alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION v. H. D. McLEAN—HENDERSON BUS LINE.

(Filed 24 September, 1947.)

Utilities Commission § 5—

An applicant for a franchise to operate motor vehicles upon designated public highways of the State for commercial purposes, who at the time has no prior or subsisting right to be affected thereby, is not entitled to appeal to the courts from the determination of the Utilities Commission denying the application and awarding the franchise to an opposing applicant.

Appeal by respondent from *Parker, J.,*at Chambers in Durham, 30 April, 1947 (by consent). From YaNCe.

On 18 February, 1946, H. D. McLean, d/b/a Henderson Bus Line, filed with the North Carolina Utilities Commission application for franchise to transport passengers over certain routes in Nance County. Docket No. 3522. He was a mere applicant at the time without prior franchise right.

On 22 March, 1946, S. M. Beams and Herbert Yancey, d/b/a Beams Bus Line, made application for similar franchise over the same highways and between substantially the same points. Docket No. 3554. Thereafter they intervened in No. 3522 and entered protest to allowing the petition filed therein.

By consent, the two applications were heard together, and resulted in a denial of the McLean application and the granting of a franchise to Beams and Yancey.

*680McLean filed objections and exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the Commission, and appealed from its decision to the Superior Court of Yance County. On motion of Reams and Yancey this was dismissed for want of any legal right to maintain the appeal.

From this ruling, the respondent, H. D. McLean, d/b/a Henderson Bus Line, appeals, assigning error.

*J ohn II. Zollicoffer for Reams and Yancey, petitioners, appellees.*

*A. A. Bunn, L. H. Wall, and S. J. Ervin, Jr., for II. E. McLean, respondent, appellant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The question for decision is whether an applicant for a franchise to operate motor vehicles upon designated public highways of the State for commercial purposes, who at the time has no prior or subsisting right to be affected thereby, is entitled to appeal to the courts from the determination of the Utilities Commission denying the application and awarding the franchise to an opposing applicant.

The trial court thought that a negative answer was adumbrated, if not actually given, in the case of *Utilities Commission v. Trucking Co.,*223 N. C., 687, 28 S. E. (2d), 201. The impression is correct. *We*now adopt the concurring opinion in that case as the opinion here. The position is also supported by what was said in *Utilities Com. v. Kinston,*221 N. C., 359, 20 S. E. (2d), 322.

The case of *Utilities Com. v. Coach Co.,*216 N. C., 325, 4 S. E. (2d), 897; *S. c.,*218 N. C., 233, 10 S. E. (2d), 824, is distinguishable as was pointed out in the above cited, controlling cases. Likewise, the case of *Utilities Com. v. Coach Co.,*224 N. C., 390, 30 S. E. (2d), 328, appears beside the point.

The attempted appeal was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13141-13142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5886]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GT95-26-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Tariff Filing

March 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 1, 1995, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso), tendered for filing pursuant to Part 154 of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) Regulations Under the Natural Gas 
Act, certain revised tariff sheets to its Second Revised Volume No. 1-
A, and Third Revised Volume No. 1, FERC Gas Tariff.
    El Paso states that the tendered tariff sheets reflect an address 
change applicable to payments made other than by wire transfer which 
are remitted to El Paso. El Paso proposes to revise the applicable 
tariff provisions to state that payment should be received at a 
depository designated by El Paso rather than in El Paso's offices.
    El Paso respectfully requests that the Commission accept the 
tendered tariff sheets for filing and permit them to become effective 
on April 1, 1995, which is not less than thirty (30) days after the 
date of the filing.
    El Paso states that copies of the filing were served upon all of El 
Paso's interstate pipeline system customers [[Page 13142]] and 
interested state regulatory commissions.
    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 Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before March 13, 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 in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5886 Filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00069-CV

Carter Wind Energy and Texas 

Central Resources LLC

v.

Erwin Lee Harvey, Sr. and Jay 

Warne Carter, Jr.

§

§

§

§

From the 78th District Court

of Wichita County (181,517-B)

July 19, 2018

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT ON REHEARING

This court has again considered the record on appeal in this case and 

holds that the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is 

dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### Leslie Ray ABBOTT *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-1256

977 S.W.2d 668

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered November 5, 1998

*Michael W. Langley,*for appellant.

*73No response.

Per Curiam.

Leslie Ray Abbott, by his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Michael W. Langley, admits in his motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. *See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964 (1979) *(per curiam).*

The motion for rule on the clerk is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the committee on Professional Conduct.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
      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 report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Jack H. BrownJack H. BrownChairman of the Board, President,
and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

IN THE SUPREME COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA

Case No. DA-24-0357

____________________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DESIREA GARRERA, 

Defendant.

Case No. DA-24-0357

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME

The Counsel having filed an Unopposed Motion requesting for a 30-day extension of time 

after July 10, 2024.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and that Defense may submit their 

Opening Brief by August 9, 2024.

