alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. J. C. CRADLE.

(Filed 2 March, 1938.)

Constitutional Law § 14: Criminal Law § 43 — Affidavit for search warrant signed by chief of police meets requirements of the statute.

An affidavit for a search warrant signed by the chief of police is sufficient compliance with ch. 339, sec. 1%, Public Laws of 1931, since if the chief of police is not the informant he is “some other person,” and the statute does not require that the informant should make the affidavit, or that the person signing the affidavit should state therein who his informant is, and evidence obtained on a search warrant issued on such affidavit is competent.

Appeal by defendant from *Bone, J.,*at January Term, 1938, of WASHINGTON. No error.

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

*P. H. Bell for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe defendant was convicted of having in bis possession liquor upon wbicb tbe tax bad not been paid, and from judgment of imprisonment appealed, assigning as error tbe denial by tbe court of bis motion to suppress evidence of certain facts discovered by reason of tbe issuance of a search warrant.

Tbe affidavit, upon wbicb tbe search warrant was issued, was made by P. W. Brown, chief of police, wbo was tbe “complainant,” or if not *218the complainant be was at least some “other person” and met the requirement of the statute, Public Laws 1937, ch. 339, sec. 1%, upon which the appellant relies, and therefore the facts discovered by reason of the search warrant were not rendered incompetent. There is nothing in the statute that requires the complainant or other person who makes the affidavit to state therein who his informant is, or which requires the informant to make the affidavit, as seems to be the contention of the appellant.

In the trial we find

No error.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00209-CV 

GORILLA SKATE CLOTHING, INC. 

AND LADISLAS MANDE

APPELLANTS

V.

MERCHANT CASH CLOUD APPELLEE 

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2017-002810-2

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On June 26, 2018, and July 9, 2018, we notified appellants in accordance 

with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this appeal unless 

the $205 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Appellants have not 

paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Because appellants failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015,

2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellants shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, KERR, and PITTMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 26, 2018

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’

fees).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         252,049
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  606,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    720,507
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,557,565
<PP&E>                                      11,968,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                 773,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,566,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,343,568
<BONDS>                                      3,100,114
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,064,480
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,506,808)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,586,036
<SALES>                                      6,820,691
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,820,691
<CGS>                                        5,159,889
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,159,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,768,056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              85,165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,364,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (168,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,196,920)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,974,423)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.80)


</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4910 

To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that 

such section has no effect on certain laws relating to controlled substances and drugs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2023 

Mr. GUTHRIE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 

to provide that such section has no effect on certain 

laws relating to controlled substances and drugs, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deplatform Drug 

5 Dealers Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4910 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO EFFECT ON CERTAIN LAWS RELATING TO CON2 TROLLED SUBSTANCES AND DRUGS. 

3 Section 230(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 

4 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following: 

6 ‘‘(6) NO EFFECT ON CERTAIN LAWS RELATING

7 TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND DRUGS.—In ad8 dition to the exception provided by paragraph (1) for 

9 Federal criminal statutes, nothing in this section 

10 (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed 

11 to impair or limit any action for civil penalties, dam12 ages, or equitable relief based on advertising or of13 fering to sell, deliver, distribute, dispense, or intro14 duce into interstate commerce a controlled substance 

15 (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Sub16 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) or drug (as defined in 

17 section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos18 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) in violation of— 

19 ‘‘(A) section 401(h) or 403(c)(2) of the 

20 Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(h); 

21 843(c)(2)); or 

22 ‘‘(B) section 301(a), 301(d), or 505(a) of 

23 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

24 U.S.C. 331(a); 331(d); 355(a)).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its
knowledge:



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



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



|               |  |  |  |                                                                |  |                     |  |                               
|-------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|               |  |  |  | Bank of America, N.A., Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|               |  |  | 
|March 14, 2005 |  |  |  | By                                                             |  | /S/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|               |  |  |  |                                                                |  |                     |  | Nancy G. Willis Vice President
**Exhibit 23.1**
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.333-105189,No. 333-33210, No. 333-44539 and No. 33-77148, all on Forms S-8 of TufcoTechnologies, Inc. of our report dated December 19, 2003 (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relatingto the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No.142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” effective October 1, 2001),appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tufco Technologies, Inc. forthe year ended September 30, 2003.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
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-2018-0025-4026

Duravant LLC and Ohlson Packaging:

