alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HATTIE SIMPSON et al. v. THOMAS G. JONES et al.

(Filed 6 April, 1932.)

Mortgages A a — Instruction as to whether papers constituted in effect a mortgage or deed held insufficient in this case.

Where there is evidence that a deed to lands and a contract to reconvey were executed at the same time, the question being as to whether the deed was in effect a mortgage to secure borrowed money, a directed instruction upon the issue in the grantee’s favor is erroneous which is based upon the admissions of the parties but leaves out reference to the evidence tending to show that the effect of the transaction was a mortgage for the loan, and, also, as to the legal effect of the papers under the evidence introduced.

Appeal by the plaintiffs from *Harwood, Special Judge,*at October, Term, 1931, of Gas well.

New trial.

*Qlidewell & Gtwyn for plaintiffs.*

*M. C. Winstead for defendants.*

Adams, *J.*

The plaintiffs executed and delivered to the defendants a deed purporting to convey a tract of land containing forty acres and alleged that the deed was intended as a mortgage to secure the sum of $1,000 loaned them by the defendants. This conveyance was dated 16 April, 1929. Another paper purporting to have been executed on 25 April, 1929, was signed by the plaintiffs and the defendants, in which the plaintiffs contracted to convey to the defendants the land above described for the sum of $1,000, and the defendants agreed that upon receiving this sum at a designated time they would reconvey the property to the plaintiffs. There was evidence tending to show that the deed and the contract were executed and delivered at the same time. On the issue relating to the contract between the parties the trial court instructed the jury as follows: “If you find from the evidence that Hattie Simpson went to the defendants and asked a loan and further find from *517the evidence tbat the defendants, after looking over it, said they would buy the farm and then in consequence of such negotiations between them they had the papers executed, the deed executed, and the contract to reconvey executed, if you should find the facts so to be from the evidence, you would answer the first issue, No.” The issue was answered in the negative.

We think the plaintiffs’ exception to the foregoing instruction should be sustained. The instruction amounts practically to a directed verdict. About all the elements contained in it as a basis for an answer to the issue were admitted by the parties and certain parts of the evidence bearing upon the intention of the parties were inadvertently omitted from the charge. Nor is there a satisfactory instruction as to the legal effect of the papers. For these reasons the plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial.

New trial.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Position at April 30, 1999 and the Statement of
Operations for the year ended April 30, 1999 and is in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                 0000880121
<NAME>                      Market America, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                          U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        MAY-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         APR-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                45,426,920
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            280,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                            1,852,487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      47,876,331
<PP&E>                                 1,545,243
<DEPRECIATION>                           653,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        48,998,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  9,315,692
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                     199
<OTHER-SE>                            39,672,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          48,998,497
<SALES>                              110,347,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     110,347,824
<CGS>                                 28,071,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         28,071,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      61,199,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        24,337
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       23,585,650
<INCOME-TAX>                           9,394,625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   21,076,766
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                          14,191,025
<EPS-BASIC>                               0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.71



</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Next Generation Technology Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Carl Pahapill Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

     2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



                                         By: /S/ CARL PAHAPILL
                                         ---------------------
                                         Name: Carl Pahapill
                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.2
                                  ------------

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Salisbury  Bancorp,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  September  30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, John F. Foley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/ John F. Foley
    -----------------------
    John F. Foley
    Chief Financial Officer

November 12, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5692]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets the schedule for the forthcoming meeting of 
the Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission. Notice of this meeting 
is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-
463).

Meeting Date and Time: March 27, 1995, 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.; March 
29, 1995, 8 a.m. until 12 noon.

Addresses: Radisson Barcelo Hotel, 2121 P Street NW., Hershwin Room, 
Washington, DC.
    This business meeting will be open to the public. Space and 
facilities to accommodate members of the public are limited and persons 
accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. The Chairman will 
permit attendees to address the Commission, but may restrict the length 
of presentations. An agenda will be available from the National Park 
Service, Midwest Region, 1 week prior to the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan M. Hutchings, Acting Associate 
Regional Director, Planning and Resource Preservation, National Park 
Service, Midwest Region, 1709 Jackson Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102, or 
call 402-221-3082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Mississippi River Corridor Study 
Commission was established by Public Law 101-398, September 29, 1990.