Electronically signed and dated below.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

July 1 2024

07/01/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0357
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1495

Sales Driven LLC dba Raybend:

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6308]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM95-2-16-003]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Compliance Filing

March 9, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 6, 1995, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Third Substitute Fifth Revised 
Sheet No. 6.
    National states that this tariff sheet is filed in response to the 
Commission's order issued on October 21, 1994, in the above-captioned 
proceeding. Specifically, National states that the October 21 Letter 
Order rejected Second Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 6 filed in 
this proceeding as premature because the tariff sheet included the P-2 
and IR-2 Rate Schedules which had not yet been approved by the 
Commission. National states that this left a tariff sheet in effect as 
of October 1, 1994, that did not include the P-2 and IR-2 Rate 
Schedules. National states that since the Commission approved the P-2 
and IR-2 Rate Schedules in a February 13, 1995, Order in Docket No. 
RP94-80-000, et al., effective August 24, 1994, it is filing to 
supersede the sheet effective as of October 1, 1994, which did not 
include the P-2 and IR-2 rates.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such 
protests should be filed on or before March 16, 1994. 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. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6308 Filed 3-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1703

CLIFFORD W. MILLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 99-10563) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifford W. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart L. Brown, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C.; Paula Marie Junghans, Joel L. McElvain, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Clifford Miller appeals from the tax court’s order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner on Miller’s action challenging the underlying collection activity. Our review of the record andthe tax court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Miller v. Commissioner , Tax Ct. No. 99-10563 (U.S. Tax Ct. Dec. 21, 2000). 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6282]



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



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Pine Oil Joint Venture

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 28, 1994, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), SCM Glidco Organics has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the following 
members have withdrawn their membership with SCM Glidco Orgnaics: 
Sistesis quimica S.A. de C.V. and Johnson Chemical Co., Inc.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the joint venture. Membership in this joint venture remains 
open, and SCM Glidco Organics intends to file additional written 
notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 5, 1987, American Cyanamid Company filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on February 5, 1987, 52 F. R. 37190. The last 
notification was filed with the Department on August 13, 1993. A notice 
was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 
Act on September 20, 1993, 58 F.R. 51103.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-6282 Filed 3-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF UNITED VENTURE CAPITAL FUND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         424,717
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               459,346
<PP&E>                                         117,682
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 614,066
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,936
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,255
<OTHER-SE>                                     569,875
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   614,066
<SALES>                                          9,257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,257
<CGS>                                            7,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (228,541)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (228,541)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.2)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.2)


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,738]

F. & M. Hat Company, Inc.; Denver, PA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on February 13, 1995 in response to a worker petition 
which was filed on behalf of workers at F. & M. Hat Company, Inc., 
Denver, Pennsylvania.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 28th day of February, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-5905 Filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6235]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[CA-010-03-1220-01; 5-00160-GP5-010-001]


Temporary Vehicle Use Restriction Order for Caliente Resource 
Area

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Establishment of temporary vehicle use restriction in the Kelso 
Creek and Isabella Management Areas within Kern County in the Caliente 
Resource Area, Bakersfield District, California.

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

SUMMARY: This emergency action restricts vehicle use on BLM-
administered public land in the Isabella Management Area due top trash 
dumping and erosion problems and restricts vehicle use on BLM-
administered public lands in the Kelso Creek Management Area due to 
severe vandalism of range developments. Both areas will be addressed on 
a permanent basis in a Resource Management Plan. Vehicle use on 
roadways is restricted to ``Administrative Access Only'' and shall be 
limited to persons specifically designated by the Area Manager to drive 
on said roadways. The public lands over which these roads travel and 
located in portions of NW\1/4\ Section 12, Township 27 South, Range 32 
East; SE\1/4\ Section 29 and SW\1/4\ Section 28, Township 26 South, 
Range 35 East; N\1/2\ Section 4 and N\1/2\ Section 9, Township 27 
South, Range 35 East, all Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the County 
of Kern, State of California. This restriction will apply from the date 
of publication in the Federal Register and remain in effect until an 
amendment thereof or until publication of a Resource Management Plan 
which adequately addresses public access on these lands.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This emergency road closure is intended to 
control vehicle use on public lands for protection of range 
developments, to prevent further trash dumping, and to abate erosion on 
sensitive hillsides. Authority for this restriction order is contained 
in CFR Title 43, Chapter II, 8364.1(a).

DATES: This order will be effective on March 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Abbott, Caliente Resource Area Manager, Caliente Resource Area, 
Bureau of Land Management, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, California 
93308; (805) 391-6000.

    Dated: March 6, 1995.
James Wesley Abbot,
Caliente Resource Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 95-6235 Filed 3-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-M
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-2018-0025-3605

JLG Industries, Inc:

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