alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UNPUBLISHED**

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7568** 

BARUCHYAH BEDEYAH HAWKINS, a/k/a Daughton W. Lacey, Jr. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director, V.D.O.C. , Respondent

- Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Jackson L. Kiser , Senior District Judge. ( 7:15

- cv - 00382

- JLK

- RSB )

Submitted : March 31, 2016 Decided: April 13, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Remand ed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.
Baruchyah Bedeyah Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Baruchyah Bedeyah Hawkins seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition. His notice of appeal and objections to the
district court’s dismissal were received in the district court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Because Hawkins is incarcerated, the notice of appeal and objections are
considered filed as of the date they were properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 ( 1988). The record does not conclusively reveal when Hawkins delivered the notice of appeal or the obj ections to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine w hen the no tice of appeal and the objections were filed , and to take further action as necessary regarding the objections should the district court find they were handed to prison officials for mailing within 28 days of the dismissal order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this c ourt for
further consideration.

REMANDED
Acute Dermal Irritation

Sanitized
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17868]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-489 and 731-TA-1201 (Review)]


Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From China; Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty 
orders on drawn stainless steel sinks from China would be likely to 
lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in 
the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(c)), instituted these reviews on March 1, 2018 (83 FR 8887) and 
determined on June 4, 2018 that it would conduct expedited reviews (83 
FR 30193, June 27, 2018).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on August 14, 2018. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4810 (August 2018), 
entitled Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from China: Investigation Nos. 
701-TA-489 and 731-TA-1201 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 15, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-17868 Filed 8-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<PAGE>


===============================================================================

                   SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                         Washington, D.C.  20549



                                FORM 8-K


                         Current Report Pursuant
                      to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                     Securities Exchange Act of 1934


      Date of Report (Date of Earliest Event Reported)     August 15, 2000


                  WORLD FINANCIAL NETWORK NATIONAL BANK
         (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)



                              United States
             (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

            333-85463
             333-998                             34-1610866
     (Commission File Number)       (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

      800 Techcenter Drive, Gahanna, Ohio              43230
    (Address of Principal Executive Offices)         (Zip Code)


                             (614) 729-4700
          (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)


                             Not Applicable
      (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)


=============================================================================

<PAGE>


Item 5.Other Events.

      None

Item 7.Financial Statements and Exhibits.

      (c)  Exhibits.


Exhibit
  No.        Document Description
-------      --------------------
  20         Monthly Servicing Report




                               SIGNATURES

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by
the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                 WORLD FINANCIAL NETWORK NATIONAL BANK
                                    (Registrant)




Dated:  August 15, 2000          By: Daniel T. Groomes

                                 Title: President
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3497 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3497

     To amend title 18, with respect to travel for illegal sexual 
                              activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 10, 1993

 Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Ramstad, and Mr. Bliley) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title 18, with respect to travel for illegal sexual 
                              activities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Prostitution and Sexual Abuse 
Prevention Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. TRAVEL FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITIES.

    Section 2423 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Whoever''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Whoever, being a United States citizen or resident alien, 
travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or conspires to do so, for 
the purpose of engaging in any sexual act (as the term `sexual act' is 
defined in section 2245 of this title) with a person under 18 years of 
age, which would be in violation of chapter 109A of this title if such 
sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial 
jurisdiction of the United States;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, 
or both.''.

