alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### EARL BURLESON v. CHARLES C. FRANCIS, SAM FERGUSON and THOMAS H. ROGERS, Buncombe County Review Committee.

(Filed 18 September, 1957.)

Agriculture § 11—

Tbe finding of fact of the Superior Court that there was substantial evidence suppOTting the determination by the review committee of the tobacco allotment of the petitioner’s farm is binding on the Supreme Court if there be evidence to support it.

Appeal by petitioner from *Sink, E. J.,*at the May 1957 Civil Term of BuNCOmbe.

Civil action brought under provisions of Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 USCA Sec. 1301 *et*seg., particularly Secs. 1365, 1366, for judicial review of the determination of the Buncombe County Review Committee which established the burley tobacco farm acreage allotment on petitioner’s farm No. 1804'for the year 1956. This Committee made findings of fact and rendered conclusions of law in respect thereto by which petitioner’s allotment for 1956 was reduced in accordance with Section 725.719(e) of the tobacco marketing quota regulations, 1956-57 marketing year.

Petitioner excepted to each of the findings of fact for that “there is not sufficient competent evidence upon which to base same,” and for like reason petitioner excepts to the conclusions of law as “erroneous in fact and in law.”

When the cause came on for hearing in Superior Court “upon the application of the plaintiff for review of the determination of the Review Committee with respect to plaintiff’s 1956 burley tobacco farm acreage allotment,” the Presiding Judge entered judgment, in which after reciting that “it appearing to the court and the court finding it as a fact that the determination of the Review Committee in this matter is supported by substantial evidence and the law applicable thereto,” “ordered, adjudged and decreed that the determination of the Review *620Committee be hereby confirmed in every respect and the plaintiff taxed with the costs of this action.”

To the signing and entering of the foregoing judgment plaintiff objects and excepts and appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns as error the same matter as was set forth in exception to the determination by the Review Committee.

*James S. Howell and McLean, Gudger, Elmore & Martin for Plaintiff Appellant.*

*J. Stephen Doyle, Jr., Neil Brooks, J. M. Baley, Jr., Robert H. Lacey, and Emily A. Kindel for Defendants Appellees.*

PeR CüRiam.

Pertinent Section No. 1366 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act declares that “the review by the Court shall be limited to questions of law, and the findings of fact by the Review Committee if supported by evidence shall be conclusive.”

In the light of this provision the finding of fact by Judge of Superior Court that the determination by the Review Committee is supported by substantial evidence is binding on this Court if there be evidence to support it. And in exceptions thereto, and to the legal conclusion reached error is not made to appear to this Court. See *Lee v. Berry,*219 S.C. 382, 65 S.E. 2d 775.

Hence the judgment from which appeal is taken is

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statements of Aethlon Medical, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.
333-145290 and 333-127911 and 333-114017 and 333-49896) of our report, dated
July 1, 2009 on the financial statements of Aethlon Medical, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2009 and 2008 and for each of the two years in the
two year period ended March 31, 2009 and the period January 31, 2004 (inception)
through March 31, 2008 (which included an explanatory paragraph expressing
substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern)appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aethlon Medical, Inc.
for the year ended March 31, 2009.



                          /s/ Squar, Milner, Peterson, Miranda & Williamson, LLP
                          ------------------------------------------------------
                          Squar, Milner, Peterson, Miranda & Williamson, LLP


Newport Beach, California
July 1, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2750-2751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-594]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice of the filing 
of the following agreement(s) pursuant to section 5 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984.
    Interested parties may inspect and obtain a copy of each agreement 
at the Washington, DC Office of the Federal Maritime Commission, 800 
North Capitol Street, NW., 9th Floor. Interested parties may submit 
comments on each agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days after the date of the 
Federal Register in which this notice appears. The requirements for 
comments are found in Sec. 572.603 of title 46 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Interested persons should consult this section before 
communicating with the Commission regarding a pending agreement.
    Agreement No.: 224-200087-007.
    Title: Port of Oakland/Maersk Pacific Ltd. Terminal Agreement.
    Parties:

    Port of Oakland
    Maersk Pacific Ltd.

    Synopsis: The proposed amendment deletes approximately 1.4 acres 
and restates the monthly rental for the Container Freight Station 
effective January 1, 1995.
    Agreement No.: 224-2000259-010.
    Title: Jacksonville Port Authority/Crowley American, Transport, 
Inc. Terminal Agreement.
    Parties:

    Jacksonville Port Authority
    Crowley American Transport, Inc.

    Synopsis: The proposed amendment extends the term of the Agreement.
    Agreement No.: 224-200904.
    Title: Port Authority of New York & New Jersey/Sea-Land Service, 
Inc. Container Incentive Agreements.
    Parties:

    Port Authority of New York & New

[[Page 2751]]

Jersey (``Port'')
    Sea-Land Service, Inc. (``Sea-Land'').

