGUSTA, GEORGIA30917 (706} 860-3747 FAX 860-4757 P.0011002

Please consider this letter as 

### my comment 

### in support ofthe application ofWilliam Scott Robertson for his requested exemption from specifiedFAA regulations related to training and testing requirements for adding amulti-engine rating to his existing ATP certificate. Mr. Robertson's petition evidences that his educational background has provided training 

### that likely greatly exceeds existing FAA requirements and to require 

### Mr. Robertson to comply with the recently changedregulations which govern the addition ofa multi-engine rating to anATP certificate, would be essentially equivalentto requiring that 

### Mr. Robertson duplicate educational training that he has already received as part ofhis undergraduate education atEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical University. While clearlythe FAA's obvious goal. ofinsuring that applicants seeking obtain a multi--enginerating for an ATP certificate meet minimum educational thresholds, is a commendable goal, applying the regulations in a way that essentially requires duplication ofan applicant's previous studies makes no sense. Mr. Robertson's application for exemption clearly evidences thatMr. Robertson's educational background has provided him with education. training and experience which appear to 

### greatly exceed existing regulatory requirements. To the extentthe purpose ofthe regulations. from which 

### Mr. Robertson seeks

**exemption~** is toinsure that an applicant has met certain minimum educational thresholds, then Mr. Robertson's petition evidences compliance with such

**education~** thresholds and 

### Mr. Robertson shouldnot be required to spend the considerable time and resources that would be necessary to duplicate his existing educational training. This is the type waiverthat should be08/05/2015 11:34 KEN DANIEL Federal Aviation Administration Page Two August 5, 

### 2015 (f AX)7068604757 P.002/002 favorably considered bythe FAA 

### as it simply 

### makes sense. Your favorable consideration of

### Mr. Robertson's exemptionrequest is hereby urged.



# ~u:._Q

N. Kenneth Daniel
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1602 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the technologies 

through which a vehicle qualifies for the credit for new qualified plugin electric drive motor vehicles. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. RISCH, and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the technologies through which a vehicle qualifies for 

the credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor 

vehicles. 

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 ‘‘Changing How Amer5 ica Reduces Greenhouse Emissions (CHARGE) Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1602 IS

1 SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC 

2 DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES ALLOWED FOR VE3 HICLES WITH ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL EN4 ERGY STORAGE DEVICES. 

5 (a) CREDIT ALLOWED FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (F) of section 

7 30D(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

8 amended— 

9 (A) by striking ‘‘battery’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘power source’’, and 

11 (B) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘(or, in the 

12 case of a power source which is not a battery, 

13 the appropriate energy equivalent to such ca14 pacity, as determined by the Secretary)’’ after 

15 ‘‘4 kilowatt hours’’. 

16 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (d) 

17 of section 30D of such Code is amended by redesig18 nating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) and by in19 serting after paragraph (3) the following new para20 graph: 

21 ‘‘(4) POWER SOURCE.—The term ‘power source’ 

22 includes a battery or an alternative electrical energy 

23 storage device.’’. 

24 (b) AMOUNT OF CREDIT.— 

25 (1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 

26 30D(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1602 IS

1 amended by inserting at the end the following new 

2 sentence: ‘‘In the case of any new qualified plug-in 

3 electric drive motor vehicle which uses a power 

4 source other than a battery, this first sentence of 

5 this paragraph shall be applied by substituting the 

6 appropriate energy equivalent measurement for the 

7 number of kilowatt hours.’’. 

8 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading 

9 of paragraph (3) of section 30D(b) of such Code is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘BATTERY CAPACITY’’ and in11 serting ‘‘CAPACITY’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

14 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 40515.

#### Protest 954051-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bookends plated with silver. The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 339 was-therefore sustained. *Dow*v. *United States*(21 C. C. P. A. 282, T. D. 46816) and *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(id. 103, T. D. 46445) cited.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

** **

                           Certification of CEO and CFO

**                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**                              As Adopted Pursuant to**

**                   Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Angeles Partners XII (the "Partnership"), for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as theequivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B.Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
#### Judson-Sheldon Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6592.

Entry No. 704552.

Invoice dated London, England, July 18, 1942.

Certified July 24, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 25, 1942.

(Decided December 10, 1946)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*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:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ixia Pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) under the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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 the Company.
 Date: February 23, 2007

/s/ Errol GinsbergErrol GinsbergPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 23, 2007

/s/ Thomas B. MillerThomas B. MillerChief Financial Officer 36
#### *W.*R. Zanes & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6930.

Entry No. 53-D, etc.

Invoices dated Northampton, England, November 1942, etc.

Certified November 1942, etc.

Entered at Dallas, Tex., December 29, 1942, etc.

(Decided February 28, 1947)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Presiding’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:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Meadows Wye & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6609.

Entry No. 702629, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, May 30, 1941, etc.

