alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6951

JAMES R. EDGERTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY; EARNEST H. SMITH, Chief Jailer, Defendants - Appellees, and FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-327-5-CT-H) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 28, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James R. Edgerton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harrison Sasser, III, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). Themagistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
#### JR. FOOD STORES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. JUNIOR FOOD STORES OF WEST FLORIDA, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. Q-74.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 18, 1972.

Rehearing Denied March 24, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
#### PAINE *v.*SWIFT.

1. Appeal and Error — Trial Without Jury — Questions Open to Review in Absence op Findings or Exceptions.

Where, in ease tried without jury, there were no formal findings or exceptions, only question open for review is whether there was any evidence to sustain judgment.

2. Same — Sufficiency of Evidence.

In action on postdated check and .for balance due under contract of sale, testimony by defendant that eheck was postdated to enable him to investigate before contract should become effective, that he had investigated and refused to consummate sale, *held,*sufficient to sustain judgment for defendant. '

Appeal from Wayne; Spier (James E.), J., presiding.

Submitted October 7, 1931.

(Docket No. 36, Calendar No. 35,593.)

Decided January 4, 1932.

Assumpsit by Edith A. Paine against Frederick John Swift' and another on a contract for certain sales rights. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*George K. Williams (John H. Flancher,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*Samuel L. Weller,*for defendants.

Fead, J.

In writing, plaintiff sold to defendants the right to sell hot tamales and tamale steamers in Wayne county for one year for $900. Swift gave her a check for $600, postdated four days. The check was not paid when due, and Swift notified plaintiff he would not proceed with the transaction.

*454Plaintiff brought this suit to recover on the check and the additional $300 under the contract. The case was tried before the court without a jury. There were no formal findings or exceptions, under the then prevailing practice, and the only question here is whether there was any evidence to sustain the judgment.

The import of Swift’s testimony, taken without objection, is that the check was postdated to enable him to investigate before the contract should become effective. On investigation, he failed to find business where plaintiff claimed it was, and refused to consummate the sale. This testimony sustains the judgment for defendants, and it is affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
#### William and Edythe CLEMENTS, Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 71-781.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 11, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS IN THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1996.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000041296
<NAME> GIANT GROUP, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          21,950
<SECURITIES>                                    10,682
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,369
<PP&E>                                           5,745
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,355
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,565
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,935
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,879
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,731
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (317)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  33
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,629
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,512)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,141
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1048 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1048

                To suspend temporarily the duty on DMAS.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 27 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

Mr. Kohl (for himself and Mr. Danforth) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                To suspend temporarily the duty on DMAS.

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

SECTION 1. DMAS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
      

       ``  9902.31.12   DMAS (Dimethyl acetyl                    No change      No change      On or before     
                         succinate) (provided for in                                            12/31/95      ''
                         subheading 2918.30.50)......  Free                                                   . 

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### GREGG, GIBSON & GREGG, INC., Appellant, v. REEDY CREEK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-875.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors
Smithway Motor Xpress Corp:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.'s
333-10249, 333-10251, 333-21253, 333-81855, and 333-97195) on Form S-8 of
Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. of our report dated February 25, 2005, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2004, which report appears in the December
31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.


                                                       /s/ KPMG LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
March 15, 2005
#### Lamar CARITHERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-3.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 21, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[No. 586-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

October 18, 1971.]

#### Toledo Scale Corporation, *Respondent,*v. The Department of Labor and Industries *et al., Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 703900, Felix Rea, J., entered March 16, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
# C_2022119EN.01001801.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/18

---

Appeal brought on 20 August 2021 by FT and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2021 in Case T-699/19 FT and Others v Commission

(Case C-518/21 P)

(2022/C 119/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: FT, FU, FV, FY, FZ, GA, GB, GC, GD, GG, GE, GF, GH, GI, GJ, GK, GL, GM, GN, GO, GP, GQ, GR, GS, GT, GU (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 27 January 2022, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                              THE GILLETTE COMPANY
                                  Certification

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
                                      Code)

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, the undersigned, Charles W. Cramb, Chief Financial Officer
of The Gillette Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date: May 9, 2005                             /s/ Charles W. Cramb
                                              -------------------------
                                              Charles W. Cramb
                                              Senior Vice President and
                                              Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Gillette Company (the "Company") and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
EXHIBIT 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF BROOKTROUT, INC.

|Subsidiary                        |                                        | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |                | Percent
Owned |    
|--------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | -------------- | ------------- | ---
|Brooktrout Technology, Inc.       |                                        | Delaware                      |                | 100           | %  
|                                  | SnowShore Networks, Inc.               |                               | Delaware       |               | 100
|Brooktrout Securities Corporation |                                        | Massachusetts                 |                | 100           | %  
|                                  | Brooktrout International, Inc.         |                               | Massachusetts  |               | 100
|                                  | Brooktrout Technology (Europe) Limited |                               | United Kingdom |               | 100
|Brooktrout Japan, Inc.            |                                        | Delaware                      |                | 100           | %  

---



QuickLinks
# C_2022024EN.01003801.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/38

---

Order of the General Court of 4 November 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA

(Case T-5/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Obligation of Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality - Refusal of the EEA to refer a question to the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 24/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt (Helvoirt, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gebruers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Environment Agency (represented by: O. Cornu, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision that was allegedly adopted by the EEA in an email of 9 November 2020 and by which it refused to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of a provision of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Environment Agency (EEA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Environment Agency (EEA).