    Synopsis: The Agreement provides for the Port to pay Sea-Land an 
incentive of $15.00 for each import container and $25.00 for each 
export container loaded or unloaded from a vessel at the Port's marine 
terminals during calendar year 1995, provided each container is shipped 
by rail to or from points more than 260 miles from the Port.
    Agreement No.: 224-200905.
    Title: Port Authority of New York & New Jersey/Evergreen America 
Corporation Container Incentive Agreement.
    Parties:

    Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (``Port'')
    Evergreen American Corporation (``EAC'').

    Synopsis: The Agreement provides for the Port to pay EAC an 
incentive of $15.00 for each import container and $25.00 for each 
export container loaded or unloaded from a vessel at the Port's marine 
terminals during calendar year 1995, provided each container is shipped 
by rail to or from points more than 260 miles from the Port.

    Dated: January 5, 1995.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-594 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,518
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,027
<PP&E>                                         560,145
<DEPRECIATION>                                     354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 612,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,347
<BONDS>                                        445,505
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    136,305
<COMMON>                                        58,608
<OTHER-SE>                                   (100,689)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   612,390
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,118
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,772)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,772)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,772)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES**
 **13A-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**
 **THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, Crawford Shaw, the Chief Executive Officer (the principal executive officer) of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc.; 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 
 4.
The registrant'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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and 
 b.
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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. 
 5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 
 6.
The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 
 
 
 
 Dated:  January 21, 2005
 
 _/s/ Crawford Shaw______________
 Crawford Shaw, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and President
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3954 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3954

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the Federal reserve banks 
 from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 30, 2022

  Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Braun, and Mr. Grassley) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the Federal reserve banks 
 from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, 
                        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. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS RELATING TO CERTAIN 
              PRODUCTS OR SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS.

    Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act is amended by adding after 
the 14th undesignated paragraph (12 U.S.C. 347d) the following:
            ``No Federal reserve bank may offer products or services 
        directly to an individual, maintain an account on behalf of an 
        individual, or issue a central bank digital currency directly 
        to an individual.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1764

GreenTech Environmental, LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4147 

To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from constraining the range or type 

of investments that may be offered to participants and beneficiaries 

of individual retirement accounts who exercise control over the assets 

in such accounts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 5, 2022 

Mr. TUBERVILLE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from constraining the 

range or type of investments that may be offered to 

participants and beneficiaries of individual retirement accounts who exercise control over the assets in such accounts. 

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 ‘‘Financial Freedom Act 

5 of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4147 IS

1 SEC. 2. FIDUCIARY DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO PENSION 

2 PLAN INVESTMENTS. 

3 Section 404(a) of the Employee Retirement Income 

4 Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104(a)) is amended by 

5 adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(3)(A) In the case of a pension plan that provides 

7 for individual accounts and permits a participant or bene8 ficiary to exercise control over the assets in the partici9 pant’s or beneficiary’s account, nothing in paragraph 

10 (1)— 

11 ‘‘(i) requires a fiduciary to select, or prohibits 

12 a fiduciary from selecting, any particular type of in13 vestment alternative, provided that a fiduciary pro14 vides the participant or beneficiary an opportunity to 

15 choose, from a broad range of investment alter16 natives, the manner in which some or all of the as17 sets of the participant’s or beneficiary’s account are 

18 invested, according to regulations prescribed by the 

19 Secretary; or 

20 ‘‘(ii) requires that any particular type of invest21 ment be either favored or disfavored, other than on 

22 the basis of the investment’s risk-return characteris23 tics, in the context of the plan fiduciary’s objective 

24 of providing investment alternatives suitable for pro25 viding benefits for participants and beneficiaries. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4147 IS

1 ‘‘(B) In the event that a fiduciary selects a self-di2 rected brokerage window as an investment alternative for 

3 a plan described in subparagraph (A)— 

4 ‘‘(i) the Secretary shall not issue any regula5 tions or subregulatory guidance constraining or pro6 hibiting the range or type of investments that may 

7 be offered through such brokerage window; 

8 ‘‘(ii) subsection (c) shall apply to such self-di9 rected brokerage window; and 

10 ‘‘(iii) the diversification requirement of para11 graph (1)(C) and the prudence requirement of para12 graph (1)(B) are not violated by the fiduciary’s se13 lection of a self-directed brokerage window as an in14 vestment alternative or as a result of the exercise of 

15 a participant or beneficiary’s control over the assets 

16 in such self-directed brokerage window.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 12

- 00141

- CR Fred D. HALL , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- CR

- 0678 Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 12, 2012 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Fred D. Hall was convicted by a jury of assault on a public servant and sentenced by the trial court to five years in prison and a $2,000.00 fine. The trial court suspended the sentence of confinement and placed Hall on community supervi s ion for a period of five years. Hall appeals the judgment. Hall ’s court

- appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which

s he conc ludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.04

- 12

- 00141

- CR

- 2

- 1978), and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Hall was pro vided cop ies of the brief and motion to withdraw and was informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Hall has not filed a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with

couns el the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Hall’s and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id .; Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1996, no pet.). No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Hall wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must eithe r retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary revie w must comply with the requirements of r ule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH