alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CALEB H. SIPPLE *vs.*JOHN B. SCOTTEN.

The inventory and appraisement of goods is the *levy.*

Notices of sale should specify the most prominent and valuable articles.

An unexpired term ought to be specified in the advertisement.

Fi. Fa. Sale made, *inter alla,*of the unexpired term of a lease of land from 1st January 1832 for one year. Sale made 1st August 1832.

Rule to show cause why the sale of the term should not be set aside. First, Because it was not entered in the inventory and appraisement until *after*the sale; and, Second, Because it was not advertised in the notices of sale; which being proved—

*The court*

said the sale must be set aside. The property was not levied on until the day of sale. The act of assembly *(Dig.*240.^ provides that goods shall not be sold until thirty days after *levy*and. *notice.*In England *seizure*and *possession*is the only *levy,*but here the practice is not to take the goods into actual possession. Is not therefore an inventory and appraisement the substitute for the *levy?*It would seem reasonable. But the lease was not advertised. *108Every article need not be specified in the notice of sale, but the most prominent and valuable should be. An unexpired term in a farm is of this description and ought to have been noticed. It sold in this case for $17, and is proved to have been worth $150.

*.Frame,*for plff.

Rule absolute,
[No. 280-3.

Division Three.

November 12, 1971.]

#### William H. Timmerman, *Respondent,*v. Robert S. Hood *et al., Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 52297, Blaine Hopp, Jr., J., entered June 26, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                    Independent Auditors' Report on Schedule
                    ----------------------------------------

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
California Steel Industries, Inc.:

Under date of January 18, 2000, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets
of California Steel Industries, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1999 and
1998, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1999, as contained in the 1999 annual report to stockholders.  These
consolidated financial statements and our report thereon are included in the
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.  In connection
with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also
audited the related financial statement schedule as listed in the accompanying
index.  This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial
statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation
to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly,
in all material respects, the information set forth therein.



Orange County, California
January 18, 2000
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 66

Designating membership on certain standing committees of the House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

Mr. ARMEY submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating membership on certain standing committees of

the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

2 they are hereby, elected to the following standing commit3 tees of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: Dave Camp of

5 Michigan.

6 COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Cass

7 Ballenger of North Carolina.

8 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION: Jennifer

9 B. Dunn of Washington.
2

HRES 66 ATH

1 COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISH2 ERIES: Richard W. Pombo of California; [vacancy]; and

3 [vacancy].

Æ
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 pane l unani 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 ar 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 S AB I NO C AS AR I N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71851 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 377- 069 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S abi no C a s ar i n, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de novo c l a i m s of

due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i ons due t o i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l , and 

# FI LED JU L 20 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 71851 2 r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 4 0 0 F . 3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng C a s ar i n’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n, w h er e C as ar infa il ed to es tab li sh th at th e a ll eg ed d ef icien cies inh is p rio r c o u n se l’ s p e r f o rm an c e m ayh av e a f

f e c te dth e o u tc o m e o f

th e p r o c e e d in g s . Se e id . a t793- 94 (pre j ud i ce re sul t s w hen the performance of coun se l w as so i nadequ at e thati tm ay have aff ec t ed the ou t com e of the proceedi ng s) . C a s ar in ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e B I A f a ile dto c o n s id e ran dim p r o p e r ly e va l ua t e d a l l of

the e vi de nc e s ubm i tt e d w i th hi s m ot i on i s nots upport e d bythe r e c or d. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          56,791
<SECURITIES>                                    66,025
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,996
<ALLOWANCES>                                       782
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,678
<PP&E>                                           8,837
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 169,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,392
<BONDS>                                            400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            95
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   169,932
<SALES>                                          5,541
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,541
<CGS>                                            8,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,276)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (774)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,502)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,502)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)


</TABLE>
#### A. H. BLAKE, as Acting Tax Assessor of Dade County, Florida, et al., Appellants, v. Arnold L. GOLDMAN, Appellee.

No. 72-851.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1457

SUZANNE SCIBEK, individually, and on behalf of her minor children, C.S., J.S., 

E.S.; JACOB SCIBEK; J.S., a minor; E.S., a minor; C.S., a minor,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

LAURA GEE GILBERT; CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:20-cv-02638-DCN)

Submitted: January 13, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before KING, WYNN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Kevin B. Smith, Amanda R. Itterly, HOFFMEN LAW FIRM, LLC, North 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants. Helen F. Hiser, James D. Smith, Jr., 

MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for 

Appellee Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Michelle N. Endemann, CLARKSON 

WALSH & COULTER, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee Laura Gee Gilbert.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1457 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Suzanne and Jacob Scibek sued Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. and one of 

its employees, Laura Gee Gilbert, after the Scibeks and Gilbert were involved in a vehicle 

collision. The Scibeks brought claims for negligence against Gilbert and Cracker Barrel 

as well as a claim for negligent hiring against Cracker Barrel. Cracker Barrel moved for 

summary judgment on the two claims against it; Gilbert did not move for summary 

judgment on the one claim against her. The district court granted summary judgment for 

Cracker Barrel, and the Scibeks appeal that order. 