    Dated: February 24, 1995.
William W. Schenk,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 95-5692 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Opinion issued April 21 , 202 2

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 21 - 00461 - CR

——————————— IN RE ROBERT JAMES CAMPBELL , Relat or
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Robert James Campbell, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on several motions seeking nunc pro tunc judgment which relator claims to have filed in 2019. 1 This is the second petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator challenging the trial court’s

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Robert James Campbell , cause number 586190 , pending in the 232nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Josh Hill presiding.2

alleged failure to rule on motions for nunc pro tunc judgment. This Court denied the first petition in appellat e case number 01

- 2 0

- 00270

- CR on the ground that relator had not included any documents and thus, failed to provide a sufficient record. See In re Campbell , No. 01

- 20

- 00270

- CR, 2020 WL 6589333 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 1, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that the act he seeks to compel is a ministerial one and that he has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief he seeks. See In re Powell , 516 S.W.3d 488, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 17). If a party properly files a motion with the trial court in a criminal case, the court has a ministerial duty to rule on that motion within a reasonable time after the motion has been submitted to the court or after the party requested a ruling. See In re Flanigan , 578 S.W.3d 634, 635

– 36 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding). To establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief for the trial court’s failure to rule on a motion, the relator must present a record showing that “(1) the motion was filed and brought to the attention of the respondent judge for a ruling, and (2) the respondent judge has not ruled on the motion within a reasonable time after the motion was submitted to the trial court for a ruling or after the party requeste d a ruling .” In re Gomez , 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).3

R elator has attached a certified mail receipt, but he has not included any of the motions he claims to have filed with the trial court. Moreover, relator has not established that he brought the motions to the trial judge’s attention. Accordingly, relator has not establish ed his entitlement to mandamus relief. See id

. We deny the petition . Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consi sts of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Guerra

. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
Tanita 3 Year Purchase History

Description Units Cost Units Cost Units 

BC‐533 3,428 BCI 5,048 BCI 3,400 BC‐549 1,600 BCI 400 BCI 800 

BC‐549Plus 664 BCI 400 BCI 400 

BC‐554 2,924 BCI 2,700 BCI 3,148 

BC‐577F 1,200 BCI 3,724 BCI 200 BC‐585F 1,100 BCI 2,500 BCI 1,100 

BC‐585P 100 BCI 900 BCI 0 

BC‐730F 0 BCI 804 BCI 0 

BF‐679F 204 BCI 0 BCI 204 

BF‐679W 2,400 BCI 2,718 BCI 4,614 BF‐680W 2,706 BCI 2,064 BCI 2,916 BF‐684W 404 BCI 400 BCI 0 

RD‐901 1,400 BCI 1,300 BCI 200 

RD‐901plus 0 BCI 300 BCI 1,400 

RD‐953 0 BCI 300 BCI 800 

UM‐081 4,856 BCI 800 BCI 6,912 

Calendar 2015 Calendar 2016 Calendar 2

Public Version of 3 Year Purchase History (BCI = Business Confidential Information)

9/19/2018
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4160 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme 

Court of the United States security-related authorities 

equivalent to the legislative and executive branches. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4160 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supreme Court Police 

3 Parity Act of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROTECT FAMILY MEMBERS. 

5 Section 6121(a)(2) of title 40, United States Code, 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

8 the end; 

9 (2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘and’’ after 

10 the semicolon; and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(C) any member of the immediate family 

13 of the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, or 

14 any officer of the Supreme Court if the Marshal 

15 determines such protection is necessary.’’. 

Passed the Senate May 9, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4160 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to grant 

and executive branches. related authorities equivalent to the legislative the Supreme Court of the United States security-
#### OLIVER C. FULLER v. RHODODENDRON CORPORATION.

(Filed 28 January, 1935.)

Wills E d — Remainder held to vest at termination of life estate and not upon death of testator.

A devise to testator’s wife for life, the property then to be sold and divided equally among testator’s children by his first wife, “and if none alive, to my first wife’s grandchildren,” *is held to*vest the remainder after the life estate in the sole survivor of testator’s children by his first wife as of the date of the death of his widow, unaffected by the direction to sell the land and divide the proceeds.

Appeal by defendant from *Warlick, J.,*at November Term, 1934, of HENDERSON.

Civil action for specific performance.

Plaintiff being under contract to convey a certain tract of land on Mount Hebron, Henderson County, to the defendant, duly executed warranty deed therefor, tendered same to the defendant, and demanded payment of the purchase price as agreed. The defendant refused to accept said deed and declined to pay the purchase price on the ground that the title offered is defective.

