alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WILLIAM RALPH ABRAHAMSON v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45135.

Decided December 7, 1942]

*Mr. Fred W. Shields*for the plaintiff. *Messrs. King <& King*were on the briefs.

*Mr. L. R.*Mehlinger, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M.*Shea, for the defendant. *Miss Stella Akin*was on the brief.

*709Jones, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff, a captain in the United States Army, sues to recover increased rental and subsistence allowances because of a dependent mother, basing his claim upon sections 4, 5, and 6 of the act of June 10, 1922 (42 Stat. 625) as amended by the act of May 31,1924 (43 Stat. 250).

Section 4 of the 1922 act. (42 Stat. 625, 627) provides in part—

> *710That tlie term “dependent” * * * shall' also include the mother of the officer providing that she is in. fact dependent upon him for her chief support-'

The facts are set forth jn detail in the findings and will not be repeated here.

Under the uniform rule announced by this court in' numerous decisions as to what constitutes the dependency of a mother under this sfatute the plaintiff in this case is entitled to recover.

The findings disclose that he was not only the chief support of his mother during the period of the claim, but that he 'was in fact her only support. While the mother had other children, all but one were in straitened financial'circumstances, and none of them rendered any substantial assistance toward her support. .

The plaintiff is entitled to recover the increased rental and subsistence allowances provided by law for an officer'of his rank, on account of a dependent mother, from March 12, 1935, to date of judgment herein. Entry of judgment, however, will await the receipt of a report from.' the General ■ Accounting Office showing the amount of the allowances due the plaintiff in accordance with this opinion. ■

It is so ordered.

Maddest, *Judge;*Whitaker, *Judge;*LittlltON, *.Judge;*and Whaley, *Chief*Justice, concur.

In accordance with the above opinion and upon reports from the General Accounting Office showing the amount due thereunder for the period from March 12,1935, to December 31,1940, to be $2,094.27, and for the period from January 1, 1941, to December 7, 1942, to be $876.10, a total of $2,970.37, and upon plaintiff’s motion for judgment, it was .ordered April 5, 1943, that judgment for the plaintiff be entered in the said sum of $2,970.37.
<PAGE>





                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

                     BR Holding, Inc., a Georgia corporation

      Host Communications, Inc., a Kentucky corporation and a subsidiary of
                                BR Holding, Inc.

   NTA On-Line Connect, Inc., a Kentucky corporation and a subsidiary of Host
                              Communications, Inc.

     Host Insurance Agency, Inc., a Kentucky corporation and a subsidiary of
                            Host Communications, Inc.

  Hoop-It-Up International, Inc. (DE), a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary
                       of Universal Sports America, Inc.

  USA International, S.A.R.L., a corporation organized under the laws of France
               and a subsidiary of Universal Sports America, Inc.

   Capital Sports Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of
                                BR Holding, Inc.


  Datasouth Computer Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of BR
                                  Holding, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5316 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5316

 To direct the Secretary of Labor to establish an office in Anchorage, 
      Alaska, under the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2010

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Labor to establish an office in Anchorage, 
      Alaska, under the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

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

SECTION 1. LOCAL OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS IN ANCHORAGE, 
              ALASKA.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Labor shall establish an office in Anchorage, Alaska, 
to operate under the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    In connection with the Quarterly Report of St. Bernard Software, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does
hereby certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350) and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)  promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that to my knowledge:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
    Dated:  August 14, 2009
By:
/s/ Louis E. RyanLouis E. RyanChief Executive Officer  andChairman of the Board of Directors
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 23 (Friday, February 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 6025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2131]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney 
Disorders; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate requests 
for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics 
for type 1 diabetes. The outcome of the evaluation will be a decision 
whether NIDDK should support the request and make available contract 
resources for development of the potential therapeutic to improve the 
treatment or prevent the development of type 1 diabetes and its 
complications. The reserach proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Type 1 Diabetes--Rapid Access to Intervention 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, National Institute of Diabetes 
and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
    Date: February 9, 2005.
    Time: 10 a.m.-2 p.m.
    Agenda: To evaluate requests for preclinical development 
resources for potential new therapeutics for type 1 diabetes and its 
complications.
    Place: 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone 
conference call.)
    Contact Person: Dr. Myrlene Staten, Senior Advisor, Diabetes 
Translation Research, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and 
Metabolic Diseases, NIDDK, NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, 
MD 20892-5460. (301) 402-7886.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research, 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 98.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: January 26, 2005
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.
[FR Doc. 05-2131 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
H. R. 5099 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15 South 

Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MICHAEL C. ROTHBERG POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
----

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2004/458/EC of 29 April 2004 amending Appendix B to Annex XII to the 2003 Act of Accession to include certain establishments in the meat, milk and fish sectors in Poland in the list of establishments in transition

(Official Journal of the European Union L 156 of 30 April 2004)

Decision 2004/458/EC should read as follows:

‘COMMISSION DECISION

of 29 April 2004                     

amending Appendix B to Annex XII to the 2003 Act of Accession to include certain establishments in the meat, milk and fish sectors in Poland in the list of establishments in transition

(notified under document number C(2004) 1709)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/458/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (2), and in particular Annex XII, Chapter 6, Section B, subsection I, point 1(e) thereto,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   The establishments listed in the Annex to this Decision are added to the Appendix B referred to in Chapter 6, Section B, Subsection I, point 1(a) to Annex XII to the 2003 Act of Accession.

2.   For the establishments listed in the Annex, the rules foreseen in Annex XII, Chapter 6, Section B, Subsection I, point 1(b) to the Act of Accession are applicable.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply subject to and as from the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 2004.

For the Commission

David BYRNE                        

Member of the Commission

ANNEX

Meat, milk and fish establishments in transition

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

----

(1)OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 17

(2)OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 33

(3)OJ 121, 29.7.1964, p. 2012/64. Directive as last amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.

(4)OJ L 55, 8.3.1971, p.23. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 (OJ L 122. 16.5.2003, p. 36).

(5)OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 85. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003.

(6)OJ L 368, 31.12.1994, p. 10. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).

(7)OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003.

(8)OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 15. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003.

----
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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  of China  Mineral
Acquisition  Corporation  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
June 30,  2005,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"),  I, Simon Mu,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as added by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

                  1. The Report fully complies in all material respects 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.

Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.



Dated:  August 15, 2005              /s/ Simon Mu
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Simon Mu
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer
II 

Calendar No. 452 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5099 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 29, 2010 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MICHAEL C. ROTHBERG POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, 

6 Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mi7 chael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5099 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, 

2 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg 

5 Post Office’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 452 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5099 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostRothberg Post Office’’. Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. al Service located at 15 South Main Street in 

JUNE 29, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### VIRGIL V. KEEVER, ANNETTE KEEVER and GARDNER CAPLE, Appellants, v. JEWELRY MOUNTAIN MINES, INC., by and through JOHN M. TRIPP and NICHOLAS M. HUGHES, Respondents.

No. 16360

April 24, 1986

717 P.2d 1117

*175
      *Jolley, Urga, Wirth & Woodbury,*Las Vegas, for Appellants.

*Edwin Dotson,*Las Vegas, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This appeal follows from an order from the trial court denying a motion by appellants for their costs from an earlier appeal. In the previous controversy, appellants successfully obtained the reversal of a judgment against them in a stockholders’ derivative action. *See*Keever v. Jewelry Mountain Mines, 100 Nev. 576, 688 P.2d 317 (1984). Appellants taxed the costs of that appeal to this court. Pursuant to NRAP 39(c) the clerk awarded them $250.00. Appellants then moved for the awarding of costs which are recoverable at the district court under NRAP 39(e). On January 9, 1985, the trial court denied appellants’ motion and explained that the awarding of costs was discretionary.

Appellants now raise the question of whether the awarding of costs on appeal is mandatory when the party appealing successfully obtains relief. We find that NRS 18.060 already addresses this question. It provides as follows:

> 18.060 Costs of appeal to supreme court; discretion of court. In the following cases the costs of an appeal to the supreme court shall be in the discretion of the court:

> 1. Where a new trial is ordered.

> 2. When a judgment is modified.

> *In the event no order is made by the court relative to the costs in the two instances mentioned in this section, the party obtaining any relief shall have his costs.*

*176(Emphasis supplied.) In construing this statute, we have held that its mandatory requirement of the awarding of costs is clear, emphatic, and peremptory. *See*Canepa v. Durham, 62 Nev. 429, 155 P.2d 788 (1945); Sorge v. Sierra Auto Supply, 48 Nev. 60, 227 P. 320 (1924); Dixon v. Southern Pacific Co., 42 Nev. 90, 177 Pac. 14 (1918).