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
(j%4) d%~ fitf ctAplvue, *V7

J^eceM^SL^SolV MREIVED IN

O ^, Jfc, v .>,,,„ / \ COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

U)£tM*UX-H% M&o¥ M°52015

£X ?^"KuUfo Ot&O:C Abe. Acosta, Cto
oadL

%i??0 ^?aX2Z^

^.&!!U M

auc(\orcx (\aiU^Ma^

\Aoi?cWf

Qv^^LoTol c-d3£fiZ
Exhibit32


CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 report on Form 10-Q ofSunVesta,
 Inc. for thequarterly
 period endedJune 30,
 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Josef
 Mettler, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906
 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | Thisreport 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 this report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of
the registrant for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:August
 13, 2009





/s/
 Josef Mettler

Josef
 Mettler

Chief
 Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Thiscertification
 accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
 except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
 registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report),
 irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.   A signed original of this written
 statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant
 and will be retained by the registrant
 and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



26
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3527

Tianhai Electric North America:

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

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2174

Primex Family of Companies:

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
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-2018-0025-3217

OSRAM Opto Semiconductors, 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

General Counsel
#### Joe ELROD, Appellant, v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, Respondent.

No. WD 47354.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 5, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 30, 1993.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jackson County; Hon. John I. Moran, Judge.

Michael J. Englert, Independence, for appellant.

John M. Edgar, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and FENNER and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from order of trial court dismissing Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunction.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Charles Neal MILLER, Appellant, v. Ti Shia J. MILLER, Appellee.

No. 6-93-012-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

Feb. 23, 1993.

Mark Lesher, Texarkana, for appellant.

Rick Rogers, Texarkana, for appellee.

Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and BLEIL and GRANT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The transcript received in this case appears to have a defect with regard to perfection of the appeal. The divorce decree was signed on October 10, 1992, and a timely motion for new trial was filed. The cost bond was therefore due on January 14, 1993. *See*Tex.R.App.P. 41(a)(1). The record indicates that the required bond was not filed until January 29, 1993. Tex. R.App.P. 41(a)(2) provides that an extension of time for the late filing of a cost bond may be granted by an *appellate*court if such bond is filed not later than fifteen days after the last day allowed and, within the same period, a motion is filed in the *appellate*court reasonably explaining the need for such extension. The bond was filed within the requisite fifteen-day period, but no request for late filing of the bond was filed in *this*Court.

The transcript includes a motion to extend the time to file the cost bond. That motion was filed in the *trial court*on January 29, 1993, but should have been filed in this *appellate*court. *See*Tex.R.App.P. 41(a)(2).

This Court has no authority to act upon a request for relief erroneously filed in another court lacking authority to grant that relief. *Qwest Microwave, Inc. v. Bedard,*756 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, no writ), *citing Fite v. Johnson,*654 S.W.2d 51 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1983, no writ) (a court of appeals cannot grant a motion to extend the time to file a cost bond when the motion has been timely, but erroneously, filed in the trial court).

We would prefer to reach the merits of this and similar cases, but we consider ourselves bound by the clear and mandatory language of Rule 41(a)(2) that the motion for extension of time to file an out-of-time cost bond must be filed in the *appellate*court. We invite the Texas Supreme Court to revisit Rule 41 and to consider amending the language of that rule so as to give appellate courts discretion to act on a timely filed motion for extension of time to file a bond, erroneously filed in the trial court, when the bond itself was properly filed pursuant to the rules.

The time for filing the cost bond in the instant case has expired, and we have no discretion to permit the late filing of the bond. Although Tex.R.App.P. 46(f) grants *345us discretion to permit the amendment of a defective bond, the rule does not replace the requirement of Rule 41 that the appellant file in an *appellate*court a motion to extend the time for filing. *See Fite v. Johnson,*654 S.W.2d at 52.

The proper filing of a cost bond is jurisdictional. The bond filed in this ease was not accompanied by a motion filed in *this*Court for extension of time to file the bond in the trial court. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BEYOND.COM CORPORATION FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-10-1999
<CASH>                                          71,473
<SECURITIES>                                    52,485
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,107)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,229
<PP&E>                                           7,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,522)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 308,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,523
<BONDS>                                         63,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       295,063
<OTHER-SE>                                    (99,091)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   308,850
<SALES>                                         26,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,319
<CGS>                                           22,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,179)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,179)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,179)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>