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---
#### Murray ZELIKOFF, Appellant, v. ZUCKERMAN-VERNON CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-352.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1973.

Truett & Watkins, and Joseph A. Ganz, Miami, for appellant.

Snyder, Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, and' Joseph Teichman, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Kaplan, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 503.
#### NEW ORLEANS LAKE SHORE LAND COMPANY, IN RECEIVERSHIP v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 53832.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1973.

In re: Maria Realty, Inc., and Mrs. Lewis A. Giraud applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 279 So.2d 706.

Writ denied. Judgment not final.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 45 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 45

     Providing that the House of Representatives should defeat any 
 legislation designed to stimulate the economy during fiscal year 1993 
or 1994 if that legislation would also increase the size of the annual 
                     budget deficit for that year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1993

 Mr. Gillmor submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Providing that the House of Representatives should defeat any 
 legislation designed to stimulate the economy during fiscal year 1993 
or 1994 if that legislation would also increase the size of the annual 
                     budget deficit for that year.

Whereas the new Administration has not stated whether the budget submission to 
        Congress for fiscal year 1994 will increase or decrease the size of the 
        annual budget deficit;
Whereas the fiscal year 1992 budget deficit was $290,000,000,000, the largest 
        budget deficit in our history;
Whereas interest payments on the public debt are currently the third largest 
        item in the annual Federal budget, consuming over $200,000,000,000 each 
        year at the expense of other more important national priorities;
Whereas the ballooning public debt currently exceeds $4,000,000,000,000; and
Whereas any short-term economic gain arising from new deficit spending in fiscal 
        year 1993 or 1994 is not worth the additional long-term debt burden that 
        would be handed down to our children: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
any legislation which would provide a short-term economic stimulus to 
the economy, but would also increase the size of the fiscal year 1993 
or 1994 budget deficit, should not be enacted into law.

                                 <all>
```
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1000

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on anthraquinone.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 20 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. ROCKEFELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on

anthraquinone.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ANTHRAQUINONE.

4 Heading 9902.30.17 of the Harmonized Tariff

5 Schedule of the United States is amended by striking out

6 ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/95’’.

7 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by this Act

9 applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

11 the date of the enactment of this Act.
2

•S 1000 IS

1 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

2 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

3 upon proper request filed with the appropriate customs of4 ficer on or before the 90th day after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act, any entry of an article described in head6 ing 9902.30.17 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

7 United States that was made—

8 (1) after December 31, 1992, and

9 (2) before the date which is 15 days after the

10 date of the enactment of this Act,

11 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

12 occurred on or after the date that is 15 days after the

13 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 18

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
400 Campus Dr.
Florham Park NJ 07932
Telephone (973) 236 4000
Facsimile (973) 236 5000

July 28, 2004


Board of Directors
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.
2 Paragon Drive
Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Directors:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form
10-Q filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have been provided a copy of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 19, 2004. Note 3 therein describes a change in accounting
principle from the last-in, first-out method of valuing certain inventories to
the first-in, first-out method. It should be understood that the preferability
of one acceptable method of accounting over another for inventory costing has
not been addressed in any authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing
our concurrence below we have relied on management's determination that this
change in accounting principle is preferable. Based on our reading of
management's stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting
principle in the Form 10-Q, and our discussions with management as to their
judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we
concur with management that such change represents, in the Company's
circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity
with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20.

We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or
for any period subsequent to February 28, 2004. Accordingly, our comments are
subject to change upon completion of an audit of the financial statements
covering the period of the accounting change.

Very truly yours,



/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Exhibit No. 99



Supplemental Segment Information



|In thousands                       | Quarter EndedOctober 31, | Six Months EndedOctober 31,
|---------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ---------------------------
|                                   | 2005                     | 2004                       
|Orders Received:                   |                          |                            
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $  72,039                | $  69,407                  
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 42,917                   | 44,594                     
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 16,267                   | 17,305                     
|                                   | $131,223                 | $131,306                   
|                                   | =======                  | =======                    
|                                   |                          |                            
|In thousands                       | October 31,2005          | April 30,2005              
|Backlog:                           |                          |                            
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $   1,568                | $   1,223                  
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 37,717                   | 38,443                     
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 1,532                    | 3,943                      
|                                   | $ 40,817                 | $ 43,609                   
|                                   | =======                  | ======