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



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -1 0- 00 06 7- CV J uan MORENO , Appellant
v . Estela BECERRA , Appellee Fr om the County

Court, Maver ick County , Texas Trial Court No. 2786 Honora ble J ose A. Ar anda, Jr., J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: March 17, 2010 DI SMI SSED FOR WANT OF JURI SDI CTI ON The trial c ourt signe d a fina l judgment on Dece mber 15, 2009. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Proc edure 26.1, appellant’ s notice of appea l was due on J anuar y 14, 2010. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26
. 1
. Ap p ellant, howeve r, filed his notice of appea l fifteen da

y s later — on January

29, 20 10 . App e lla

nt’ s noti c e of a

pp e a l wa s not ac c omp a nie d by a mot ion fo r e xten sio n o f t ime to f ile the notice of

appea l.04
- 10
- 00 06 7- CV

- 2- A motion for extension of time is nece ssarily implied when an a

ppellant, ac ting in g ood faith, files a notice of appe al bey ond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but w ithin the f ifteen- day g rac e per iod provided by

Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of tim e. See V

erburgt v. Dorne r , 959 S.W .2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the pre dece ssor to Rule 26). Howe ver, the appellant must offe r a re asonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appe al in a timely manner . See id. ; T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3, 10.5. On F e br ua ry 4, 20 10 , th is C ourt

no tif ie d a pp e lla nt o f t he ne ed for

a n e xplana tio n f

or his failure to file the notice of appea l in a timely

manner . We w arne d appellant that f ailing to pr ovide
a re asonable explanation would result in the di smissal of hi s appea l for want of j urisdiction. To date, no response has bee n rec eived f rom appe llant. Ac co rdi ng ly , we dismiss this appeal for w ant of jurisdiction.

PER C URI AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          44,496
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (102)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,610
<PP&E>                                          20,098
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,372)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        214
<COMMON>                                         1,675
<OTHER-SE>                                    (61,936)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,832
<SALES>                                          6,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,411
<CGS>                                            5,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    99
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,287)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,287)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,994
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,084
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     67,577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,225
<PP&E>                                          12,643
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 224,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,437
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           177
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   224,620
<SALES>                                        159,350
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,350
<CGS>                                          110,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (522)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,614
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,674
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,092
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,582
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,582
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5268]



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


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Information Collection Under OMB Review: Compliance Inspection 
Report, VA Form 26-1839

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Veterans Affairs has submitted to OMB the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This 
document lists the following information: (1) the title of the 
information collection, and the Department form number(s), if 
applicable; (2) a description of the need and its use; (3) who will be 
required or asked to respond; (4) an estimate of the total annual 
reporting hours, and recordkeeping burden, if applicable; (5) the 
estimated average burden hours per respondent; (6) the frequency of 
response; and (7) an estimated number of respondents.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed information collection and supporting 
documents may be obtained from Trish Fineran, Veterans Benefits 
Administration (20M30), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-6886.
    Comments and questions about the items on the list should be 
directed to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Joseph Lackey, NEOB, Room 3002, 
Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316. Do not send requests for benefits 
to this address.

DATES: Comments on the information collection should be directed to the 
OMB Desk Officer within 30 days of this notice.

DATED: February 21, 1995.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Ronald C. Taylor,
Management Analyst.

Extension

    1. Compliance Inspection Report, VA Form 26-1839.
    2. The form is used by fee compliance inspectors to report the 
acceptability of residential construction and its conformity with 
standards prescribed by law for new housing proposed as security for 
guaranteed loans. Because compliance inspections are a common practice 
in the housing industry, only one burden hour is shown for reporting 
purposes.
    3. Individuals or households.
    4. The estimated burden hour per year is 56,250. However, because 
compliance inspections are a common practice in the housing industry, 
only 1 hour is being reported for this information collection.
    5. 15 minutes.
    6. On occasion.
    7. 225,000 respondents.

[FR Doc. 95-5268 Filed 3-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
#### AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Inc., v. EDENTON-MACKEYS FERRY COMPANY, Inc.

(Filed 18 February, 1931.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harris, J.,*at December Term, 1930, of ChowaN.

Civil action to recover on advertising contract.

From a directed verdict in favor of the defendant the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*W. D. Prud&n for plaintiff.*

*Priv'oit & Privott for defendant.*

Per OuRiam.

