alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. JIM MOORE.

(Filed 29 November, 1939.)

1. Criminal Law § 80—

When defendant fails to make out and serve his statement of case on appeal within the time allowed, no agreement for extension of time having been made, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be allowed, Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 17, but when defendant stands convicted of a capital crime this will be done only when no error is apparent on the face of the record.

2. Criminal Law § 76—

Defendant’s application for *certiorari*denied on authority of *S.*v. *Moore,*210 N. C., 686, and *held further,*the solicitor having refused to grant an extension of time to defendant to file his statement of case on appeal, and the time allowed therefor by the Court having expired, *cer-tiorari*could not help defendant.

MotioN by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

Application by defendant for *certiorari.*

*Attorney-General McMullan for the State.*

*John J. Best for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

At tbe July Term, 1939, Pender Superior Court, tbe defendant herein, Jim Moore, was tried upon indictment charging him with tbe murder of one John Robert Fennell, *alias*John Robert Findle, *alias*John Robert Mims, which resulted in a conviction of “First Degree *544Murder as charged in tbe bill of indictment,” and sentence of death as the law commands upon such verdict.

From the judgment thus entered, the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and was allowed 40 days from 20 July, 1939, to make up and serve his statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was given the “same period of time to serve countercase.” The clerk certifies that the “appeal was not perfected within the time allowed by the Court, nor fourteen days before the call of the district.”

The time for serving statement of case on appeal has expired. *S. v. Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455. No bond was required as the defendant was allowed to appeal *in forma pauperis,*albeit the order to this effect seems to have been made without supporting affidavit as required by C. S., 4651. *S. v. Stafford,*203 N. C., 601, 166 S. E., 734.

In the absence of any apparent error, which the record now before us fails to disclose, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss under Rule 17 will be allowed.

The defendant’s application for *certiorari*must be denied on authority of *S. v. Moore,*210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421. He applied to the solicitor for an extension of time before it expired, but this was not granted. *Certiorari*would not help him in the circumstances. *Smith v. Smith,*199 N. C., 463, 154 S. E., 737.

*Certiorari*denied.

Judgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.
#### David Newman, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company and another, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
#### Wilson H. Sherman and others, Respondents, v. The Mechanics and Traders’ Insurance Company of the city of New York, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinions by

Landon and Hockcs. JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Sim

pson

T

h

acher &

B

artlett L

L

P

425 Lexington

A

ve

New

York, N

Y 10

017

Exhibit G 

EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD 

MAY 1, 2019 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2019 

Expenses Amounts 

Research $17,884.39 

Online Research $17,684.92 

Document Retrieval $199.47 

Meals $1,825.10 

Overtime $380.20 

Travel $1,035.90 

Business $409.00 

Travel $30,069.62 

Airfare $21,977.71 

Hotel $5,712.32 

Out-of-Town Travel $2,379.59 

Transportation $350.31 

Local $292.26 

Overtime Carfare $58.05 

Duplicating $304.08 

Print, Scan & Binding $209.08 

Miscellaneous Duplicating Services $95.00 

Courier and Postage $86.44 

Conferencing/Communication $1,425.66 

Telephone $311.56 

Conferencing Services $304.10 

Court Call $810.00 

Total Expenses Requested: $51,945.60 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4767-7 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 14:36:16 Page 1

of 1
#### Margaret Lynn, Administratrix, Respondent, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and • order reversed and new trial ordered, withoosts to abide event.

Opinion by

Follett, J.
EXHIBIT 3.2



<PAGE>


                                 PLAN OF MERGER


(a)                              CONSTITUENT CORPORATIONS: Reel Estate Services
                                 Inc. (A Nevada corporation)

                                 BOOMJ.com, Inc.
                                 (A Colorado corporation)

                                 Reel Estate Services Inc. ("RESI") has only one
                                 class of stock outstanding, that being common
                                 stock.

                                 BOOMJ.com, Inc. ("BMJ") has only one class of
                                 stock outstanding, that being common stock.
                                 RESI owns all of the issued and outstanding
                                 shares of BMJ.

