alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MARY PETREE HALL, Plaintiff, v. BEN W. ATKINSON, JR., and FORSYTH COUNTY, Defendants.

(Filed 1 November, 1961.)

Appeal and Error § 41—

The admission of evidence over objection cannot be held prejudicial when it appears that evidence of like import had been given by the same witness on cross-examination immediately theretofore without objection.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Crissman, J.,*Second Week of 29 May 1961 Term of Foesyth.

Civil action to recover for personal injuries and damages to an automobile, resulting from an intersection collision in the city of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, between an automobile driven by *580plaintiff and a fire truck owned by Forsyth County and driven by its employee, Ben W. Atkinson, Jr. Forsyth County had purchased a policy of automobile liability insurance covering the operation of the fire truck.

The jury found by its verdict that plaintiff was injured by the negligence of defendants as alleged in her complaint, and that she by her own negligence contributed to her injuries, as alleged in defendants’ answer.

From a judgment entered on the verdict that plaintiff recover nothing, she appeals.

*Averitt, White and Crumpler By: James G. White and Leslie G. Frye for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Bice By: I. E. Carlyle and II. G. Barnhill, Jr., for defendants, appellees.*

PER Cubiam.

Plaintiff assigns as error that James D. Redding, a witness for her, was permitted by the court over her objection to answer on cross-examination the question, “And there wasn't a thing in the world to prevent Mrs. Hall from seeing all the way, was there, if she had looked?”, as follows: “If she was looking in that direction, there wasn’t — no.” This assignment of error cannot be sustained, for the reason that evidence of like import had been given by the same witness on cross-examination immediately before without objection. *Leonard v. Insurance Co., 212 N.C. 151, 193*S.E. *166; McKay v. Bullard,*219 N.C. 589, 14 S.E. 2d 657; *Edwards v. Junior Order,*220 N.C. 41, 16 S.E. 2d 466; *White v. Disher,*232 N.C. 260, 59 S.E. 2d 798. See also *Spears v. Randolph,*241 N.C. 659, 86 S.E. 2d 263.

All plaintiff’s other assignments of error, except formal ones, relate to the court’s charge to the jury. A careful reading of the charge in its entirety, and a meticulous consideration of plaintiff’s assignments of error in respect thereto, fail to show prejudicial error sufficient to justify the awarding of a new trial'. Therefore, the verdict and judgment below will be upheld.

No error.
# C_2011255EN.01000601.xml

| 31.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/6

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2011/C 255/06

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will shortly expire.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (2) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain side-by-side refrigerators | Republic of Korea | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 (OJ L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 11) | 1.9.2011 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Certain side-by-side refrigerators

Republic of Korea

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 (OJ L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 11)

1.9.2011

---

(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2011, p. 10.

1

(2)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
FILED

January 8, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JANUARY 1998 SESSION

MICHAEL L. SOUTH, )

)

Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9701-CR-00029

)

 vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. P-17556

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s

second petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was originally convicted of

aggravated rape and aggravated robbery, and received consecutive sentences of sixty

and thirty years respectively. The petitioner also alleges that he was convicted of

aggravated burglary and theft. On appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions of

aggravated rape and aggravated robbery; the petitioner apparently did not appeal the

other two convictions. State v. Michael R. South, No. 02C01-9209-CR-00203 (Tenn.

Crim. App., Sept. 15, 1993). The Supreme Court denied application for permission to

appeal on March 7, 1994. 

After an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner's first post-conviction petition

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel was denied by the trial court on or about

January 18, 1996. This Court affirmed the denial on appeal. Michael South v. State,

No. 02C01-9609-CR-00312 (Tenn. Crim. App., Feb. 27, 1997). On September 30,

1996, the petitioner filed this, his second petition for post-conviction relief. The trial

court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and the case is now before us on appeal.

T.C.A. § 40-30-202(c) (1996 Supp.) provides that no more than one

petition for post-conviction relief may be filed attacking a single judgment, and

mandates that the trial court shall summarily dismiss any second or subsequent petition
2

if a prior petition was filed and resolved on the merits by a court of competent

jurisdiction. Since the petitioner previously filed a petition that was resolved on the

merits by the trial court, the petitioner’s second petition was properly dismissed. 

Moreover, T.C.A. § 40-30-206(c) (1996 Supp.) states that the trial court shall dismiss

any subsequent petition if it appears a prior petition is already pending in the Court of

Criminal Appeals. At the time the petitioner filed his second petition in the trial court,

his first petition was on appeal to this Court. For these reasons, the petitioner’s second

petition for post-conviction relief was properly dismissed.

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err in dismissing the

petitioner’s second petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20,

Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Enter, this the ___ day of January, 1998.

____________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

______________________________

JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

______________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; R13 Conference Review.                    

*Date:*                         October 31, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ellen S. Buczko, PhD., Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2676,                         *ebuczko1@niaid.nih.gov.*

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.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 5, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-5091 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-13 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-13 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-13 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2136 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2136

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the ability of 
   veterans to receive in-state tuition using educational assistance 
   administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 2019

 Mrs. Blackburn (for herself and Mr. Manchin) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the ability of 
   veterans to receive in-state tuition using educational assistance 
   administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR IN-STATE TUITION.