We hold, therefore, that the district court erred in denying the costs of appeal and ruling that it had the discretion to do so. Appellants were entitled to their costs after our reversal of the judgment in the derivative action. We reverse the decision denying costs and remand to the district court.
----

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2004/8/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 11. Februar 2004 über die Förderung einer am Nutzwärmebedarf orientierten Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung im Energiebinnenmarkt und zur Änderung der Richtlinie 92/42/EWG

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 52 vom 21. Februar 2004)

Seite 53, Artikel 3 Buchstabe m):

anstatt:

muss es heißen:

----
RE: EXPANSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING PILOT PROGRAM - COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Appellate Case No. 2015-002439

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

February 7, 2019

**571ORDER

Pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution,

IT IS ORDERED that the Pilot Program for the Electronic Filing (E-Filing) of documents in the Court of Common Pleas, which was established by Order dated December 1, 2015, is expanded to include Dillon County. Effective February 26, 2019, all filings in all common pleas cases commenced or pending in Dillon County must be E-Filed if the party is represented by an attorney, unless the type of case or the type of filing is excluded from the Pilot Program. The counties currently designated for mandatory E-Filing are as follows:

```
*216**572Aiken Allendale Anderson Bamberg Barnwell Beaufort Berkeley Calhoun Cherokee Chester Chesterfield Clarendon Colleton Darlington Dorchester Edgefield Fairfield Florence Georgetown Greenville Greenwood Hampton Horry Jasper Kershaw Lancaster Laurens Lee Lexington Marion Marlboro McCormick Newberry Oconee Orangeburg Pickens Richland Saluda Spartanburg Sumter Union Williamsburg York **Dillon-Effective February 26, 2019**
```

Attorneys should refer to the South Carolina Electronic Filing Policies and Guidelines, which were adopted by the Supreme Court on October 28, 2015, and the training materials available on the E-Filing Portal page at *http://www.sccourts.org/efiling/* to determine whether any specific filings are exempted from the requirement that they be E-Filed. Attorneys who have cases pending in Pilot Counties are strongly encouraged to review, and to instruct their staff to review, the training materials available on the E-Filing Portal page.

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*

Donald W. Beatty

Chief Justice of South Carolina
#### People’s Bank *v.*Carole Moscowitz et al.

*Francis G. Pennarola,*in support of the petition.

*Theodore R. Tyma,*in opposition.

Decided June 24, 1993

The petition of the defendants Carole Moscowitz and Mark Moscowitz for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 266 (AC 11547), is denied.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES LOUIS YOUNG

No. 7326SC699

(Filed 14 November 1973)

On *certiorari*to review judgment of *Snepp, Judge,*entered at the 30 April 1973 “C” Criminal Session of Mecklenburg Superior Court.

Defendant was charged in a hill of indictment, proper in form, with armed robbery. He pleaded not guilty, a jury found him guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of 15 years, with credit for time spent in jail awaiting trial, defendant gave notice of appeal. On 4 May 1973, defendant went before Judge Robert M. Martin and moved to withdraw his notice of appeal. After due inquiry, Judge Martin allowed the motion and ordered issuance of commitment. Thereafter, on 29 June 1973, defendant’s petition to this court for writ of certiorari in lieu of appeal was allowed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Edward L. Eatman, Jr., Assistant Attorney Generad, for the State.*

*William O. Austin for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

A careful review of the record on appeal fails to disclose any error prejudicial to defendant. We conclude that he received a fair trial and the sentence imposed is well within the limits permitted by statute.

No error.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6560

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARVIN ALEXANDER WRIGHT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:11-cr-00350-RMG-1)

Submitted: January 21, 2022 Decided: March 7, 2022

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jeremy A. Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. M. Rhett 

DeHart, Acting United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Nick Bianchi, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6560 Doc: 22 Filed: 03/07/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Alexander Wright appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First 

Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Upon review, 

we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that Wright failed to

establish extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting his early release. See United 

States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-30 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021) 

(providing standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release 

motions); see also United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 282 n.7 (4th Cir. 2020) 

(providing that, although courts may not treat U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 1B1.13, p.s. (2018) as binding, the policy statement “remains helpful guidance even 

when motions are filed by defendants”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6560 Doc: 22 Filed: 03/07/2022 Pg: 2 of 2