                                 <all>
```
Opinion filed April 14, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11-15-00294-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF D.L.B. AND S.E.B., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-130,028

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights on October 28, 2015, 

and she filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. 

After Appellant finally remitted her filing fee in January, this court informed 

her that the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record were due to be filed on or 

before February 8, 2016. The clerk’s record was filed on that date, but the 

reporter’s record was not. On February 10, the court reporter informed this court 

that Appellant had not requested a reporter’s record and that Appellant had not

paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. The clerk of this 
2

court immediately notified Appellant that she needed to submit a designation of 

record and remit payment to the court reporter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b). We 

also extended the deadline for filing the reporter’s record and informed Appellant 

that this appeal may be submitted on the clerk’s record alone if she failed to 

designate or pay for the reporter’s record on or before February 19. Appellant did 

not meet that deadline, and we notified her on February 26 that the appeal would 

be submitted on the clerk’s record alone. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). In the 

February 26 letter, this court also informed Appellant that her brief was due for 

filing on or before March 17, 2016. Appellant did not file a brief by the due date, 

and on our own motion, we extended the deadline to April 6 and informed 

Appellant as follows: “Failure to file Appellant’s brief by the April 6, 2016 due 

date may result in dismissal of the appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3.

On April 6, rather than file a brief, Appellant—through her newly retained 

counsel—filed a motion to extend the time to file Appellant’s brief. In the motion,

counsel states that Appellant has yet to pay the court reporter but that Appellant “is 

prepared to remit payment” if this court grants an extension of time to file 

Appellant’s brief. Based upon Appellant’s failure to prosecute this appeal in a 

timely manner, we conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3.

Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s motion to extend the time to file 

Appellant’s brief, and we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

April 14, 2016

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
<PAGE>
================================================================================

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                             Current Report Pursuant
                          to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934


Date of Report (Date of Earliest Event Reported) September 15, 2000
                                                 ------------------

                              CNH RECEIVABLES INC.
             ------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)


                                    Delaware
                 ----------------------------------------------
                 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)


33-84922, 3-992298, 333-52493, 333-82741                (Commission File Number)

     76-0439709                             (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
-----------------


100 South Saunders Road Lake Forest, IL                     60045
----------------------------------------               ----------
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)               (Zip Code)


                                 (847) 735-9200
              ----------------------------------------------------
              (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)


                                 Not Applicable
          -------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)


================================================================================
<PAGE>

Item 5.   Other Events.

          The Registrant is filing the monthly Servicer Reports listed in Item
7(c) below with respect to each of its outstanding series of publicly-offered
securities.

Item 7.   Financial Statements and Exhibits.

          (c)  Exhibits.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit
   No.         Document Description
-----------------------------------
<S>            <C>
20.1           Monthly Servicer Report dated September 15, 2000.
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

          Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                        CNH RECEIVABLES INC.
                                            (Registrant)


Dated: September 22, 2000               By:  /s/ James S. Broenen
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             James S. Broenen
                                             Senior VP & CFO

<PAGE>

                                INDEX TO EXHIBITS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit        Sequential
   No.         Document Description
-----------------------------------
<S>            <C>
20.1           Monthly Servicer Report dated September 15, 2000.
</TABLE>
# C_2015108EN.01000701.xml

| 31.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/7

---

Corrigendum to the withdrawal of Commission proposals

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 80 of 7 March 2015
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 80 of 7 March 2015

(2015/C 108/06)

On page 22, under the heading ‘Transport’:

for:

for:

| ‘COM(2005) 353 | 2005/0141/APP | Proposal for a Council Decision on the signature and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Community and Serbia and Montenegro on certain aspects of air services’, |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘COM(2005) 353

2005/0141/APP

Proposal for a Council Decision on the signature and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Community and Serbia and Montenegro on certain aspects of air services’,

read:

read:

| ‘COM(2005) 353 | 2005/0141/NLE | Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Serbia and Montenegro on certain aspects of air services’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘COM(2005) 353

2005/0141/NLE

Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Serbia and Montenegro on certain aspects of air services’.

---
# C_2016487EN.01011301.xml

| 28.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 487/113 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 487/113

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work

[COM(2016) 248 final — 2016/0130 COD]

(2016/C 487/20)

| Consultation | Council, 24/05/2016
  European Parlement, 25/05/2016 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 148(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted at plenary | 21/09/2016 |
| Plenary session No | 519 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 171/0/3 |

Consultation

Council, 24/05/2016

European Parlement, 25/05/2016

Legal basis

Article 148(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Employment, Social affairs and Citizenship

Adopted at plenary

21/09/2016

Plenary session No

519

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

171/0/3

Since the Committee has already set out its views on the content of the proposal in question in its opinions on the Proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work (sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 80/1107/EEC) adopted on 2 June 1988 (1) and on 20 October 1999 (2), as well as on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an EU strategic framework on health and safety at work (2014-2020) adopted on 11 December 2014, it decided not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

1

2

Brussels, 21 September 2016.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS

---

(1)  OJ C 208, 8.8.1988 p.43.

1

(2)  OJ C 368, 20.12.99 p. 18.

2

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2152

_____________________________
B ENJAMIN L. C HAPPELL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Angela M. Cox , Judge

. October 16, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.3 31

.

_____________________________2 Benjamin L. Chappell, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2632

WILLIAM P. BOULDEN; HATTIE G. BOULDEN,

Petitioners - Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 94-13243)

Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William P. Boulden, Hattie G. Boulden, Appellants Pro Se. Gary R.

Allen, Richard Farber, Andrea R. Tebbets, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the tax court's decision finding a

deficiency for tax year 1991. We have reviewed the record and the

tax court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Boulden v. Commissioner

of the Internal Revenue Service, No. 94-13243 (Tax Ct. Aug. 1,

1995). 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
#### The Toledo Agricultural Works, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*Vincent Heisser Adm. of Balzer Heuring, *et al.,*Defendants, in Error.

1. *Notes and Bills*— Agency—Descriptio personae__A note made to “ C. H. Morris, agent,” is payable to him personally. The word agent after his name is merely *descriptio personae.*

*Error to Scott Circuit Court.*

*Louis*Brown, for Plaintiff in Error.

*G. H. Greene and L. Houck,*for Defendants in Error.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff being a corporation created under the laws of the State of Ohio, sued the defendant on the following note, to-wit: “

> “$>170. Cape Girardeau, Mo., May 30, 1870.

> On or before August 20th, 1870, we or either of us promise to pay to. the order of O. H. Morris, agent, one hundred and seventy dollars for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount, and with interest from maturity, at the rate of ten per cent, per annum-.

> Samuel Tanner. — Balzer Heuring.

> Due Aug. 20th, 1870. ”

The defendants denied the execution. of this note to the plaintiff, or to an agent of the plaintiff, and set up that it had been fraudulently altered by adding the word “agent” to the end of the name of Morris, the payee ; and set up the further defense of a judgment, on a garnishment by a creditor of Morris, for seventy odd dollars, and payment of the judgment without any notice that the plaintiff held the note; and set up a plea of tender to Morris, while the note was in his hands, of the balance due, and brought the same into court,

*129The plaintiff filed a general reply denying the allegations of the answer. A motion to strike out parts of the answer had been'previously made and overruled.

The main question raised here, is whether this note was subject to garnishment, and whether the defendants ought to be allowed a credit for the amount of the judgment rendered against them as garnishees, which was paid.

The face of the note showed that Morris was the payee and entitled to receive the money. The word “agent,” conceding that it was put there at the time of the execution of the note, was a mere *deseriptio personae,*and so far as the defendants were concerned, Morris was the real owner of the note, and a garnishment of the defendants as the debtors, and a judgment rendered and paid before the note went into the hands of plaintiff, ought to be a protection to them. But whether this be so or not, it does not affect the rights of the parties here.

It was shown by inspection that this word “agent,” was inserted in this note after the judgment on the garnishment had been rendered, and paid off. Under this state of facts we have no hesitation in saying that the judgment on the garnishment was a *pro tanto*payment of this note.

We see no sufficient reason for disturbing the judgment of the Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.