alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. N. TIMBERLAKE, SR. v. LESLIE V. WILLIAMS.

(Filed 12 April, 1961.)

Appeal by defendant from *Carr, J.,*November, 1960, Civil Term, FRANKLIN Superior Court.

The plaintiff instituted 'this civil action to recover the sum of $600 for property damages and $27.00 for personal injuries resulting from a road intersection collision between plaintiffs’ Ford and defendant’s Chevrolet. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s allegations of negligence and counterclaimed for his own injury in the sum of $10,000.

Both parties presented evidence. The court submitted issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages. The jury found the defendant guilty of negligence and the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence. From the judgment dismissing the action, the defendant appealed.

*John F. Matthews, W. M. Jolly, for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Taylor & Ellis, for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence discloses the accident occurred at the intersection of north-south Highway No. 401 and east-west Tarboro Road, Franklin County. In order to facilitate the movement of traffic from one of the above arterial highways to the other, the State Highway Commission built access roads from each side of each highway into the other. These accesses began 180 feet from the intersection and the four form a diamond-shape figure with the points of the diamond in the highway, one north and one south of the intersection on No. 401, and one east and one west of the intersection on the Tarboro Road. The traffic from either of the arterial roads into the other is routed over these accesses and no turns are permitted at the actual intersection.

As he approached the cutoff to the south of the actual intersection on 401, the plaintiff intended to switch over and go west on the Tarboro Road. To do so it was necessary for him to cross the lane for south-bound traffic on 401 and enter the access to his left. At the time the plaintiff was attempting to execute his intended movement, the defendant, having passed the actual intersection, was continuing south on 401. The two vehicles collided about the center of 401 at a point opposite the access plaintiff intended to enter. There was evidence that the plaintiff cut first to the left, then back to the right, and that defendant failed to reduce speed and to keep his *467vehicle under proper control. The evidence as to signals, speed, proper lookout, right-of-way, etc., was conflicting.

The jury found both drivers negligent. The evidence was sufficient to support the findings. In such instances the applicable law to the facts has been the subject of much discussion by this Court, and useful purpose would not be served by further discussion. Suffice to say, reversible error does not appear.

No error.
#### W. A. HALL, for Himself and Other Creditors Who May Make Themselves Parties and Join in This Suit, v. SHIPPERS EXPRESS, INC., J. S. GAUL and R. W. MOSELEY, Receiver, and Individually.

(Filed 19 September, 1951.)

PetitioN to rebear this case, reported *ante,*38, 65 S.E. 2d 333.

*Isaac 0. Wright for plaintiff, appellant.*

*J ohn H. Small and J. Laurence J ones for defendants, appellees.*

Denny, J.

The case was brought back with the thought that the allegations of fraud were perhaps broad enough to invoke the principle announced in *McCoy v. Justice,*199 N.C. 602, 155 S.E. 452; and approved in *Horne v. Edwards,*215 N.C. 622, 3 S.E. 2d 1, and *Yancey v. Yancey,*230 N.C. 719, 55 S.E. 2d 468; also discussed in Pomeroy’s Equity '& Jurisprudence, 5th Ed., Section 919b, page 608, *et seq.,*and counsel were notified to submit briefs on this question. The briefs filed on rehearing afford little or no assistance with respect to the question suggested or raised. A careful consideration of plaintiff’s allegations, however, leaves us with the impression that they are insufficient to disturb the opinion heretofore written.

The petition to rehear will, therefore, be dismissed without prejudice to the further rights of the parties to proceed as they may be advised.

Petition dismissed.

Valentine, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1969

Brooks Instrument LLC:

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

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1627

X-Rite, 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2744

Faurecia US Holdings:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### CLETUS OXENDINE RANSOM v. WILLIAM PRICE LOCKLEAR.

(Filed 7 June, 1957.)

Automobiles § 41d—

Evidence tending to show that as plaintiff, driving within the corporate limits of a town, slowed and gave a hand signal for a left turn into the driveway of a residence on her left, her car was struck from the rear by an automobile driven by defendant at a speed of some 70 miles per hour, *is held,*sufficient to overrule nonsuit.