(b) SURVIVING CORPORATION: Reel Estate Services Inc. (A Nevada corporation)

(c) Effective as of the date of the merger, (i) all shares of BMJ shall be
    cancelled, (ii) all assets of BMJ shall become assets of RESI, (iii) all
    liabilities of BMJ shall be assumed by RESI, (iv) BMJ shall cease to exist
    and (v) RESI's name will be changed to: BOOMJ, Inc.

(d) RESI agrees that it may be served with process in Colorado, by registered or
    certified mail (return receipt requested) in any proceeding for enforcement
    of any obligation of BMJ in Colorado, as well as for the enforcement of any
    obligation of BMJ arising from the merger, including any suit or other
    proceeding to enforce the rights of any stockholders as determined in
    appraisal proceedings pursuant to Sections 7-113-101 through 7-113-302 of
    the Colorado Business Corporation Act.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5383 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt sports betting 

from the tax on authorized wagers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Ms. TITUS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 

sports betting from the tax on authorized wagers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPORTS BETTING EXEMPT FROM THE EXCISE 

4 TAX ON AUTHORIZED WAGERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4402 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended adding at the end the fol7 lowing new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(4) SPORTS BETTING AUTHORIZED UNDER

9 STATE LAW.—On any wager which is authorized 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5383 IH

1 under the law of the State in which accepted and 

2 which is placed with respect to any sporting event.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to wagers placed after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[665 NE2d 189, 642 NYS2d 619]

#### Linda C. Vogt, Appellant, v John D. Witmeyer et al., Respondents.

Argued February 6, 1996;

decided March 21, 1996

*999APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Richard G. Vogt,*Rochester, for appellant.

*Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle,*Rochester *(William S. Brandt*of counsel), respondent *pro se,*and for John D. Witmeyer and others, respondents.

*Gough, Skipworth, Summers, Eves & Trevett, P. C.,*Rochester *(David*A. *Gaesser*of counsel), for John Albright, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff had been designated as a one-fifth remainder beneficiary in an August 1986 amendment to a revocable trust created by the settlor six years earlier. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, the settlor executed a fourth amendment in December 1988, removing plaintiff as beneficiary, which remained in effect at the settlor’s death three years later. Plaintiff brought this action against the settlor’s trustee, her attorneys and one of the remainder beneficiaries for allegedly depriving her of her remainder interest in the trust, asserting separate causes of action based on theories of tortious interference with prospective inheritance, prima facie tort, conspiracy, ratification and mistake. Supreme Court dismissed all causes of action and the Appellate Division affirmed (212 AD2d 1013).

Plaintiff seeks reinstatement of her cause of action grounded upon tortious interference with prospective inheritance. New York, however, has not recognized a right of action for tortious interference with prospective inheritance *(see, Hutchins v Hutchins,*7 Hill 104), and, in any event, such a cause of action would require that the interference be accomplished by some type of independently tortious conduct *(see,*Restatement [Second] of Torts § 774B). Except for purely conclusory assertions, plaintiff failed to plead any tortious acts by defendants causing the settlor to modify the trust.

*1000Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5610 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5610

  To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide 
  privacy protections that enable certain individuals to remove their 
   profiles from the healthcare.gov website, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2014

    Mr. Hurt (for himself and Mr. Barrow of Georgia) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide 
  privacy protections that enable certain individuals to remove their 
   profiles from the healthcare.gov website, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Healthcare Consumer Privacy Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. ENABLING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO REMOVE THEIR PROFILES FROM THE 
              HEALTHCARE.GOV WEBSITE.

    Section 1311(c)(5) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act (42 U.S.C. 18031(c)(5)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking at the end ``and'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(B) ensure that such Internet portal, whether the 
                healthcare.gov website or a successor website, enables 
                an individual who enters personal information on such 
                website for purposes of enrolling for health care 
                coverage to remove such information from such website 
                if such individual decides not to apply for such 
                enrollment; and''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
31.1
 
 I,
Jonathan M. Couchman, certify that:
 
 1.           I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Footstar, Inc.;
and
 
 2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report.
 
