alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alice HUBBARD, Carol Staten, and Ophelia Carson, Statutory Trustees and Last Officers and Directors of Staten, Inc., a Missouri corporation in forfeiture, and Staten, Inc., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Arizona HALL, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 65688.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

May 28, 1995.

Michael H. Izsak, Klutho, Cody, Kilo & Flynn, St. Louis, for appellant.

Elbert Dorsey, Collier & Dorsey, St. Louis, for respondents.

Before AHRENS, P.J. and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Arizona Hall appeals from a jury verdict rendered in favor of Staten Inc., formerly known as Doullos Enterprises, Inc., and Alice Hubbard, Carol Staten, and Ophelia Carson, as statutory trustees and last officers of Staten entitling Staten to payment for its services rendered to defendant pursuant to its agreement with defendant.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VIRGIL W. WOMACK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-00-27; CA-00-236)

Submitted: August 13, 2004 Decided: August 23, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Virgil W. Womack, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, David

Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Virgil W. Womack appeals the district court’s rulings

relative to an evidentiary hearing held on June 11, 2003. Only

Womack’s challenges to the district court’s rulings on his motions

for return of property, for a government accounting, and for

appointment of counsel are properly before this court for

consideration. See Local Rule 34(b). We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s order reflecting its rulings relative to

the motions at issue. We dismiss as moot Womack’s appeal of the

district court’s ruling on his motion for return of property

because the district court granted the motion. We affirm the

district court’s denials of Womack’s motions for a government

accounting and for appointment of counsel on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Womack, No. CR-00-27; CA-00-236

(D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2004). 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
Exhibit 32.2


                        GREG MANNING AUCTIONS, INC.
                SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


In connection with this report on Form 10-K of Greg Manning Auctions, Inc. for
the period ended june 30, 2004, I, Larry Crawford, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

    1.  this Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with
        the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    2.  the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended June
        30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of Greg Manning Auctions, Inc.


Dated:     September 8, 2004
                                    /s/ Larry Crawford
                                    --------------------------------------
                                    Larry Crawford, Executive Vice
                                    President and Chief Financial Officer
#### WALKER B. McGUIRE v. EULA SAMMONDS

(Filed 11 December, 1957)

Judgments § 10—

Judgment by default final may be rendered in an action to recover for personal services rendered upon an express contract to pay sums of money fixed by the terms of the contract and thus capable of being ascertained by computation.

Appeal by defendant from *Moore (Dan K.), J.,*3 June, 1957, Term, Schedule “A”, Civil Court of Mecklenburg.

*Wm. H. Abernathy for appellant.*

*Alvin A. London for appellee.*

Per Curiam.

This is a civil action to recover for personal services rendered upon an express contract. The case was heard below upon motion of the defendant to set aside the judgment by default final rendered by the clerk on failure of the defendant to answer or appear or otherwise plead to the complaint within the time allowed by law after service of summons. The ground of the motion is that the judgment is erroneous, for that upon the face of the complaint the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment by default final. The court below found and concluded that the complaint states a cause of action for breach of an express contract to pay sums of money fixed by the terms of the contract and capable of being ascertained by computation.

The ruling below was correct. It will be upheld without elaboration or discussion on authority of the principles explained and applied in *Miller v. Smith,*169 N.C. 210, 85 S.E. 379; *Thompson v. Dillingham,*183 N.C. 566, 112 S.E. 321.

Affirmed.
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-2018-0025-3610

Scosche 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 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
| 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      Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:           April      30, 2009 |                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                                                                       | /s/  John      R. Plachetka |
|                                                                                       | John      R. Plachetka, Pharm.D.      |
|                                                                                       | Chief      Executive Officer          |

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7215]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Panel for Physiology and Behavior; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Advisory Panel for Physiology and Behavior (#1160).
    Date and Time: April 12-April 13, 1995, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 365, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.
    Contact Person: Ronald Barfield, Acting Program Director for 
Animal Behavior, Division of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience, 
Room 685, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, 
VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1419.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: Open session: April 13, 1995; 2:00 p.m.--To discuss 
proposal guidelines and research trends in Animal Behavior.
    Closed session: April 12, 1995, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and April 
13, 9 a.m.-2 p.m.-To review and evaluate Animal Behavior proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are within exemptions (4) and (6) of 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c), the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: March 20, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-7215 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4379 

To include State active duty in the calculation of creditable service for 

members of the National Guard under certain circumstances. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2022 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To include State active duty in the calculation of creditable 

service for members of the National Guard under certain 

circumstances. 

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 ‘‘No Guardsman Left 

5 Behind Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF STATE ACTIVE DUTY IN CALCULA7 TION OF CREDITABLE SERVICE FOR MEM8 BERS OF NATIONAL GUARD. 

9 Section 12732 of title 10, United States Code, is 

10 amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4379 IS

1 (1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ‘‘Service’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subsection (c), 

3 service’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub5 section: 

6 ‘‘(c) SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE ACTIVE DUTY.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to regulations pre8 scribed by the Secretary of Defense, in the case of 

9 a member of the National Guard who serves on 

10 State active duty during a one-year period during 

11 which the member would, but for this subsection, be 

12 credited with fewer than 50 points under subsection 

13 (a), such service may be counted under subsection 

14 (a). 

15 ‘‘(2) COMPUTATION.—Subject to paragraph (3), 

16 a member of the National Guard described in para17 graph (1) shall be credited with 1 point for each day 

18 of State active duty during a one-year period de19 scribed in that paragraph. 