Certified June 5, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 11, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 12, 1946)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

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

Kincheloe, 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:

(Stipulation omitted.) ■

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 values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________
CHRISTINE B. ALBERTY,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1976

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 21

- 6164

, Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is Case: 23-1976 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 09/18/2023A LBERTY V

. M C D ONOUGH 2

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to pro secute in
accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

September 18, 2023 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Date Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 18, 2023 Case: 23-1976 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 09/18/2023
# C_2015065EN.01000502.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Sean Ambrose McCarthy, Helena Patricia McCarthy Rodriguez, Natasha Caley McCarthy Rodriguez v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-202/13) (1)

1

((Citizenship of the European Union - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State - Right of entry - Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen and in possession of a residence card issued by a Member State - National legislation requiring an entry permit to be obtained prior to entry into national territory - Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 1 of the Protocol (No 20) on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the United Kingdom and to Ireland))

(2015/C 065/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Sean Ambrose McCarthy, Helena Patricia McCarthy Rodriguez, Natasha Caley McCarthy Rodriguez

Claimants:

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Both Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and Article 1 of the Protocol (No 20) on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the United Kingdom and to Ireland must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to require, in pursuit of an objective of general prevention, family members of a citizen of the European Union who are not nationals of a Member State and who hold a valid residence card, issued under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38 by the authorities of another Member State, to be in possession, pursuant to national law, of an entry permit, such as the EEA (European Economic Area) family permit, in order to be able to enter its territory.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

1

---
Second, Lopez contends that he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. As Lopez acknowledges, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims generally may not be raised on direct appeal, see Feazell v. State, 111 Nev. 1446, 1449, 906 P.2d 727, 729 (1995), and we decline to consider them here because the district court has not held an evidentiary hearing and an evidentiary hearing is necessary to substantiate Lopez's factual allegations, see Archanian v. State, 122 Nev. 1019, 1036, 145 P.3d 1008, 1020-21 (2006).

Third, Lopez contends that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, vouched for the credibility of the victim, and shifted the burden of proof. Lopez failed to object during closing, and we review for plain error. NRS 178.602; Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545, 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003). Lopez has the burden of establishing that these errors occurred, see Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1188, 196 P.3d 465, 476 (2008) (discussing prosecutorial misconduct); Lisle v. State, 113 Nev. 540, 553-54, 937 P.2d 473, 481 (1997) (discussing improper vouching and burden shifting), that the errors are plain or clear from the record, and that the errors affected his substantial rights, Green, 119 Nev. at 545, 80 P.3d at 95. In addition to making the statements which Lopez alleges violated his rights, the State specifically told the jury during closing arguments that "it's your job to determine [the victim's] credibility," and on rebuttal that, "we're going to let you decide how credible do you think that person is," and if the jury had any reasonable doubt about whether the victim lied, that "reasonable doubt entitles the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A et),

### Defendant to a not guilty verdict." Having reviewed the closing

arguments in their entirety, we conclude that if there is any error, it is not plain or clear from the record, and Lopez has not demonstrated that it affected his substantial rights. Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

J.

Pickering

°t=2" J. Parrqguirre

k. 

### A

Saitta
cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Carmine J. Colucci & Associates Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 3
(0) 1047A 

### e
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 91 (Friday, May 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 26415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Ultrafine Grained Titanium for Near-Net Shape 
Forging--a Pathway to Titanium Market Expansion

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 17, 2007, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Ultrafine Grained Titanium 
for Near-net Shape Forging--A Pathway to Titanium Market Expansion has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the 
parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the 
venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: ATI AIlvac, Monroe, NC; and GE Global Research, 
Niskayuna, NY. The general area of this group research project's 
planned activity is to develop a novel ultrafine grained titanium 
billet process that will enable both near-net shape forging of standard 
alloys into complex components for aviation, energy, transportation and 
military markets.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-10139 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,818,209
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,050,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                   459,761
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,271,119
<PP&E>                                       9,736,994
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,629,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,659,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,193,491
<BONDS>                                        307,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,811,327
<COMMON>                                       188,419
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,918,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,659,925
<SALES>                                      4,296,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,143,400
<CGS>                                        6,237,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,086,977
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,940
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               242,993
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             277,075
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                854,368
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            854,368
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   854,368
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1901 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitations 

on the amount excluded from the gross estate with respect to land 

subject to a qualified conservation easement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2011 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the limitations on the amount excluded from the gross 

estate with respect to land subject to a qualified conservation easement. 

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 ‘‘American Family 

5 Farm and Ranchland Protection Act of 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1901 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT EX2 CLUDED FROM THE GROSS ESTATE WITH RE3 SPECT TO LAND SUBJECT TO A QUALIFIED 

4 CONSERVATION EASEMENT. 

5 (a) INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION ON EXCLU6 SION.—Paragraph (3) of section 2031(c) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exclusion limitation) 

8 is amended by striking ‘‘the exclusion limitation is’’ and 

9 all that follows and inserting ‘‘the exclusion limitation is 

10 $5,000,000.’’. 

11 (b) INCREASE IN PERCENTAGE OF VALUE OF LAND

12 WHICH IS EXCLUDABLE.—Paragraph (2) of section 

13 2031(c) of such Code (relating to applicable percentage) 

14 is amended— 

15 (1) by striking ‘‘40 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘50 

16 percent’’, and 

17 (2) by striking ‘‘2 percentage points’’ and in18 serting ‘‘2.5 percentage points’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply to the estates of decedents dying 

21 after December 31, 2011. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS