alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rocco and Anthony DeNUBILO, d/b/a Roc’s Tavern, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 329, Docket 29341.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 2, 1965.

Decided March 17, 1965.

*456Gerard R. Gemmette, Schenectady, (Louis Lombardi, Schenectady, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Meyer Rothwacks, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, David 0. Walter, Marco S. Son-nenschein, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Justin J. Mahoney, U. S. Atty. for Northern District of New York, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Before MOORE, KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs, who as partners own and operate a restaurant-tavern in Schenectady, New York, sued the United States to recover $469.68 allegedly erroneously assessed as an excise tax deficiency for the first quarter of calendar year 1956. They now seek to appeal from an order of the District Court for the Northern District of New York denying their motion to amend their complaint to embrace an additional $5,485.81 paid to meet deficiency assessments for the thirteen quarters from March 1, 1956, to June 30, 1959. The District Court rested its decision on the taxpayers’ failure to file a proper refund claim for the additional sums as required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). But, the Government suggests quite properly that the well-established policy against piecemeal review deprives us of jurisdiction to consider the merits at this juncture and accordingly we dismiss the appeal.

 Since an excise tax deficiency is divisible into a tax on each transaction or event, Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 175 n. 38, 80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960), this refund suit would involve multiple claims. Therefore, it may be argued that the District Court, in denying leave to amend, in effect dismissed taxpayers’ claims for the thirteen quarters and the provisions of Fed.R.Civ. P. 54(b), governing entry of final judgment upon some but not all of multiple claims, would come into play. But, even if this were so, the District Court did not, in accordance with that Rule, *expressly*determine that there was no just reason for delay and did not *expressly*direct the entry of judgment, and thus the order would not be appealable. See Wolfson v. Blumberg, 340 F.2d 89 (2 Cir. 1965); 6 Moore, Federal Practice ([54.28[2] (2 ed. 1953). And even if we assume, *arguendo,*that the amended complaint sets forth a unitary claim, making Rule 54(b) inapplicable, the order is still interlocutory and non-appealable. An order denying leave to amend a complaint is not a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U.S. *457C. § 1291; the “collateral order” doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), does not apply; and the taxpayers have not procured the certificate required under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a prerequisite to an interlocutory appeal. See generally 6 Moore, Federal Practice HH54.30[1], 54.12[2].

Appeal dismissed.
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

4/17/2019

 Southern District of Ohio

SAS Automation, LLC

3:18-cv-260

Kunshan Speed Auto Machinery Co., Ltd. et al

✔ JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF SAS AUTOMATION, LLC AND AGAINST KUNSHAN

SPEED AUTO MACHINERY CO., LTD. IN THE AMOUNT OF USD $98,359.43 WITH INTEREST, FROM

THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT ENTRY, CALCULATED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1961;TERMINATE

✔ Walter H. Rice
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 79 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 79

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2471, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall make the following correction:
     Amend the title so as to read: ``Making consolidated 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September

              

 30, 2022, and for providing emergency assistance for the situation in 
Ukraine, and for other purposes.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 9, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 79

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

     Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
               correction in the enrollment of H.R. 2471.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JOHNNY B. DREW,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-217
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF District Judge Walter H. Rice
SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Michael J. Newman (Doc. #17), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such
objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and
Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #17) is ADOPTED in full;

2. The Commissioner’s non-disability determination is REVERSED;

3. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under the Fourth Sentence
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; and

4. This case is terminated on the docket of this Court.

Date: G-AR-1F b Sos on

WALTER HERBERT RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 80 Filed 12/04/2003 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 80 Filed 12/04/2003 Page 2 of 2
#### Baird v. Millwood.

UsukY: *Reserving interest in advance: Bomis paid agent of borrower.*

Reserving interest in advance at the highest lawful rate on money loaned for three months, does not constitute usury. Nor will such loan be made usurious by the fact that a broker who procures it for the borrower re-*549retains for his commissions a sum in addition to the interest reserved by the lender. *Vahlberg v. Keaton,*ante, 534.

APPEAL from *Garland*Circuit Court in Chancery.

J. B. Wood, Judge.

*Geo. G. Latta,*for appellant.

1. The taking of interest in advance is not usurious. 8 Wheat., 338, 364; 87 Ill., 51. Nor is the taking a commission or brokerage by the agent of the borrower. 51 íowa, 397; 26 Ark., 191; 25 Id., 195 ; 26 Id., 352; 18 Id., 463; 25 Id., 258; 21 N. Y., 531 to 539; 2 Tenn., 52; 1 Hilton, 532.

41 Ark., 331, sustains our position, pp. 337, 342-3.

Hemingway, J.

This is a suit to foreclose a mortgage. The mortgagor answered, setting up usury in the mortgage debt. The court found that the mortgagee loaned two hundred dollars for three months, taking the note and mortgage sued on. That he reserved interest in advance, at ten per cent, per annum; that a broker, who procured the loan for the mortgagor, retained twelve dollars out of the sum for his services,.and also the fees for acknowledging and recording the mortgage. Upon these facts the court declared the law to be that, the note was usurious and void, and rendered judgment for the mortgagor. As decided in the case of *Vahlberg v. Keaton, ante,*the lender could reserve the interest in advance; and commissions paid to the agent of the borrower, by the borrower, form no part of the sum paid for the use or forbearance of money.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to render judgment for a foreclosure of the mortgage, and further proceedings in accordance with law.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 124 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 124

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2617, the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
            (1) Strike all after the enacting clause through page 3, 
        line 19 (the first sections 1 and 2).
            (2) Strike ``Division C'' and all that follows through the 
        end.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 14, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 124

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

     Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
               correction in the enrollment of H.R. 2617.
```
----

----

|   | EXHIBIT                32 |
|--------|---------------------------|

| 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                Gateway. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Ronald M.                DinerRonald                M. DinerPresidentRaymond                James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.(Managing                General Partner)February                14, 2008                                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| /s/                Jonathan                OorlogJonathan                OorlogVice                President and Chief Financial OfficerRaymond                James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.(Managing                General Partner)February                14, 2008 |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 1, 2000
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                                  72
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                           300
<INVENTORY>                                          3,978
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       757
<PP&E>                                              67,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                      13,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      65,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               92,277
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              3
<COMMON>                                               129
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        65,914
<SALES>                                             28,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    28,064
<CGS>                                               30,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7,365
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (14,563)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            21
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (14,584)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        (127)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (14,711)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (1.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.14)


</TABLE>
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 1 of 16 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 2 of 16 PAGEID #: 2
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 3 of 16 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 4 of 16 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 5 of 16 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 6 of 16 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 7 of 16 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 8 of 16 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 9 of 16 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 10 of 16 PAGEID #: 10
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 11 of 16 PAGEID #: 11
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 12 of 16 PAGEID #: 12
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 13 of 16 PAGEID #: 13
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 14 of 16 PAGEID #: 14
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 15 of 16 PAGEID #: 15
Case: 3:18-mj-00530-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 16 of 16 PAGEID #: 16
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 3587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-875]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Globyz Pharma, 
LLC; Correction

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a document 
in the Federal Register on August 12, 2021, concerning a notice of 
application. The document indicated the approved drug code (1205--
Lisdexamfetamine) as a schedule I. The correct drug schedule should 
read schedule II.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 12, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-17181 
(86 FR 44405), on page 44406, in the first column, in the controlled 
substance table, correct the drug schedule to schedule II.

Brian S. Besser,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-00852 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10777

Conference Calendar

 

CHARLES D. ELLIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

No First Name PERKEY, Officer, Et Al.,

Defendants,

No First Name PERKEY, Officer, Et Al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-CV-145-BA

- - - - - - - - - -

April 10, 1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles D. Ellis, Texas prisoner # 658607, appeals the

judgment in favor of the defendants following his trial before

the magistrate judge. Ellis alleged that he was denied medical

care and that he was the victim of the use of excessive force. 

Ellis's motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal is 
No. 97-10777

-2-

DENIED. Ellis argues that the evidence supported his

contentions. Even were we to construe this argument as a

challenge to the magistrate judge's findings of fact, Ellis has

failed to provide the court with a copy of the trial transcript,

and he has not requested the production of the trial transcript. 

As we are unable to review Ellis's contentions of error

without a transcript, this appeal is frivolous, and it is

DISMISSED. Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 415 (5th Cir.

1990); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending October 1, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard E. Lundin, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(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.



/s/ Richard E. LundinRichard E. LundinChief Executive OfficerNovember 2, 2010




25
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Science Foundation (NSF) published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 21, 2022, concerning a Part-open, 1-day, virtual site visit meeting for the Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research. The virtual site visit date will be corrected from April 27, 2022 to May 27, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Please contact Crystal Robinson                         *crrobins@nsf.gov*                         or 703-292-8687.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     published January 21, 2022, in FR Doc. 2022-01100 (Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 a.m.), on page 3369, first column, Date and Time Section, please change the meeting date to May 27, 2022.                

Dated: January 26, 2022.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer, National Science Foundation.

[FR Doc. 2022-01910 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Billy J. Covington, :

:

Plaintiff(s), :

: Case Number: 1:18cv511

vs. :

: Judge Susan J. Dlott

Anthony Cadogen, et al., :

:

Defendant(s). :

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Stephanie K. Bowman filed on July 9, 2019 (Doc. 39), to whom this case was referred

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the

time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired July 23, 2019, hereby

ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. 

This matter is TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

The pending motions (Docs 40 and 43) are DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________

Judge Susan J. Dlott

United States District Court