alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE CATHOLIC SOCIETY OF RELIGIOUS AND LITERARY EDUCATION v. A. C. GENTRY, Treasurer of the TOWN OF HOT SPRINGS and the TOWN OF HOT SPRINGS.

(Filed 14 October, 1936.)

Taxation B d—

Property of a foreign religious corporation used for educational and charitable purposes in this State *held*not exempt from taxation under C. S., 7971 (17) (19).

*580Appeal by plaintiff from *McElroy, J..,*at May Term, 1936, of MadisoN.

Affirmed.

Tbis is an action to recover a sum’ of money which was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on 20 October, 1931, as taxes for the years 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931, on property, real and personal, which was owned by the plaintiff during each of said years, and is situate within the corporate limits of the town of Hot Springs, Madison County, North Carolina.

The action was begun in the Superior Court of Madison County.

The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground (1) that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, and (2) that the facts stated in the complaint are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled as t.o the first ground, and sustained as to the second ground.

From judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the ruling of the trial court sustaining the demurrer on the second ground.

*Garter ■& Carter for plaintiff.*

*J ames E. Rector for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

This appeal involves only the ruling of the trial court sustaining the demurrer of the defendants to the complaint on the ground that the facts stated therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The ruling that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action is not presented for review on this appeal. The ruling, however, was manifestly correct. The action is authorized by statute, O. S., 7971. It is alleged in the complaint that all the statutory requirements had been complied with by the plaintiff before the commencement of the action. This is admitted by the demurrer.

It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is a corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana. It is therefore a foreign corporation, and for that reason its property, real and personal, situate in this State, although held and used exclusively for religious, educational, or charitable purposes, is not exempt from taxation under the provisions of C. S., 7971 (17), and C. S.,' 7971 (19). See C. S., 7971 (87). Each of these statutory provisions was in force and effect during the years 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931.

The judgment is

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          24,840
<SECURITIES>                                    41,705
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,606
<PP&E>                                          18,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,112)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,728
<BONDS>                                         14,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       225,310
<OTHER-SE>                                   (169,438)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,731
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,238
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,349)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,349)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,349)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.97)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1481

UNITED SOURCE ONE, INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DOMINIC FRANK,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-02309-JKB)

Submitted: March 12, 2024 Decided: March 14, 2024

Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Steven N. Leitess, Pierce C. Murphy, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, 

SLUTKIN & WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Dominic Frank, Appellee Pro 

Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1481 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

United Source One, Inc. (“US1”), appeals the district court’s order denying US1’s 

motion for default judgment and sua sponte dismissing its complaint. On appeal, US1 

solely argues that the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the complaint without 

granting leave to amend.

Before a district court sua sponte dismisses a complaint, it “must . . . afford[] notice 

and an opportunity to amend the complaint or otherwise respond.” Robertson v. Anderson 

Mill Elementary Sch., 989 F.3d 282, 291 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The district court did not follow this procedure, and the faults it found in the complaint are 

the type that could conceivably be remedied in an amended complaint. Moreover, had 

Appellee not been in default and filed his own motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6), US1 would have been entitled to amend its complaint as a matter of course. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing 

US1’s complaint without granting leave to amend. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of 

the district court’s order denying US1’s motion for default judgment,* vacate the portion 

of the order dismissing the complaint, and remand with instructions to allow US1 to file an 

amended complaint.

* We affirm this portion of the district court’s order because US1 does not challenge 

it in its opening brief. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 

2017).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1481 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1481 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/14/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
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-2018-0025-1852

Arconic, Inc: 

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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-10490

Schaeffler Group USA Inc: 

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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1

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

I,
John E. Bourgoin, certify, that to my knowledge,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of MIPS Technologies,  Inc. for the three months ended  September 30, 2005 (the "Form 10-Q"),
to which this  certificate  is an exhibit fully  complies with the  requirements  of
Section 13(a)  of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as amended, and that information
contained  in the  Form 10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial
condition  and  results of operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three month period
covered by the Form 10-Q.

|                         |                                      
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------
|                         |                                      
|                         |                                      
|                        
|Dated:  November 9, 2005 | By:     /s/ JOHN E. BOURGOIN         
|                         | John E. Bourgoin                     
|                         | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                         | MIPS Technologies, Inc.              

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided by MIPS Technologies and will be
retained by it and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

1

---
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-2018-0025-2651

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 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,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 American Lawyer Media Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
William L. Pollak, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stephen C.
Jacobs, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ William L. Pollak
------------------------------
William L. Pollak
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003


/s/ Stephen C. Jacobs
------------------------------
Stephen C. Jacobs
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6701]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-265-000]


Southern Company Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

March 14, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 31, 1995, Southern Company Services, 
Inc., acting on behalf of Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, 
Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Savannah Electric 
and Power Company (collectively referred to as ``Operating 
Companies''), tendered for filing supplemental information concerning 
the adoption of certain accounting methods for post-retirement benefits 
other than pensions, as set forth in the Statement of Financial 
Accounting Standard No. 106 by the Financial Accounting Standards 
Board, in agreements and tariffs of the Operating Companies (jointly 
and individually).
    In addition, the Operating Companies provided notice to the 
Commission that they have established irrevocable external trusts as 
defined under the Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(8), that they 
will maximize use of income tax deductions for amounts deposited to 
such trusts, and that they have made appropriate deposits to such 
accounts. The Operating Companies state that this material was filed in 
compliance with the Commission's policy statement on ratemaking 
treatment for post-retirement benefits other than pensions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before March 24, 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6701 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         158,928
<SECURITIES>                                    14,207
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,535
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          37,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 492,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,197
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   492,495
<SALES>                                        348,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               348,332
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               244,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 654
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                107,376
<INCOME-TAX>                                    44,561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             62,815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    62,815
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of BlackRock, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Laurence D. Fink, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven E.
Buller, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|       |  | /s/ Laurence D. Fink   
|Name:  |  | Laurence D. Fink       
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
|       | 
|Date:  |  | May 8, 2006            
|       | 
|       |  | /s/ Steven E. Buller   
|Name:  |  | Steven E. Buller       
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
|       | 
|Date:  |  | May 8, 2006
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: ALFREDO JOSHUA LOYA

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00348-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against 

the Honorable Jesus Rodriguez, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 5 of El Paso, Texas and 

concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Increase the taxable maximum (contribution and benefit base) increases by an additional 2 percent over normal indexing starting in 2012, until 90 percent of OASDI covered earnings is taxable (achieved in 2048).  The present-law taxable maximum is retained for benefit purposes; no benefit credit is given for earnings above the present-law taxable maximum. |
|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified January 28, 2010 |
SIRRON J. JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3323

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 15, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Hulsey, Judge.

Sirron J. Johnson, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.