alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE NORTH ASHEBORO-CENTRAL FALLS SANITARY DISTRICT, petitioner v. R. L. CANOY and wife, MYRTLE CANOY, defendants (respondents.)

(Filed 3 May, 1961.)

Appeal and Error § 19—

An assignment of error should present the asserted error without the necessity of going beyond the assignment itself.

Appeal by petitioner from *Preyer, J.,*November Term, 1960, of RANBOLPH.

Condemnation proceeding in which the sole issue is the amount of damages, if any, respondents are entitled to recover from petitioner for the easements taken by petitioner under G.S. 130-130.

In a trial at November Term, 1959, the jury awarded damages in the amount of $5,000.00. Upon appeal by petitioner, this Court awarded a new trial. *Sanitary District v. Canoy, 252*N.C. 749, 114 S.E. 2d 577, where the purpose and nature of the easements taken by petitioner are set forth.

Upon (second) trial at November Term, 1960, the jury awarded damages in the amount of $6,535.00, plus interest of $555.50, a total of $7,090.50.

Judgment was entered defining with particularity the easements acquired by petitioner, providing that respondents recover of petitioner the sum of $5,000.00 plus interest thereon from June 26, 1959, the date of the taking of the easements by petitioner, and taxing petitioner with costs. (Respondents agreed to remit the portion of the damages awarded in excess of the amount for which they obtained judgment.)

Petitioner appealed, assigning errors.

*H. Wade Yates for petitioner, appellant.*

*Ottway Burton and Linwood T. Peoples for respondents, appellees.*

*631PeR Cueiam.

In an assignment of error, “(a)lways the very error relied upon should be definitely and clearly presented, and the Court not compelled to go beyond the assignment itself to learn what the question is.” *Allen v. Allen,*244 N.C. 446, 450, 94 S.E. 2d 325; *Steelman v. Benfield,*228 N.C. 651, 653, 46 S.E. 2d 829, and cases cited. Many of petitioner’s assignments of error are defective in that they do not point out in what respect petitioner considers erroneous the court’s rulings or instructions. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, each of petitioners’ exceptions has been carefully considered. Suffice to say, we find no error of law deemed sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

No error.
Order entered January 4, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00962 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 00963 - CR RANDAL BERNADO ROGER S, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 08 - 25417 - R & F08 - 25425 - R



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s January 2, 2019 second motion for an extension of time to file a ppellant’s brief. We GRANT appellant ’s motion and ORDER the brief filed no later than February 4, 2019

. Appellant is cautioned that the failure to file a brief by that date may result in these appeals being abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate proc edure 38.8. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(b)(2).

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 1894-207—South Carolina Parr Hydroelectric Project]

Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2010, provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding concerning non-public information. The restricted service list should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established.

                    The Commission staff is consulting with the South Carolina Department of Archives & History (South Carolina SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,                     *as amended,*                     (54 U.S.C. 306108), to prepare a Programmatic Agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places that could be affected by issuance of a new license for the Parr Hydroelectric Project No. 1894-207.                

On November 18, 2014, Commission staff established a restricted service list for the Parr Hydroelectric Project. Since that time, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma requested a change in the restricted service list and therefore, the restricted service list is revised as follows:

Replace “Lisa C. Baker, Acting THPO, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma” with “Assistant Chief Joe Bunch, or Representative, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.”

Dated: February 9, 2016.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-03020 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Peter S. Garcia, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of PDL BioPharma, Inc., certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PDL BioPharma, Inc.; and



(2) Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.





|Date:                                                                                    | April 17, 2015 | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------- | 
|                                                                                         |                | 
|/s/ Peter S. Garcia                                                                      |               
|Peter S. Garcia
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2019

Reelcraft Industries:

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 the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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
EXHIBIT 32.2


                    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


In  connection  with the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Data  Systems & Software
Inc. (the  "Company")  for the period ended  December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned,  Yacov
Kaufman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certifies,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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  results of operations
           of the Company.