 Date:
May 4, 2009
 By:
      /s/ Jonathan M. CouchmanJonathan
      M. CouchmanChief
      Executive Officer and President
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5052 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5052

  To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to protect and conserve 
   species and the lawful possession of certain ivory in the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2014

   Mr. Daines (for himself and Mr. Miller of Florida) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to protect and conserve 
   species and the lawful possession of certain ivory in the United 
                    States, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lawful Ivory Protection Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973.

    Section 11(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1540(f)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after the subsection heading; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2)(A) Except as provided in this paragraph, regulations 
promulgated under paragraph (1), including policies, orders, or 
practices pursuant to such regulations, may not--
            ``(i) prohibit or restrict the possession, sale, delivery, 
        receipt, shipping, or transportation, within the United States, 
        of elephant ivory that has been lawfully imported into the 
        United States;
            ``(ii) change any methods of, or standards for, determining 
        if such ivory has been lawfully imported that were in effect on 
        February 24, 2014, including any applicable presumptions and 
        burdens of proof with respect to such determinations;
            ``(iii) prohibit or restrict the importation of such ivory 
        that was lawfully importable into the United States on February 
        24, 2014; or
            ``(iv) prohibit or restrict the possession of such ivory 
        that was lawfully possessable in the United States on February 
        24, 2014.
    ``(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to regulations, including 
policies, orders, or practices pursuant to such regulations, that were 
in effect on February 24, 2014.
    ``(C) Regulations promulgated under paragraph (1), including 
policies, orders, or practices pursuant to such regulations, that 
became effective during the period beginning on February 25, 2014, and 
ending on the date of enactment of this paragraph, shall be revised, as 
necessary, to comply with the requirements specified in subparagraph 
(A) for regulations promulgated after such date of enactment.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13823]



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

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



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION



[File No. 500-1]




Miracor Diagnostics, Inc., Monaco Finance, Inc., MPEL Holdings 

Corp. (f/k/a Computer Transceiver Systems, Inc.), MR3 Systems, Inc., 

Mutual Risk Management, Ltd.; Order of Suspension of Trading



June 4, 2010.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 

a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 

Miracor Diagnostics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 

since the period ended September 30, 1996.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 

a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 

Monaco Finance, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 

since the period ended September 30, 1999.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 

a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 

MPEL Holdings Corp. (f/k/a Computer Transceiver Systems, Inc.) because 

it has not filed any periodic reports since September 30, 1999.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 

a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 

MR3 Systems, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 

the period ended September 30, 2005.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 

a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 

Mutual Risk Management Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic 

reports since the period ended December 31, 2001.

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 

protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 

securities of the above-listed companies.

    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 

above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT 

on June 4, 2010, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 17, 2010.



    By the Commission.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-13823 Filed 6-4-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4476 Filed: 10/25/19 Entered: 10/25/19 09:41:38 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4476 Filed: 10/25/19 Entered: 10/25/19 09:41:38 Page 2 of

2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BORENZO CORTEZ PATRICK , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. Richard E. Myers II, Chief District Judge. ( 7:17

- cr - 00028

- M

- 1 )

Submitted : June 22, 2023 Decided: June 27, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.
Borenzo Cortez Patrick , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6197 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Borenzo Cortez Patrick appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3 d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for its denial. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th C ir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Patrick , No. 7:17

- cr 00028

- M

- 1 (E.D.N.C. filed Nov. 15, 2022 & entered Nov. 16, 2022). 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.
AFFIRME D USCA4 Appeal: 23-6197 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 12.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

I, Xiaochun Wang, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Tongjitang Chinese Medicines Company (the Company);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of
Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: June 30, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Xiaochun Wang      
|Name:  |  | Xiaochun Wang          
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBITE 

4810-3966-9932. 1 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4935-5 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 13:52:15 Page 1

of 2
DETAILED EXPENSE ENTRIES (COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP) FOR 

THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2019 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2019 

Costs Advanced Amount 

Court Reporter - U.S. Legal Support - Sac $2,451.45 

Total Costs Requested: $2,451.45 

48 10-3966-9932.l Exhibit E 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4935-5 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 13:52:15 Page 2

of 2