We have jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–546 (1949). Though the district court’s 

summary judgment order resolved the claims against Cracker Barrel, the claim against 

Gilbert remains pending in the district court. The court’s order, therefore, is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and we must dismiss the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1457 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2021053EN.01006401.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/64

---

Action brought on 22 December 2020 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Frito-Lay Trading Company (MONSTER ENERGY)

(Case T-759/20)

(2021/C 53/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Co. (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frito-Lay Trading Company GmbH (Bern, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MONSTER ENERGY — European Union trade mark No 9 500 448

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2020 in Case R 2928/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 23 October 2019 to the extent that it revoked the Registration for goods in Class 30; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 23 October 2019 to the extent that it revoked the Registration for goods in Class 30;

| — | dismiss the application for revocation of the Registration for goods in Class 30; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the application for revocation of the Registration for goods in Class 30;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs of the proceedings and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs of the proceedings and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Incorrect application of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect application of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      19,157,000              19,157,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,413,000              17,413,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,261,000              34,261,000
<PP&E>                                   1,407,575,000           1,407,575,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              42,969,000              42,969,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,429,488,000           1,429,488,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,632,000              27,632,000
<BONDS>                                    555,876,000             555,876,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 845,980,000             845,980,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,429,488,000           1,429,488,000
<SALES>                                     46,511,000             125,987,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            48,224,000             132,302,000
<CGS>                                       12,564,000              33,657,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,113,000              54,762,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,849,000               5,636,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,260,000              25,230,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,002,000              46,674,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         14,002,000              46,674,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0               2,432,000
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,002,000              44,242,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38                    1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38                    1.48
        


</TABLE>
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1092

To make certain regulations, directives, and orders issued under the Federal

Aviation Act of 1958 applicable to public aircraft.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 10, 1993

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

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To make certain regulations, directives, and orders issued

under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 applicable to

public aircraft.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—After the expiration of the 90-day

5 period following the date of the enactment of this Act, all

6 regulations, directives, and orders issued pursuant to the

7 Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.)

8 relating to airworthiness, supplemental type certificates,

9 and technical standard orders in connection with civil air10 craft, including such regulations, directives and orders in
2

•S 1092 IS

1 effect on the 90th day following such date of enactment,

2 shall be applicable to public aircraft.

3 (b) WAIVER.—In the case of any regulation, directive

4 or order referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of

5 Transportation, at the request of any State, territory or

6 possession of the United States, or the District of Colum7 bia, may exempt such State, territory, possession, or the

8 District of Columbia from compliance with such regula9 tion, directive, or order, if the Secretary determines that

10 it has in effect, and is enforcing, a regulation, directive

11 or order equally as stringent as that referred to in sub12 section (a).

13 (c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Transportation

14 shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry

15 out this section.

16 SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION BY INDEPENDENT PARTY.

17 (a) REPORTING OF ACCIDENTS.—After the expira18 tion of the 90-day period following the date of the enact19 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall

20 issue such regulations as may be necessary to require each

21 State to report any accident involving a public use aircraft

22 which occurs in such State to the National Transportation

23 Safety Board.

24 (b) JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

25 SAFETY BOARD.—The National Transportation Safety
3

•S 1092 IS

1 Board shall investigate, determine probable cause, make

2 safety recommendations and report the facts and cir3 cumstances of public aircraft accidents, reported pursuant

4 to subsection (a), in the same manner and to the same

5 extent as that required in connection with United States

6 civil aviation accidents.

7 SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

8 As used in this Act, the term ‘‘public aircraft’’ has

9 the same meaning as that provided by section 101(36) of

10 the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, except that for purposes

11 of this Act, the term ‘‘public aircraft’’ does not include

12 military aircraft.

Æ
#### Arnold M. GREENFIELD, Trustee, Appellant, v. VALLEY FORGE CENTER CO. et al., Appellees.

No. 68-529.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 30, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1970.

*876Carl Spatz, Miami, for appellant.

Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick and George B. Foss, Jr., Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL, J., and FRIEDMAN, MILTON A., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Arnold M. Greenfield, Trustee, appeals final judgment in garnishment for plaintiff-garnishor, Valley Forge Center Co., Inc., entered upon a jury verdict.

“When the garnishee has possession of property of the debtor under a fraudulent transfer, though such transfer is valid against the debtor, the creditor may assert its invalidity and * * * reach the same by garnishment”. Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 124 Fla. 725, 169 So. 617 (1936).

The jury had sufficient evidence before it to determine whether the transfer involved was fraudulent.

Judgment for garnishor is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1101 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1101

     To suspend temporarily the duty on ()-Methyl p-[2-hydroxy-3-
        (isopropylamino) propoxy] hydrocinnamate hydrochloride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 15, 1993

   Mr. Roth introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on ()-Methyl p-[2-hydroxy-3-
        (isopropylamino) propoxy] hydrocinnamate hydrochloride.

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

SECTION 1. ()-METHYL P-[2-HYDROXY-3-(ISOPRO-PYLAMINO) PROPOXY] 
              HYDROCINNAMATE HYDROCHLORIDE.

    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  ()-Methyl p-[2- Free             No change        No change        On or before 12/
                          hydroxy-3-                                                          31/96           ''
                          (isopropylamin                                                                       .
                          o) propoxy]
                          hydrocinnamate
                          hydrochloride
                          (provided for
                          in subheading
                          2922.50.15)...

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to articles 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John J. BELL et al.

No. 53328.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 20, 1973.

In re: John J. Bell, et al applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order.

Writ refused. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion this court should review prior to trial the ruling on the motion for change of venue.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Keith LEDET v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53950.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Keith Ledet applying for writ of habeas corpus and other remedial writs.

Granted. See Order.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Cleveland J. Marcel, Sr., Judge of the Seventeenth, now 32nd Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Terrebonne, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 3rd day of December, 1973, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the 21st day of January, 1974, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.