alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7944

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus THOMAS J. BARKER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-04-31) Submitted: June 9, 2006 Decided: July 7, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; modified in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas J. Barker, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Albert Lustig, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Thomas J. Barker pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and distribution of more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(2000). The district court sentenced Barker to 175 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The district court also announced an alternate sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment (60 months on each count, to run consecutively). Barker filed a “Motion for Reconsideration of Final Judgment Order,” citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), arguing that there are clerical errors in the final judgment as to his alternate sentence and the description of the statutes under which he was convicted. The district court denied the motion, finding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are inapplicable to Barker’s criminal case. While we agree with the district court that the relief sought was unavailable through Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), Barker’s claims of clerical error could be corrected under authority of Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We find, however, that the alternate sentence contained in the final judgment comports with the alternate sentence announced by the court at the sentencing hearing. Hence, to the extent the district court declined to amend Barker’s alternate sentence, we affirm.- 3 - However, we find there is a clerical error in Barker’s criminal judgment as to the description of the statutes under which he was convicted. The first page of the Judgment accurately reflects that Barker was convicted for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). However, on page two of the Judgment, under the Imprisonment section, it inaccurately lists the statutory violation as “Title 18 U.S.C.” rather than “Title 21 U.S.C.” We modify the district court’s order only to direct that the clerk of the district court correct this typographical error. SeeFed. R. Crim. P. 36. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

MODIFIED IN PART
#### MRS. CALLIE C. YORK v. JOSEPH O. COLE and wife, SARAH FRANCES COLE.

(Filed 1 March, 1961.)

Cancellation and Rescission of Instrument § 11—

In a suit to set aside a conveyance of real estate on the ground of fraud and coercion, defendants may properly set-up a counterclaim for personal services rendered grantor, since the grantor seeking the equitable remedy of cancellation should return anything she may have received from grantees.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Preyer, J.,*May 23, 1960 Term, of Guil-foed (High Point Division).

This is a civil action instituted 12 December 1958.

Plaintiff is an elderly woman in chronic ill health. For a period of *225time she resided in the home of defendants, relatives. She sues: (1) to set aside a conveyance of real estate which she alleges was made by her to defendants by reason of fraud and coercion on their part, (2) to recover for the wrongful conversion by defendants of rents, postal savings, social security payments, an automobile and a quantity of furniture, and (3) for punitive damages.

Defendants, answering deny the material allegations of the complaint, and counterclaim for services rendered by them to plaintiff and for expenses incurred in maintaining and caring for her in their home.

Plaintiff’s demurrer *ore terms*to the counterclaim was overruled. Nine issues were submitted to the jury. The first seven deal with plaintiff’s cause of action. All of these, except the issue involving punitive damages, were answered in favor of plaintiff. The eighth and ninth issues relate to defendants’ counterclaim. These were answered in favor of defendants.

In conformity with the verdict, the court entered judgment: (1) setting aside and declaring null and void the conveyance from plaintiff to defendants, (2) awarding articles of furniture to plaintiff, (3) allowing plaintiff to recover $3,086.04, with interest, for conversion of property and money by defendants; (4) permitting defendants recovery of $3,100.00 on their counterclaim.

Plaintiff appealed and assigned errors.

*John W. Hinsdale and Thomas Turner for 'plaintiff.*

*James B. Lovelace for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff assigns as error the overruling of the demurrer *ore tenus*to defendants’ counterclaim, the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict as to the eighth and ninth issues, the court’s charge on the eighth and ninth issues, and the signing of the judgment. We find no prejudicial error in the rulings of the court, the trial, and entry of judgment. Relative to plaintiff’s cause of action, this trial furnishes a proper example of the application of the maxim: “He who seeks equity must do equity.” A complainant who seeks to have an instrument, obligation, or transaction canceled or set aside must return or offer to return whatever he may have received from the defendant. 19 Am. Jur., Equity, s. 464, p. 321.

No error.
#### Sarah A. Mason v. Adelaide E. Mason.

Motion denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4294]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5156-6]


Administrative Settlement Pursuant to Section 122(h) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 
1980 (CERCLA), as Amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h), Resource Services, Inc. 
Site, Springfield, Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 
Act of 1986 (SARA), notice is hereby given that an administrative cost 
recovery settlement concerning the Resource Services, Inc. Site (``the 
Site'') located in Springfield, Missouri, was entered into by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (``the Agency'') on December 22, 1994. 
The settlement resolves certain Agency claims under section 107 of 
CERCLA against the Settling Parties who are named in an attachment to 
the settlement which is available at EPA Region 7 at the address shown 
below. The settlement requires the Settling Parties to pay $50,000.00 
to the Hazardous Substance Superfund toward past response costs 
incurred in relation to the Site.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of the publication of this 
notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the 
settlement. The Agency's response to any comments received will be 
available for public inspection at the EPA Region 7 Office, located at 
726 Minnesota Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The settlement and additional background information 
relating to the settlement are available for public inspection during 
weekday business hours at the EPA Region 7 Office at 726 Minnesota 
Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas 66101. A copy of the settlement may be 
obtained from Venessa Cobbs, Regional Docket Clerk, EPA Region 7, 726 
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, telephone: (913) 551-7630.
    Comments on the settlement should reference the Resource Services, 
Inc. Site, in Springfield, Missouri, and EPA Docket No. VII-92-F-0015 
and should be addressed to Ms. Cobbs at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sarah Toevs Sullivan, Associate 
Regional Counsel, EPA Region 7, Office of Regional Counsel, 726 
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, telephone: (913) 551-7010.