    (a) In General.--Section 3679(c) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``less than three 
        years before the date of enrollment in the course concerned''; 
        and
            (2) in paragraph (4)--
                    (A) by striking ``It shall'' and inserting ``(A) It 
                shall''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(B)(i) To the extent feasible, the Secretary shall make 
        publicly available on the internet website of the Department a 
        database explaining any requirements described in subparagraph 
        (A) that are established by a public institution of higher 
        learning for an individual to be charged tuition and fees at a 
        rate that is equal to or less than the rate the public 
        institution charges for tuition and fees for residents of the 
        State in which the public institution is located.
            ``(ii) The Secretary shall disapprove a course of education 
        provided by a public institution of higher learning that does 
        not provide the Secretary--
                    ``(I) an initial explanation of the requirements 
                described in subparagraph (A); and
                    ``(II) not later than 90 days after the date on 
                which any requirements change, the updated 
                requirements.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
with respect to a quarter, semester, or term, as applicable, commencing 
no earlier than August 1, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7592

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE SWANN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-166-K, CA-00-3132-JFM) Submitted: April 6, 2001 Decided: April 20, 2001 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Swann, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Willie Swann seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), and his motion to dismiss the indictment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Swann , Nos. CR-90-166-K; CA-00-3132-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 203 (Monday, October 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59557-59558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5230]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Notice of Meeting

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, October 25, 2007.

[[Page 59558]]


Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Quarterly Insurance Fund Report.
    2. Board Briefing: Part 717 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, 
Interagency Final Rule and Guidelines on Identity Theft Red Flags and 
Address Discrepancies.
    3. Board Briefing: Part 717 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, 
Interagency Final Rule on Affiliate Marketing.
    4. Final Rule: Section 701.2 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, 
Federal Credit Union Bylaws.

Recess: 11 a.m.

Time and Date: 11:15 a.m., Thursday, October 25, 2007.

Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. One (1) Merger Application under Parts 704 and 708b of NCUA's 
Rules and Regulations. Closed pursuant to Exemption (8).
    2. One (1) Insurance Appeal. Closed pursuant to Exemption (6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 07-5230 Filed 10-18-07; 3:18 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
The Football Association Premier League Limited et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al Doc. 154

Dockets.Justia.com
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.5



                   Certificate Furnished Under Section 906
                      Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Barry C. Cooper, Chief Financial Officer of Laclede Gas Company, hereby
certify that

       (a)    To the best of my knowledge, the accompanying report on Form
              10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with
              the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
              Exchange Act of 1934, and

       (b)    To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the
              accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
              31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
              financial condition and results of operations of Laclede Gas
              Company.


Date:    April 22, 2003
     ---------------------





                              /s/ Barry C. Cooper
                              -----------------------------------------
                              Barry C. Cooper
                              Chief Financial Officer






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Laclede Gas Company and will be retained by Laclede Gas Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### ROSSMAN v. INSURANCE CO.

No. 102.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 651.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 9 January 1974.
Exhibit 99.2

 Written Statement of the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Alliant
Energy Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Thomas M. Walker
--------------------
Thomas M. Walker
May 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>




                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.1

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



                                  STRAIGHT NOTE




         $300,000          South El Monte, California         January 14, 2000
-----------------



         For value received, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises to pay Mark DiSalvo or
order, at South El Monte, California the sum of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS,
with interest from January 18, 2000, on unpaid principal at the rate of twenty
(20) per cent per annum; principal is payable monthly, commencing on February
20, 2000, with monthly principal payments of $10,000. Interest shall be
calculated on the basis of the unpaid principal balance daily, based on a
365-day year, actual day month and payable monthly. Principal and interest shall
be payable in lawful money of the United States. If action were instituted on
this note, I promise to pay such sum as the Court may fix as attorney's fees.
This note is secured by the following trademark; Serutan.





     1/15/2000                                RONALD G. LEE
--------------------             --------------------------------------
       Date                         Lee Pharmaceuticals - Ronald G. Lee





     1/15/2000                              MICHAEL L. AGRESTI
--------------------             --------------------------------------
       Date                      Lee Pharmaceuticals - Michael L. Agresti

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:05-cv-05251-MBM Document 5 Filed 10/24/2005 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:05-cv-05251-MBM Document 5 Filed 10/24/2005 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**TYRELL JAMAR JONES,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 422 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**

**Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration o r decision of this matter.**
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RICHARD MICHAEL FERRARI,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv34/MCR/MD

OKALOOSA COUNTY JAIL, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff

commenced this action on February 3, 2010 by filing a civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. 1). On March 12, 2010, the court issued an order granting

plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessing an initial partial filing fee

of $6.33 (doc. 4). Plaintiff paid the initial partial filing fee on April 2, 2010 (doc. 6). 

A receipt was mailed to him on April 5, 2010 at his address of record; however, it

was returned as undeliverable on April 9, 2010 marked, “Return to Sender Not in

Jail,” Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” (Doc.

7). Over thirty days have elapsed, and plaintiff has not filed a change of address

form or otherwise notified the court of his new address.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this cause be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s failure to keep the court informed of his current

address, and that the clerk be directed to close the file. 

At Pensacola, Florida, this 24 day of May, 2010. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline

that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and

does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. 

Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28

U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:10cv34/MCR/MD
Case 4:10-cv-00039-MP-WCS Document 19 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 1