The theory of the court’s instruction to the jury is that the plaintiff failed to- show compliance with the terms of the contract on its part. The record discloses no reversible error.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6295]



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

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.: 232-011481-001.
    Title: Hanjin/AMA Agreement.
    Parties: Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., Cho Yang Shipping Co., Ltd., 
DSR-Senator Lines.
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment modifies Article 5.10 of the 
Agreement by deleting the language that restricted the parties to 
maintain membership in the Conference.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: March 9, 1995.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6295 Filed 3-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1936

SAR Communications, 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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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
#### Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A., Appellant, v Shelley Lifson et al., Defendants, and Stuart Lifson, Respondent.

[776 NYS2d 288]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J), dated January 9, 2003, which denied its motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Contrary to the respondent’s contentions, the Supreme Court erroneously determined that the notice of pendency in a foreclosure action could not be refiled after it expired. The Court of Appeals decision in *Matter of Sakow*(97 NY2d 436 [2002]) does not alter our long-standing rule that a new notice of pendency may be filed in a mortgage foreclosure action despite the cancellation or expiration of a previous notice *(see Horowitz v Griggs,*2 AD3d 404 [2003]; *Campbell v Smith,*309 AD2d 581 [2003]; *Wasserman v Harriman,*234 AD2d 596, 598 [1996]; *Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn,*147 AD2d 208, 212-213 [1989]; *Robbins v Goldstein,*36 AD2d 730, 731 [1971]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly denied the plaintiffs motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale on the basis that the notice of pendency was a nullity.

However, it cannot be determined on this record whether the plaintiff either extended the notice of pendency filed on November 28, 2000, or timely filed a new notice of pendency such that it currently would be in compliance with the notice of pendency prerequisite to obtaining a judgment in this action *(see*RPAPL 1331). Thus, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings to determine whether the plaintiff is currently in compliance with RPAPL 1331, and for a new determination of the motion thereafter. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Krausman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
**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: December 31 2004
 
 _/s/ Crawford Shaw______________
 Crawford Shaw, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and President
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5718]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER94-1297-000]


Black Creek Hydro, Inc.; Notice of Filing

March 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 15, 1995, Black Creek Hydro, Inc. 
tendered for filing a Certificate of Concurrence in the above-
referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before March 17, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5718 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2464

Northern Tool & Equipment:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
#### STATE v. LEWIS LYNN, JR.

(Filed 14 January, 1960.)

1. Criminal Law § 159—

The filing of brief by appellant after the expiration of the time allowed results in an abandonment of the assignments of error except 'those appearing on the face of the record which are cognizable *ex mero motu.*

Appeal by defendant from *C'arr, J.,*October Term, 1959, of Ala-MANCE.

On June 15, 1959, in the Burlington Municipal Recorder’s Court, defendant pleaded guilty to a warrant charging that, while living with his wife, he wilfully failed to provide adequate support for his two children, aged nine and four, a violation of G.S. 14-325. The judgment then pronounced imposed a prison sentence of twelve months, suspended for three years on condition, *inter alia,*that defendant pay to the clerk of said court, for the support of said children, the sum of $15.00 on Friday of each week, beginning July 17, 1959, “until further orders of Court.”

*704Later, the said recorder’s court and also Judge Carr, after *de novo*hearing on defendant’s appeal as provided by G.S. 15-200.1, found, as a fact that defendant had wilfully violated said condition and ordered that defendant serve said prison sentence. Defendant excepted to the “judgment and finding of facts” of Judge Carr and gave notice of appeal.

Appellant was allowed fifteen days from October 21, 1959, to serve-statement of case on appeal but did not serve such statement until November 24, 1959. The record on appeal was docketed in this Court. Rule 28 (Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, G.S. 4A, p. 185) required that appellant’s brief be filed by noon on Tuesday, December 1, 1959. On December 8, 1959, appellant having failed to file brief, the Attorney General moved that the appeal be dismissed and the judgment affirmed. Thereafter appellant filed a brief.

*Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.*

*Walter D. Barrett for defendant, appellant.*

PeR Cueiam.

*“. . .*the filing by the defendant appellant of his brief too late works an abandonment of the assignments of errors, except those appearing on the face of the record, which are cognizable *ex mero motu.” S. v. Evans,*237 N.C. 761, 75 S.E. 2d 919, and cases cited; Strong, North Carolina Index, Vol. 1, Criminal Law § 159, and oases cited.

No error appears on the face of the record. Indeed, the evidence set out in appellant’s belated statement of case on appeal fully supports Judge Carr’s findings of fact and judgment. Hence, the judgment is affirmed and defendant’s appeal therefrom is dismissed.

Judgment affirmed, appeal dismissed.