alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George W. Colcord and Elijah Sprague, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*John P. Funck, defendant in error.

*Error to Desmoincs.*

A service on a defendant, on a petition under the mechanics’ lien law, by posting a copy of the summons, on the property to which the lien attached, is not a good service, unless the defendant cannot be found to receive personal serviee. And the sheriff should first endorse “ not found. ”

D. Rorer, for plaintiffs in error.

James W. Woods, for defendant in error.

Errors assigned:

1. Judgment was taken by default, without any legal service of process on defendants, or either of them, or other legal notice.

*1792. In the plaintiff’s petition^ the defendant below is charged in ffeát and the judgment is rendered for a* a sum in damages.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

This was a petition, filed under the mechanics’ lien law. The return of the sheriff shows that he made a service of tho writ, by posting a copy on the property to which the lien attached, without stating that the defendants could not be found in his county. This was defectives and a judgment having been obtained by default—we think substantially erroneous. The statute only authorizest his mode of service, where the debtor cannot be found in the county. See acts of 1840, page 78., The sheriff might have seen the defendants every day while the writ was in his possession, and still they may never have known of the pendency of the suit. Where debtors abscond, they must at their peril ascertain whether notices have been posted up on buildings they have recently erected,.but not so, where they remain constantly in the county. If the sheriff neglected to serve the writ personally, when he had sufficient opportunity, and they have thereby suffered detriment, what is their remedy? The sheriff is not liable for a false return.. Their only adequate remedy seems that to which they have resorted;.

The judgment will consequently be set aside, and the case sent down, for further proceedings thereon, in the court below.
No. D-1771.

#### In re Disbarment of Lynn.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 519 U. S. 1104.]
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9041]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    Decisional Matter: Sec.  1112: Lab Withdrawal, Codification & Audit 
Provisions.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9041 Filed 4-11-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
Before the First Division,

May 7, 1943

No. 48258.

#### Protest 30558-K of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Turtles in chief value of shells were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1538, in accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstract 44028.
Exhibit 10.118

AMENDMENT TO THE  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment Agreement, made as of the 24th day of May, 2002, is between ATC Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the "Company") and
Alan Levy (the "Employee").

Whereas,
the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2000 and

Whereas,
the parties now desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein;

Now
Therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows:



Except
as expressly amended herein, all other terms, conditions and agreements, representations and warranties contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

|ATC Healthcare, Inc.               |  | Employee     
|---------------------------------- |  | -------------
|/s/ David Savitsky
President & CEO |  | /s/ Alan Levy

---

QuickLinks
No. 40555.

#### Protest 905226-G of Textile Looms, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is in part of braid made on a braiding machine, that is, the elastic fabric on either end. On the record presented it was held properly classified under paragraph 1529.
USGSHomeContactUSGSSearchUSGS

Data Series 418
No. 47106.

#### Protest 78761-K of Harbor Ship Supply Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of cylindrical and tubular tanks or vessels and that they are the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Atlas Marine Supply Co.*v. *United States*(29 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 165). In accordance therewith ^the drums in question were held entitled to free entry under section 309 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 5 (a), Customs Administrative Act of 1938, as claimed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1951 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1951

  To restore the exemption from fees for certain customs services for 
 passengers arriving from Canada, Mexico, and islands adjacent to the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2011

 Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To restore the exemption from fees for certain customs services for 
 passengers arriving from Canada, Mexico, and islands adjacent to the 
                             United States.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF EXEMPTION FROM FEES FOR CERTAIN CUSTOMS 
              SERVICES FOR PASSENGERS ARRIVING FROM CANADA, MEXICO, AND 
              ISLANDS ADJACENT TO THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--Section 13031(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Consolidated 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(1)(A)(i)) 
is amended to read as follows:
            ``(i) the arrival of any passenger whose journey--
                    ``(I) originated in--
                            ``(aa) Canada,
                            ``(bb) Mexico,
                            ``(cc) a territory or possession of the 
                        United States, or
                            ``(dd) any adjacent island (within the 
                        meaning of section 101(b)(5) of the Immigration 
                        and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(5))), or
                    ``(II) originated in the United States and was 
                limited to--
                            ``(aa) Canada,
                            ``(bb) Mexico,
                            ``(cc) territories and possessions of the 
                        United States, and
                            ``(dd) such adjacent islands;''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to passengers arriving from Canada, Mexico, or an adjacent 
island on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015138EN.01001101.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin v Tekniq, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS

(Case C-515/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - National legislation providing for severance allowance to be paid to workers entitled on the date of termination of the employment relationship to a State retirement pension))

(2015/C 138/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin

Applicant:

Defendant: Tekniq, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, from providing that an employer must, upon termination of the employment relationship of a salaried employee who has been continuously employed in the same undertaking for 12, 15 or 18 years, pay an amount equivalent to one, two or three months’ salary respectively, unless the salaried employee is entitled to receive a State retirement pension upon termination of employment to the extent that that legislation is both objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment and labour market policy as well as constituting an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim. It is for the national court to satisfy itself that this is the case.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.