Appeal by defendant from *Hall, J.,*at October 1956 Term, of Robe-SON.

Civil action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly proximately caused by negligence of defendant.

Defendant, answering, denied liability therefor.

*457Upon trial in Superior Court plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that on 8 May, 1956, about 9:30 a.m., as she was operating her 1951 Ford automobile west toward Maxton on Highway 74A, at a speed of about 35 miles per hour, in corporate limits of Pembroke, N. C., she slowed up and gave a hand signal for a left turn into a residence on the left, her automobile was struck by an automobile operated by defendant traveling west also; that this automobile traveling at a speed of 70 or more miles per hour had just passed another automobile, which was following and about 100 yards behind plaintiff’s automobile, and turned back partly across the white line, and then on into and colliding with plaintiff’s automobile; and that thereby she sustained personal injuries.

The defendant offered evidence as to his version of the occurrence.

The case was submitted to the jury upon three issues as to (1) negligence of defendant, (2) contributory negligence of plaintiff, and (3) damages sustained by plaintiff, all of which were answered in favor of plaintiff.

And to judgment in accordance with verdict, defendant excepted and appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*Britt, Campbell & Britt for Plaintiff Appellee.*

*Nance, Barrington & Collier for Defendant Appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The sole assignment of error on this appeal, other than formal ones, is directed to denial of defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit. Taking the evidence offered upon the trial below in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as is done in considering demurrer to the evidence, the case was one for the jury, and properly submitted to the jury. The jury has spoken. Hence in judgment signed there is

No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4004 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4004

    To alter requirements associated with small business loan data 
                  collection, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2022

   Mr. Boozman (for himself, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Lummis, and Mr. Tillis) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To alter requirements associated with small business loan data 
                  collection, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Lenders Exempt from New Data 
and Excessive Reporting Act'' or the ``Small LENDER Act''.

SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS LOAN DATA COLLECTION.

    Section 704B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691c-
2) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Compliance.--
                    ``(A) In general.--With respect to any rules or 
                guidance issued under this subsection on or after the 
                date of enactment of this paragraph, the Bureau shall 
                provide financial institutions not less than 3 years to 
                comply with the rule or guidance.
                    ``(B) Safe harbor.--With respect to any rules or 
                guidance issued under this subsection on or after the 
                date of enactment of this paragraph, upon expiration of 
                the 3-year period described in subparagraph (A), the 
                Bureau shall provide a 2-year safe harbor to all 
                financial institutions during which the financial 
                institutions are required to comply with the rule or 
                guidance but not subject to any penalties.''; and
            (2) in subsection (h), by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) 
        and inserting the following:
            ``(1) Financial institution.--The term `financial 
        institution' means any partnership, company, corporation, 
        association (incorporated or unincorporated), trust, estate, 
        cooperative organization, or other entity that--
                    ``(A) engages in any financial activity; and
                    ``(B) in each of the 2 preceding calendar years, 
                originated not less than 500 credit transactions for 
                small businesses.
            ``(2) Small business.--The term `small business' means any 
        entity with gross annual revenues of $1,000,000 or less in the 
        most recently completed fiscal year.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                            PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          13 Weeks Ended
                                        ------------------
                                        April 29,  May 1,
(Thousands, except per share)             2000      1999
                                        --------  --------
<S>                                     <C>       <C>
Basic Computation:
-----------------

Net earnings                            $ 25,467  $ 35,270

Weighted average common
 shares outstanding                       28,449    32,255
                                        --------  --------

Basic earnings per share                $   0.90  $   1.09
                                        ========  ========

Diluted Computation:
-------------------

Net earnings                            $ 25,467  $ 35,270

Weighted average common
 shares outstanding                       28,449    32,255

Net effect of dilutive stock
options based on the treasury
  stock method                               107       174
                                        --------  --------

Outstanding shares for diluted
  earnings per share                      28,556    32,429
                                        ========  ========

Diluted earnings per share              $   0.89  $   1.09
                                        ========  ========
</TABLE>


