alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1982

___________

Elvin E. Carroll, Sr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

National Postal Mail Handlers Union; *

International Union of North America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 30, 2006

Filed: March 31, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elvin Carroll appeals the district court’s1

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of

his suit against his union for discrimination and failure to represent him. We affirm.

Carroll does not dispute that his suit was filed after the relevant limitations

periods had run, and we agree with the district court that the circumstances Carroll

identified did not provide a basis for equitable tolling or equitable estoppel. See
-2-

Henderson v. Ford Motor Co., 403 F.3d 1026, 1033 (8th Cir. 2005) (equitable tolling

applies when plaintiff “despite all due diligence, is unable to obtain vital information

bearing on the existence of his claim”; equitable estoppel tolls limitations period

when employee knows of claim, but employer affirmatively and actively takes action

that causes employee not to timely file suit); see also Dring v. McDonnell Douglas

Corp., 58 F.3d 1323, 1329 (8th Cir. 1995) (equitable estoppel may be invoked where

plaintiff is lulled or tricked into letting filing deadline pass because of employer

misconduct above and beyond wrongdoing upon which plaintiff’s claim is founded);

Grant v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 163 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing

that some courts have allowed equitable tolling of limitations period based on mental

illness for some federal claims, but only in exceptional circumstances, such as

institutionalization or adjudged mental incompetence of litigant).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration

Proposed Advisory Circular; Weld Repair of Aluminum Crankcases 
and Cylinders of Piston Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory circular.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the reissuance of Advisory Circular 
(AC), No. 33-6, Weld Repair of Aluminum Crankcases and Cylinders of 
Piston Engines. The AC provides information and guidance concerning an 
acceptable method, but not the only method, for the development of 
process specifications for weld repairs on crankcases and cylinders of 
piston engines.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Locke Easton, Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, at the 
above address, telephone (617) 238-7113, fax (617) 238-7113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This AC was formulated to provide guidelines for applicants in the 
development of repair procedures for weld repairs on crankcases and 
cylinders of piston engines. It addresses development of weld repairs 
which are not contained in the engine manufacturer's ``Instructions for 
Continued Airworthiness'' (Maintenance Manual). It provides guidance to 
clarify the areas which should be addressed by an applicant's repair 
procedure, and/or substantiating data when seeking an approval for weld 
repair on crankcases or cylinders.
    This AC also includes information on critical areas of welding, 
qualifications of welders, inspection techniques, the thermal 
processes, and technical data required; and references industry and 
military specifications which are acceptable for use by repair stations 
as approved data.
    This advisory circular, published under the authority granted to 
the Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421 and 
1423, provides guidance for the development of process specifications 
for weld repairs on crankcases and cylinders of piston engines.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 2, 1995.
James C. Jones,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 95-4075 Filed 2-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
#### ESTELLA SILER, Administratrix of ELMINA SILER, v. JEFFERSON MOTORS, Incorporated.

(Filed 29 June, 1932.)

Civil actiom, before *Harwood, Special Judge,*at November Term, 1931, of Guilfoed.

The defendant is engaged in the business of selling automobiles. On 1 March, 1930, a colored man named John Britton, came to the place of business of defendant and requested the use of a Hudson coupe belonging to defendant. "Witness for plaintiff said: “He took it out to drive it just out on the road and back . . . to see how it would drive. He was going to see how it would drive to buy it. He had already made up his mind to buy it.” . . .

In driving the car west on the Friendly road the said Britton negligently struck and killed plaintiff’s intestate. All the evidence tended to show that the car was in good condition and there is no evidence to show that Britton was a careless or reckless driver. No agent of defendant was present in the car at the time of the injury.

At the conclusion of evidence for plaintiff judgment of nonsuit was entered, and the plaintiff appealed.

*Frazier & Frazier for plaintiff.*

*Sapp & Sapp for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

This ease is governed and determined by the principles of law heretofore announced by this Court in *Holton v. Indemnity Co.,*196 N. C., 348, 145 S. E., 679, and *Harts v. Chevrolet Co.,*202 N. C., 807.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8107-8108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3410]



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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 2161]


United States International Telecommunications Advisory Committee 
(ITAC); Meeting