1

---
#### R. & H. Import Co. (Globe Shipping Co., Inc.) *v.*United States

No. 7786.

Entry No. 701914, etc.

(Decided January 26, 1950)

*J ohn D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawrenCe, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the sub j ect of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of these appeals for reappraisement was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### In the Matter of Tobey T. Alice T., Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 350]

—Motion for permission to appeal as poor person and for assignment of counsel denied and appeal dismissed. Memorandum: One against whom a default judgment or order is entered may not appeal *(see,*CPLR 5511; *Matter of Ozolins*[appeal No. 2], 65 AD2d 958). Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO





SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shuwen Kang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 the Company.





Date: December 28, 2011





/s/ Shuwen KangShuwen Kang, Principal Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19978]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-653-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Application

July 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 18, 1997, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77521-1478, filed in Docket No. 
CP97-653-000 an application pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas 
Act and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for an order 
permitting and approving the abandonment in place and removal of 26.00 
miles of 16-inch and 1.29 miles of 14-inch natural gas transmission 
pipeline in Caddo, Bossier, and Webster Parishes, Louisiana.
    Koch states that this transmission pipeline is inactive and no 
longer needed to provide service to the north Louisiana market area. 
Koch further states that this abandonment is in the public interest and 
will have no effect on its existing customers, all as more fully set 
forth in the application on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said application should on or before August 14, 1997 file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, D.C. 20426) a motion to intervene or a protest in 
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission 
will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be 
taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to 
participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to 
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
    Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be 
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on 
this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time 
required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter 
finds that permission and approval for the proposed abandonment is 
required by the public convenience and necessity. If a motion for leave 
to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion 
believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such 
hearing will be duly given.
    Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, 
it will be unnecessary for Koch to appear or be represented at the 
hearing.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19978 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<HTML>
<head>
<TITLE>Consent</TITLE>
</head>

<body bgcolor=white>
<p align="right">
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23</p>

<p align="center"><font size="3"><strong>
                                ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT
</strong></font></br>

<p>The Board of Directors<br>
Sunrise Medical Inc.:

<P>We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-
44911 on Form S-4, Statement No. 33-88216 on Form S-8, Statement, No. 333-50047
on Form S-8, Statement No. 33-82842 on Form S-8 and Statement No. 33-39887 on
Form S-8 of Sunrise Medical Inc. of our report dated August 13, 1999, except as
to Note 7 which is as of September 30, 1999, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Sunrise Medical Inc. and subsidiaries as of July 2, 1999 and
July 3, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended July 2, 1999, and related schedule, which report appears in the
July 2, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Sunrise Medical Inc.
</P>
<P>	/s/ KPMG LLP</P>
<P>San Diego, California<br>
October 14, 1999</P>



<br>
<br>
<br>
<HR WIDTH="85%">
<br>
<br>
<br>

</body>
</HTML>
#### McCANLES et al. v. FREDERICKSON.

September 9, 1837.

*Ride to show cause of*action, *and why defendoMt should not be discharged on common*bail.

An affidavit that plaintiff had paid a certain sum of money, for the use of the defendant, without averring that it was at the instance or request of the defendant, is insufficient to hold to bail.

THIS was a *capias ad respondendum,*to June term, 1837, 318, The plaintiffs on being ruled to show their cause of action, produced the affidavit of one of them, which was as follows, viz,:

“ George T. Chambers, one of the above named plaintiffs, being duly sworn according to law, says : that the above mentioned defendant is justly and truly indebted to the said plaintiffs in the sum of 719 dollars, being the amount without interest, costs, &c. paid to the Manufacturers’ and Mechanics’ Bank, to his use by the said plaintiffs, in part satisfaction of a demand against him, held by that corporation.”

*Troubat,*for plaintiffs.

*Miles,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.—

This affidavit is defective. A voluntary payment of the debt of another, there being no obligation to pay, or if against the consent of the debtor, gives no right of action to the payer against the debtor. There must be an instance and request of the defendant, either express or implied. Here none is stated, and no facts are stated from which the same can be inferred. The defendant must be discharged on common bail.

Rule absolute.a

a

 See the eases in the Index in this volume as to affidavits to hold to bail.
No. 43262.

#### Protest 10882-K of Continental Merchandise Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items consist of opera glasses similar to those involved in *Woolworth*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 1, C. D. 74). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 228 (b) and the French Trade Agreement was therefore sustained.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 5, 2018

No. 04-17-00604-CR

Markus Lorenzo SCOTT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR5941

The Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to 

raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant,

informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of 

his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous, 

and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the 

procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 

924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). At this time, appellant has 

not filed the form motion, requesting a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. 

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so on or before May 21, 

2018. At this time, the State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless 

appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a 

responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in 

abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) 

(holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently 

reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); 

Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).
We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his 

counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of April, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court