The case was heard upon the pleadings and facts agreed.

There was judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Shipman & Arledge for plaintiff.*

*Thomas 11. Franks for defendant.*

*661Stacy, C. J.

On tbe bearing tbe title offered was properly made to depend upon tbe construction of tbe following item in tbe will of Solomon Jones:

“I give, devise, and bequeath my estate and property, real and personal, as follows, tbat is to say:

“My real and personal estate on ‘Mt. Hebron,’ in Henderson County, North Carolina, to go to my wife, Assena T. Jones, during her mortal life, then to be sold and divided equally among my first wife’s children, and if none alive, to my first wife’s grandchildren.”

Tbe case states tbat Jane Cox was tbe only child of tbe testator’s first wife to survive bis widow, Assena T. Jones. Tbe plaintiff has acquired, by *mesne*conveyances, all of Jane Cox’s interest in said land.

On authority of *Brown v. Guthery,*190 N. C., 822, tbe trial court held tbat, under tbe will of Solomon Jones, bis widow, Assena T. Jones, took a life estate in said land, with remainder in fee to tbe children of tbe testator’s first wife who should survive bis widow, and tbat as Jane Cox alone of bis first wife’s children survived bis widow, she was entitled to tbe remainder in fee. This ruling would seem to be correct. *Watson v. Smith,*110 N. C., 6, 14 S. E., 640.

Nor is plaintiff’s title affected by tbe testator’s direction to sell tbe land and divide tbe proceeds. *Witty v. Witty,*184 N. C., 375, 114 S. E., 482; 40 Cyc., 1999.

Affirmed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2369

Quest Technologies dba Crystal Quest:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         461,753
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,106,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,429,123
<PP&E>                                         940,852
<DEPRECIATION>                                (141,128)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,228,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          772,819
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,250
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,228,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,390,824
<SALES>                                      2,392,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        1,852,797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                73,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                467,182
<INCOME-TAX>                                   188,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            279,182
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   279,182
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02



</TABLE>
Public Document

The product is Electronic Cable for medical use. It is a multi-conductor, copper, LLDPE (Low linear 

dense polyethylene) insulated with PVC jacket. The PVC jacket is also non-microbial and phthalate 

restricted. Due to it being medical-grade, the product is for one-time use and discarded. 

IEWC Information: 

32057373 -- 26 gauge / 4 conductors -- 300 volts - UL approved 

32057276 -- 22 gauge / 2 conductors -- 300 volts 

8544.49.3080

Krauss, Erica and South, Chris

IEWC Corp

Importer

NO

N/A
YES

YES

To Whom it May Concern - 

IEWC Corp, headquartered in New Berlin, Wisconsin, is seeking exclusion for Electronic Cable 

manufactured of copper, LLDPE (Low linear dense polyethylene) insulated with non-microbial and 

phthalate restricted PVC jacket. Primarily for medical use, this cable requires comprehensive 

validation by multiple parties which can take 3-9 months per unique part number. 

As stated above, there are U.S. and 3rd party manufacturers. The available supplier pool is quite 

limited. There is only one U.S. company and one 3rd Party company that manufactures this product 

known to IEWC. In both cases, it is not readily available or off the shelf, but rather is special order 

with longer lead-times. Finding another manufacturer is not a winning strategy because of the end 

user's reluctance to put in the time and money for another evaluation. Our customer, and their end 

user have a rigorous and expensive validation process that they do not want to initiate with another 

supplier, having already put so much time into it. 

IEWC began sourcing a vendor back in January 2018 and a supplier was identified four weeks later in 

February 2018. The development of this product began in February 2018 and in June 2018 a final 

product sample was submitted for required validations from multiple parties. We are still in the 

validation process at this time. 

This product is exclusive to one U.S. Customer, however, it is projected to yield sales of $1.1 Million 

USD for these parts. Going forward with the additional 25% unexpected tariff on this product would 

harm the interest of both the customer and ourselves. We would have to start the process all over 

again, obtaining a new vendor in addition to the required validations in order to meet our customer's 

and medical industries rigorous specifications. 

Our product does not involve any "Made in China 2025" or other Chinese Industrial Programs. We 

hope that you consider this exclusion request and look forward to your feedback. 

Sincerely; 

Erica Krauss and Chris South 

IEWC Corp.
****

**MOTOR MODEL: FF050/FK050**

# image1.jpeg

# image2.jpeg

# image3.jpeg

# image4.png

# image5.png