    The Department of State announces that the United States 
International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet 
March 2, 1995, in Room 1107, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., at the Department of 
State, 2201 ``C'' Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    The purpose of ITAC is to advise the Department on policy, 
technical and operational matters and to provide strategic planning 
recommendations, with respect to international telecommunications and 
information issues. To assist in preparations for related international 
meetings, the Department has established two ITAC Ad Hoc groups to deal 
respectively with activities of the Working Group on Telecommunications 
(TEL) of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the 
Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy (ICCP) of 
the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). The 
Ad Hoc on APEC will meet after the ITAC meeting (see separate notice 
for details).
    The agenda of the ITAC meeting will include: (1) Report of ITAC's 
Ad Hoc on Refinement of ITU Sectors, and related developments; (2) 
review of the ITU Radio and Telecommunications Standards Advisory 
Groups (RAG/TSAG) results, January 1995; (3) status of and U.S. 
participation in other ITU Advisory Groups; (4) recommendations on 
agenda topics for the first ITU Policy Forum, scheduled for Fall of 
1996 (Note: State Department will submit preliminary U.S. views on the 
Policy Forum agenda to the ITU Secretary General by March 15); (5) 
further development of an ITAC Work Program and Priorities for the 
1995-96 time period; and (6) discussion of the new ITAC Ad Hocs dealing 
with APEC and OCED preparatory activities for upcoming meetings (to be 
taken up as the last item of the ITAC meeting). Questions regarding the 
agenda or ITAC activities in general may be directed to Richard Shrum, 
Department of State (phone 202-647-0050).
    Members of the general public may attend the meetings and join in 
the discussions, subject to the instructions of the chair and seating 
availability. In this regard, entry to the building is controlled. All 
persons planning to attend should advise the Department by leaving a 
message on 202-647-0201, no later than two days before the meeting. 
Enter through the main lobby on C [[Page 8108]] Street. A picture ID 
will be required for admittance.

    Dated: January 31, 1995.
Richard E. Shrum,
ITAC Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3410 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-45-M
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                      FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL INC.
                           WORLDWIDE SUBSIDIARY LIST

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              PERCENTAGE    STATE/COUNTRY
                                                              OWNERSHIP     INCORPORATION
                                                              ----------   ----------------
<S>                                                           <C>          <C>
Fisher Scientific Company L.L.C.............................      100          Delaware
  Fisher Scientific Limited.................................      100           Canada
Fisher Hamilton Inc.........................................      100          Delaware
  Systems Manufacturing Corporation.........................      100          Delaware
Applied Scientific Corporation..............................      100         California
Columbia Diagnostics Inc....................................      100          Delaware
Alchematrix L.L.C...........................................      100          Delaware
Fisher Scientific GmbH......................................     94.3          Germany
Fisher Scientific of the Netherlands B.V....................      100        Netherlands
  Fisher Scientific B.V.....................................      100        Netherlands
Fisher Scientific Worldwide Inc.............................      100          Delaware
  Fisher Scientific Worldwide Holdings C.V..................     76.3        Netherlands
  Fisher Scientific Europe Holdings B.V.....................      100        Netherlands
  Acros Organics N.V........................................      100          Belgium
  Fisher Scientific Holding Company.........................      100          Delaware
  Fisher Scientific Holding U.K. Limited....................      100       United Kingdom
    Fisher Scientific U.K. Limited..........................      100       United Kingdom
  Fisher Bioblock Scientific S.A............................      100           France
    Fisher Scientific S.A...................................      100           France
</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        [CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP]

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 33-72130, 33-58362, 333-3846, 333-35215, 333-40634 and 333-50330 of Genta
Incorporated on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-85887, 333-94181 and
333-94185 of Genta Incorporated on Form S-8 of our report dated February 21,
2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Genta Incorporated
and subsidiaries, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2001.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
March 29, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.2 -- Section 906 Certification of ChiefFinancial Officer

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT OT

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SBS Technologies, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the"Report"), I, James E. Dixon, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as adopted pursuant to   906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

/s/ James E. Dixon, Jr.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3977]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-200-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Co.; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

February 13, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 8, 1995, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478, filed in Docket No. 
CP95-200-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act )18 CFR 157.205, 
157.211) for authorization to install a new tap in Jones County, 
Mississippi, for service to an existing local distribution company 
customer, Entex, Inc. (Entex), under Koch's blanket certificate issued 
in Docket No. CP82-430-000, pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas 
Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file with 
the Commission and open to public inspection
    Koch proposes to construct and operate interconnecting tap 
facilities for service to Entex, which will deliver gas to one 
agricultural customer in Jones County. Koch states that the tap would 
be used for the deliver of 84 MMBtu equivalent of natural gas on a peak 
day, transported by Koch under its FTS rate schedule. It is stated that 
this volume is with Entex's existing certificated entitlement from 
Koch. The cost of the proposed tap is estimated at $800 and Koch states 
that it would be reimbursed by Entex for the construction cost. It is 
stated that Koch's tariff does not prohibit the proposed addition of a 
delivery tap. It is asserted that Koch as sufficient capacity to make 
the deliveries without detriment or disadvantage to its other 
customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, with 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3977 Filed 2-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### D. L. McKOY v. A. F. CRAVEN.

(Filed 6 June, 1930.)

Negligence D d — Where issue of contributory negligence is answered in defendant’s favor the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

Where the issue of negligence and contributory negligence arise in an action for damages to tbe plaintiff’s automobile, there being no issue as to the last clear chance, the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment where the jury answers both issues in the affirmative and awards damages.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Shaw, J.,*at January Term, 1930, of Ieedell. No error.

The verdict was as follows:

1. Was the plaintiff’s car damaged by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

*7812. Did tbe plaintiff, by bis own negligence, contribute to bis damage, as alleged in tbe answer? Answer: Yes.

What amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant? Answer: $50.00.

It was thereupon adjudged that tbe plaintiff take nothing by bis action and that the defendant recover bis costs.

*Zeb V. Turlington for plaintiff.*

*Raymer & Raymer for appellee, Albert L. Storr.*

Adams, J.

Tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant were equally in fault. If one can recover so can the other. Thus there would be “mutual faults and mutual recoveries, which would contradict tbe saying that ‘law is tbe perfection of reason.’” *Herring v. R. R.,*32 N. C., 402. It is settled by tbe decisions of this Court that tbe plaintiff is not entitled to damages- upon tbe verdict. *Baker v. R. R.,*118 N. C., 1015; *Sasser v. Lumber Co.,*165 N. C., 242; *Carter v. R. R., ibid.,*244, 255; *Holton v. Moore, ibid.,*549. It will be noted that there is no issue as to tbe last clear chance. *Gunter v. Wicker,*85 N. C., 310; *Edge v. R. R.,*153 N. C., 212. Tbe appellant cites *Wood v. Jones, ante,*356; but in that case tbe second issue was whether tbe defendant, not tbe plaintiff, bad by bis own negligence contributed to bis injury. A new trial was given because tbe verdict was indefinite.

No error.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, RoomL-002.

The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
    - The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 providing for the application of the Title VII security-based swap dealer de minimis                      counting requirements to security-based swap transactions connected with a non-U.S. person's dealing activity that are arranged, negotiated, or executed by personnel located in a U.S. branch or office or by personnel of an agent of such non-U.S. person located in a U.S. branch or office.                

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: February 3, 2016.

Brent J. Fields,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-02490 Filed 2-4-16; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
ACCEPTED 06-15-00143-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/31/2015 8:11:57 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
## Popular Names by State

- Popular Baby Names
- Popular Names in U.S. Territories
- Popular Names by Decade
- Background information

Top 100 names for a selected State and year of birth

Select birth year:2023202220212020201920182017201620152014201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990198919881987198619851984198319821981198019791978197719761975197419731972197119701969196819671966196519641963196219611960           

Top 5 names by State for a selected year of birth

Footer menu
#### STATE *v. FRED*T. MILLS.

(Filed 5 March, 1952.)

1. Criminal Law § 40a—

The witness, in reply to a question as to the defendant’s general character, stated that it was good “with the exception of dealing in whiskey.” *Held:*The answer is not a proper subject of exception, since a witness may voluntarily qualify and explain his character testimony.

2. Intoxicating Liquor § 9d—

Evidence in this case *held*sufficient to support a verdict of guilty of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale.

Appeal by defendant from *Bojbitt, J.,*and a jury, Regular September 1951 Criminal Term, McDowell.

Tbe defendant was found guilty by a jury of tbe unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for tbe purpose of sale. All other counts in tbe bill of indictment were disposed of by judgment as of nonsuit.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.*

*I. G. Crawford, Robert R. Reynolds, and Lawrence G. Stoker for defendant, appellant.*

YalektiNE, J.

A witness for tbe State was asked if be knew tbe general character and reputation of tbe defendant. He replied: “It is good with tbe exception of dealing in whiskey.”

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a witness, who is questioned only as to defendant’s general character, may qualify and explain bis answer. *S. v. McLawhorn,*195 N.C. 327, 141 S.E. 883; *S. v. Saleeby,*183 N.C. 740, 110 S.E. 844; *S. v. Mills,*184 N.C. 694, 114 S.E. 314; *S. v. Reagan,*185 N.C. 710, 117 S.E. 1; *S. v. Fleming,*194 N.C. 42, 138 S.E. 342; *S. v. Pridgen,*194 N.C. 795, 139 S.E. 601; *S. v. Butler, 177*N.C. 585, 98 S.E. 821; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, Sec. 114.

There was sufficient evidence to support tbe verdict of guilty upon tbe charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for tbe purpose of sale. *S. v. Carlson,*171 N.C. 818, 89 S.E. 30; *S. v. Mann,*219 N.C. 212, 13 S.E. 2d 247; *S. v. Johnson,*220 N.C. 773, 18 S.E. 2d 358; G.S. 15-173.

Hence, tbe judgment of tbe court below must stand.

No error.
#### ARTHUR T. PRITCHARD and GEORGE PRITCHARD v. JACK DRYZER.

(Filed 14 December, 1927.)

Appeal by defendant from *Shaw, J.,*at March Term, 1927, of BuNcombe.

No error.

*Georgs M. Pritchard for plaintiff.*

*Weaver & Paila for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs brought suit to recover the amount alleged to be due by the defendant upon a written contract executed by the parties on 27 February, 1926, under the terms of which the plaintiffs were to convey and the defendant was to purchase certain real estate therein described. Pertinent issues were submitted to the jury, and upon the verdict judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs. The controversy turned chiefly upon issues of fact which, under proper instructions, were determined against the defendant. In our opinion the case was tried in compliance with the law, and we see no valid reason for disturbing the judgment of the court.

No error.