    Dated: February 7, 1995.
Delores Platt,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 95-4294 Filed 2-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Exhibit 10(q)

Example of Modification Agreement with Associates Commercial Corporation
aggregate amount of loans is $9,950,088.18.






                        MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
                            (Direct Loan)
                               1328292
This Agreement is entered into on 10/03/00 by and between Associates
Commercial Corporation ("Secured Party") and OTR Exress, Inc.
("Debtor").

Debtor entered into a Security Agreement with Secured Party dated
5/3/99 (herein with all amendments thereto and any accompanying notes
referred to as the "Contract") which was executed by Debtor as evidence
of and as security for the payment of the amounts set forth therein.

Debtor has requested that Secured Party modify the terms of payment of
the unpaid principal balance of the Contract which Secured Party is
willing to do but only pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth
in this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby
agree to modify the terms of payment of the unpaid balance of the
Contract as follows:

1.   The remaining unpaid principal balance under the Contract as of
the date hereof is 267,269.77.

2.   In addition to the payment of the unpaid principal balance in 1
above Debtor promises and agrees to pay a refinance charge in the
amount of $58,110.71.

3.   Debtor promises and agrees to pay to Secured Party the total sum
(1 plus 2 above) of $325,380.48 in 40 installments as follows:

Consecutive monthly payments:
2 installments of $1,826.18 each commencing 11/03/2000 followed
by 2 installments of $1,826.18 each commencing 2/3/2001 followed
by 35 installments of $5,630.79 each commencing 4/3/2001 followed
by 1 installment of $120,998.11 commencing 3/3/2004 provided,
however, that the final installment shall be in the amount of the
remaining unpaid balance.

4.   Except as specifically modified hereby the terms and provisions of
the Contract shall remain in full force and effect.

Each of the parties hereto acknowledges receipt of a copy hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this
Agreement as of the date and year first above written.

ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL CORPORATION    DEBTOR: OTR Express Inc


By: /s/ Jeff Trotter      By:  /s/ William P. Ward     /s/Steven W. Ruben

Title:  Vice President          Title: President         CFO
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5081]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Combat Identification

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Combat Identification 
will meet in closed session on March 20-21, 1995 at the Pentagon, 
Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and 
Technology) on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will evaluate the DoD long term strategy and plan for development 
and fielding of a comprehensive situational awareness (SA) and combat 
identification (CID) architecture.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has been 
determined that this DSB Task Force meeting, concerns matters listed in 
5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly this meeting will be 
closed to the public.

    Dated: February 24, 1995.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-5081 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
EXHIBIT 32



Certification Under Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 / 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 / SEC Rule 13a-14(b)



John R. Zavoli hereby certifies that:



1. He is the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.



2. The Form 10-Q report of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. that this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



3. The information contained in the Form 10-Q report of Path
1 Network Technologies Inc. that this certification accompanies fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.



Dated: August 15, 2005



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/    JOHN R. ZAVOLI
|John R. Zavoli
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3243 

To prohibit certain Federal agencies from requiring that any employee of 

such an agency receive a COVID–19 vaccine, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2021 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain Federal agencies from requiring that 

any employee of such an agency receive a COVID–19 

vaccine, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Our Federal 

5 Workforce from Forced COVID–19 Vaccination Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AGENCY VACCINE MAN7 DATES. 

8 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘agency’’ 

9 means an executive department, agency, or independent 

10 establishment that is subject to the requirements of ExecVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:15 Nov 20, 2021 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3243.IS S3243

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3243 IS

1 utive Order 14042 (86 Fed. Reg. 50985; relating to ensur2 ing adequate COVID safety protocols for Federal contrac3 tors). 

4 (b) PROHIBITION.—No agency may require any em5 ployee of the agency, or any individual working on or in 

6 connection with a contract or subcontract with respect to 

7 the agency, to receive a COVID–19 vaccine. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Retirement Age | Description of Proposed Provision:      Gradually raise the earliest eligibility age (EEA) for Social Security retirement benefits from 62 to 65. The EEA would be increased by 2 months for individuals reaching age 62 in every year, starting in 2011. The EEA of 65 would apply for those reaching age 62 in 2028 and later (those reaching age 65 in 2031 and later). As under current law, the PIA formula applicable for any individual would depend on the year in which eligibility age is attained. It should be noted that the elimination of retirement eligibility between ages 62 and 65 would increase the number of individuals who would apply for disabled worker benefits at those ages. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified November 16, 2009 |
#### MRS. RACHEL EVANS v. QUEEN CITY COACH COMPANY and S. J. LITTLE.