Dated:  April 14, 2005


                                          /s/ Yacov Kaufman
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Yacov Kaufman, Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Matthew E. Rubel, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Payless ShoeSource, Inc., a Delawarecorporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal controls over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: June 6, 2006                                                              /s/  Matthew E. Rubel   Matthew E. Rubel   Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         36909000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   9735000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               47270000
<PP&E>                                        223562000
<DEPRECIATION>                                100655000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                179629000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19641000
<BONDS>                                       101700000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         239000
<OTHER-SE>                                     54949000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  176629000
<SALES>                                        37841000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               37841000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  33009000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 790000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4675000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  977000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              977000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  934000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      43000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1





                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) of
Micro Focus Group Plc of our reports dated March 6, 1997 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Micro Focus Group Public Company for the
year ended January 31, 1997 in US format included in its 1996 Annual Report to
Shareholders and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant
to a Report of Foreign Issuer (Form 6-K) on March 28, 1997.


/s/  Ernst & Young
                                                                   ERNST & YOUNG
                                                           Chartered Accountants
Reading England
March 6, 1997
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40977

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAMON PADILLA-AVILEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:08-CR-216-ALL

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ramon Padilla-Avilez (Padilla) appeals his guilty plea conviction for being

illegally present in the United States after having been deported. Padilla argues

for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level

crime of violence enhancement to his offense level because the presentence

report (PSR) incorrectly cited U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(1), rather than § 2L1.2, as the

basis for the enhancement. Padilla does not contend that the prior conviction

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40977

2

that resulted in the 16-level increase was not a crime of violence, nor does he

challenge the existence of the conviction. 

We review for plain error. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

272 (5th Cir. 2005). To show plain error, the appellant must show an error that

is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Baker,

538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 962 (2009). If the

appellant makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the

error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

of judicial proceedings. Id.

It is evident that the PSR’s reference to Section 2L1.1(b)(1) was merely a

typographical or clerical error. The remedy for such an error is, at best, remand

for correction of the error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. However, because he has not

shown that the error affected his substantial rights, remand is not warranted.

See Baker, 538 F.3d at 332; United States v. Acuna-Chavez, 77 F. App’x 262, 264

(5th Cir. 2003).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Padilla challenges

the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the

offense that must be found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872

(2008).

AFFIRMED.
315 INDUSTRIAL ROAD

SUMMERVILLE, SC 29483

www.eccotemp.com

(843)478-7518

The Honorable Robert E. Lighthizer

United States Trade Representative

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

600 17th Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20508

Regarding 83-FR 28710 Rules

Docket No. USTR-2018-0025

Dear Representative Lighthizer:

This letter is in response to a comment filed by Karen Meyers, the Vice President of 

Government Affairs employed by Rheem Manufacturing Company. In that 

comment letter the author advocates the denial of my request for exclusion from 

tariffs applied to HTSUS 8419.11.0000. The author of the objection letter brought

up multiple points to justify the position of Rheem Manufacturing Company in their 

request for denial. I will expand on those points, and perhaps raise the question of

why a competitor should raise such objection.

In my original comment I state that there are currently no products covered under 

HTSUS 8419.11.0000 produced in the U.S. That statement is confirmed by the 

Rheem letter. Eccotemp does acknowledge that there are products available from 

countries other than China. I further reiterate that those products are assembled 

using components sourced in China. Rheem uses the phrase “made almost entirely”

from parts made in Japan. The rules pertaining to country of origin are for others 

in Government to establish and oversee. The ability of a large multinational to 

amalgamate their supply chain in a third country should not give them a total 

market advantage.

The current tariff schedule under 83-FR 28710 includes parts and components 

made in China. Even if the “almost all” argument were to stand, it would be still be 

impossible for a small business to initiate production of finished goods in the U.S. 

due to a reliance on certain Chinese components. 
315 INDUSTRIAL ROAD

SUMMERVILLE, SC 29483

www.eccotemp.com

Without question Rheem is a dominant market leader in the water heating category. 

It is generous of Rheem to point out that they could easily absorb the paltry

quantities produced by Eccotemp. Consumers would have one less choice in energy 

efficient appliances.

As the current rules stand, the word devastating is appropriate. My company must 

compete with multinationals, and their intricate “almost all” supply chains without 

even the recourse of doing a made in USA product. I respectfully request that an 

exclusion be made to HTSUS 8419.11.0000.

Regards,

Michael Elrod

Managing Member

Eccotemp Systems, LLC
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, L.P. 1997 10K
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000882288
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         664
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,453
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,433
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               195
<PP&E>                                         126,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                 36,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 96,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,640
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     93,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   96,084
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               21,297
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (296)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,570
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>