Note: Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing net earnings by the
weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.
Diluted earnings per share includes the effect of conversions of options.
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) SHI RL EY TAB B, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 06-0789 ( PL F) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBI A and ) BREND A DONA L D WAL KER, ) ) Def endants. ) ____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON At the re quest of the de fenda nts’ counsel, the Court ha s review ed its Opinion of Marc h 19, 2009, repor

ted as Ta bb v. District of Columbia, 605 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2009), to deter mine whether

an inconsistency

exis ts betwee n that Opinion and the Or der of the same date. Upon ca ref ul review , the Court has conc luded that the Or der is incor rec t. As laid out in the Opinion, the Court determined that ge nuine issues of mater ial fac t exi sted as to the plaintiff’ s First Amendme nt claims ag ainst both defenda nts. In a subseque nt portion of the Opinion, the Court also determined, how ever , that it was appropr iate to g rant judg ment for the D istrict of Columbi a on plaintiff’ s First Amendme nt claim beca use plaintiff ha d failed to prof fer evidenc e that the District of Columbia had a policy or pra ctice of

reta liating a g ainst employees f or exercisingtheir F irst Amendment rig hts. See Tabb v. District of Columbi a, 605 F . Supp. 2d at 95-95. He nce the re c ould be no municipal liability for a First Amendme nt claim under 42 U .S.C. § 1983. I d. at 96. The O rder there fore should have stated that defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt was DENI ED as to plaintiff’ s First Amendme nt claim ag ainst Br enda D onald Walkerbut GRANTED a s to plaintiff’s First Ame ndment claim ag ainst the District of Columbia. An

Amended O rder

will issue this same da

y . SO ORDERED. _/s/_____________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN United States District J udg e DATE: June 16, 2010

2
<PAGE>   1
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
i-STAT Corporation on Form S-8/S-3 (File No. 33-48889), Form S-8 (File Nos.
33-67456, 33-76152 and 33-96114) and Form S-3 (File No. 33-92796) of our reports
dated January 23, 1998, except for paragraph 1 of Note 15, for which the date is
March 4, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of i-STAT Corporation as of December 31, 1997 and
1996, and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which reports
are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption "Selected Consolidated Financial Data".

Princeton, New Jersey                                   Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
March 19, 1998
#### STATE v. BEN FRANK McLEOD.

(Filed 7 May, 1947.)

Criminal Law § 80b (4)—

Where defendant gives notice of appeal but fails to serve case on- appeal within the time allowed or take any action toward perfecting the appeal, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be allowed, but where defendant has been convicted of a capital felony this will be done outy after an inspection of the record proper fails to disclose error.

*412MotioN by State to docket case, affirm tbe judgment-and dismiss tbe appeal.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe defendant was tried at November Term, 1946, of Scotland Superior Court on a bill of indictment charging bim with tbe murder of one William Kenneth Lowry, and was convicted of murder in tbe first degree. Judgment was entered sentencing bim to death as tbe law directs. From this judgment defendant gave notice of appeal to tbe Supreme Court, but no case on appeal has been made out or served within tbe time allowed by law, nor docketed in this Court. Nothing has been done toward perfecting tbe appeal and tbe time for same has expired.

Tbe motion of tbe Attorney-General to docket and dismiss tbe appeal under Rule 17 is supported by tbe record, and is allowed. We have examined tbe record and find that no error appears on tbe face of tbe record. *S. v. Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455.

Judgment affirmed; appeal dismissed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 09, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 09, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0032. IN THE INTEREST OF J. C., ET AL., CHILDREN (MOTHER) .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 200074 200073
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5148]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

USAF Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

    The New World Vistas Panel Chairs of the USAF Scientific Advisory 
Board will meet on 28 February 1995 at Kirtland AFB, NM from 8:00 a.m. 
to 5:00 p.m.
    The purpose of this meeting will be to conduct a mission briefing 
on New World Vistas related issues.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and 
(4) thereof.
    For further information, contact the Scientific Advisory Board 
Secretariat at (703) 697-4648.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-5148 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-P