(Filed 25 November, 1959.)

1. Trial § —

A motion to set aside a verdict on the ground that the award of .damages is excessive or inadequate is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and his decision upon the motion will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse.

2. Appeal and Error § 88—

Assignments of error not discussed in the brief are deemed abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the -Supreme Court.

Appeal by defendants from *Sharp, S. J.,*24 August 1959 Regular Civil -Schedule A Term, of Mecklenburg.

'Civil action to recover damages for alleged personal injuries.

The jury found by its verdict that plaintiff was injured by the negligence -of the defendants, ia® alleged in her complaint, and awarded damages of $5,000.00. •; •

From a judgment entered on the verdict, defendants appeal.

*Warren C. Stack and William E. Graham, Jr., for plaintiff, appellee.*

*John F. Bay and Robinson, Jones & Hewson for defendants, appellants.*

Per Curiam.

Defendants have brought forward and discussed in their brief four assignments of error to the charge of the court. These four assignments of error have been carefully considered by us, and prejudicial error sufficient to warrant -a new trial -is not shown in any one of them. These assignments of error are overruled.

Defendants’ only other assignment of error brought forward -and discussed in their brief is the refusal of the trial court to grant their motion to set aside the verdict for the reason that the damages awarded by the jury are excessive -and disproportionate to the injuries sus-sained by plaintiff. The granting or denial of a motion to set -aside -a verdict and award a new trial on the ground that the damages assessed by the jury are -excessive or inadequate is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. *Hinton v. Cline,*238 N.C. 136, 76 S.E. 2d 162, and the many oases there cited. His decision on the motion will not be disturbed on -appeal, unless it is obvious that he abused his discretion. *Hinton v. Cline, supra; Lamm v. Lorbacher,*235 N.C. 728, 71 S.E. 2d 49; *Francis v. Francis,*223 N.C. 401, 26 S.E. 2d 907;

*325*Freeman v. Bell,*150 N.C. 146, 63 S.E. 682. An .abuse of discretion by =the trial judge does not appear in this case.

The assignments of error in the record not set out in defendants’1 brief, and in support of which no reason >or argument is stated or authority cited, are taken as abandoned by defendants. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544, 563; *In re Will of Knight,*250 N.C. 634, 109 S.E. 2d 470.

In the trial below, we find

No error.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3734 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to designate Gold Star Families 

Day as a legal public holiday, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2022 

Ms. WARREN (for herself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. KELLY, and Ms. ROSEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to designate Gold 

Star Families Day as a legal public holiday, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gold Star Families 

5 Day Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The term ‘‘Gold Star family’’— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3734 IS

1 (A) refers to the immediate family of a 

2 servicemember who dies— 

3 (i) while serving in the Armed Forces; 

4 or 

5 (ii) from a service-connected injury or 

6 illness; and 

7 (B) originated from the service flags first 

8 flown by families during World War I. 

9 (2) The flags described in paragraph (1)(B) in10 cluded a blue star for each immediate family mem11 ber serving in the Armed Forces during any period 

12 of war or hostilities in which the Armed Forces were 

13 engaged. If a loved one represented by such a blue 

14 star died, the blue star was replaced by a gold star, 

15 which allowed members of the community to know 

16 the price that the family had paid in the cause of 

17 defending freedom. 

18 (3) There are Gold Star families from World 

19 War I and many thousands from World War II, the 

20 Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Operations 

21 Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and 

22 Enduring Freedom. 

23 (4) The United States recognizes the sacrifice 

24 that all Gold Star family members make when a faVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:30 Mar 05, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3734.IS S3734

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3734 IS

1 ther, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, or other 

2 loved one dies in service to the United States. 

3 SEC. 3. GOLD STAR FAMILIES DAY AS A LEGAL PUBLIC 

4 HOLIDAY. 

5 Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 

6 amended by inserting after the item relating to Labor Day 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘Gold Star Families Day, the last Monday in 

9 September.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4936]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Registration

    By Notice dated May 6, 1994, and published in the Federal Register 
on May 13, 1994 (59 FR 25126), Noramco of Delaware, Inc., Division of 
McNeilab, Inc., 500 Old Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 
19801, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration to be 
registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Drug                               Schedule  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opium, raw (9600).........................................  II          
Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670)............................  II          
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments or objections have been received. Therefore, pursuant 
to section 1008(a) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act 
in accordance with Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Sec. 1311.42, 
the above firm is granted registration as an importer of the basic 
classes of controlled substances listed above.

    Dated: February 21, 1995.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-4936 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M