20 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION.—A member of the National 

21 Guard described in paragraph (1) may be credited in 

22 a one-year period under this subsection not more 

23 than the lesser of— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4379 IS

1 ‘‘(A) the number of points required for the 

2 member to be credited with 50 points under 

3 this section for that one-year period; or 

4 ‘‘(B) 15 points. 

5 ‘‘(4) STATE ACTIVE DUTY DEFINED.—In this 

6 subsection, the term ‘State active duty’ means full7 time service at the order of the Governor of a State 

8 or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, or the 

9 Virgin Islands, or the commanding general of the 

10 District of Columbia National Guard, pursuant to 

11 the law of the State, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

12 Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or the District of 

13 Columbia, as the case may be.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4394 

To modify the minimum required weight of orange juice soluble solids. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2022 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To modify the minimum required weight of orange juice 

soluble solids. 

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 ‘‘Defending Domestic 

5 Orange Juice Production Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REVISION OF PASTEURIZED ORANGE JUICE STAND7 ARDS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective on the date of enact9 ment of this Act, the standard of identity for ‘‘pasteurized 

10 orange juice’’, established in section 146.140 of title 21, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4394 IS

1 Code of Federal Regulations, shall be deemed to require 

2 finished pasteurized orange juice to contain not less than 

3 10.0 percent by weight of orange juice soluble solids, ex4 clusive of the solids of any added optional sweetening in5 gredients. 

6 (b) REGULATION AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this sec7 tion shall be construed to limit the authority of the Sec8 retary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regu9 lations to amend the standard of identity for pasteurized 

10 orange juice. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### WILLIAM IRA WILSON v. J. L. WEBSTER and wife, BESSIE WEBSTER.

(Filed 11 December, 1957)

Automobiles § 42d—

Evidence tending- to show that plaintiff was blinded by the lights of a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction, that just after he passed this vehicle he hit defendant’s car, which had been parked without lights and left unattended with the two left-hand wheels about two feet on the hard surface, *held*not to warrant nonsuit. G.S. 20-141 (e).

Appeal by defendants from *Johnston, J.,*March Civil Term 1957 of Caswell.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover for damages to his automobile resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendants.

According to the plaintiff’s evidence, he was driving his automobile westwardly on the Union Ridge Road in Caswell County “close to 7 o’clock, good dark,” on 23 March 1956, headed towards Highway No. 62; that when he was about 100 to 150 yards of Highway No. 62 he saw a car crossing the highway *394coming towards him; “it had awful bright lights and blinded me;” that the driver of the car meeting him failed to dim his lights; that he had to look down right close in front of his car to keep from running across the line into the man he was approaching; that just as he passed this car, he hit a Buick car owned by the defendant Jack Webster, which had been parked by his wife, Mrs. Bessie Webster. That the Webster car had been parked and left unattended with the two left-hand wheels about two feet on the hard surface part of the road; that there were no lights on the Buick car. The plaintiff’s car was traveling about 20 miles per hour at the time of the collision.

According to the defendants’ evidence, the paved portion of the highway was 18 feet wide with approximately 7 feet of shoulder, 3% feet on each side. That Mrs. Webster had parked the Buick car on the road headed in a westerly direction approximately two feet over on the paved surface. That the plaintiff stated at the time of the accident he was traveling 30 to 35 miles an hour.

The issues of negligence and contributory negligence were submitted to the jury. These issues were answered in favor of the plaintiff and his damages assessed at $310.00.

The defendants set up a cross-action and the jury answered the pertinent issue submitted on the cross-action against the defendants.

Defendants' appeal, assigning error.

*D. Emerson Scarborough, for defendant appellants.*

*No counsel contra.*

Per Curiam.

The only assignment of error on this appeal is to the failure of the court below to sustain the defendants’ motion for judgment as of nonsuit.

It would seem that under the provisions of G.S. 20-141 (e) and our decisions, the evidence adduced in the trial below was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. *Burchette v. Distributing Co.,*243 N.C. 120, 90 S.E. 2d 232; *Chaffin v. Brame,*233 N.C. 377, 64 S.E. 2d 276; *Boles v. Hegler,*232 N.C. 327, 59 S.E. 2d 796; *Cummins v. Fruit Co.,*225 N.C. 625, 36 S.E. 2d 11.

The ruling of the court below is

Affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50089

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Marvin Alexander Tut-Cucul, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-671-1

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Marvin Alexander Tut-Cucul

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Tut-Cucul has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 11, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50089 Document: 00516996946 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2023
No. 23-50089

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 23-50089 Document: 00516996946 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2023
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 20003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6788]





                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 1995 / 
Presidential Documents 
[[Page 20003]] 
                Proclamation 6788 of April 20, 1995

                
Jewish Heritage Week, 1995

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                Throughout history and through times of profound 
                adversity, the Jewish people have built their lives on 
                the strength of family and the spirit of community. 
                Millions have made a home in America--a Nation filled 
                with opportunity and blessed with the miracle of 
                freedom. And here, with hard work and dedication, the 
                Jewish-American community has flourished.

                Jewish citizens have made vital contributions to every 
                sector of our society. From academia to the arts, from 
                business to government, from the smallest towns to the 
                largest cities, Jewish Americans have infused our 
                Nation with a powerful faith, a commitment to family 
                and community, and a devotion to scholarship and self-
                improvement.

                Judaism is a unique gift to this land that people of 
                myriad faiths and cultures call home. The ancient 
                commandment of tzedakah--charity--challenges us to 
                embrace the duty of service to others. The Talmudic 
                teachings of mercy and justice, and those who have 
                sought to uphold these ideals, grace the pages of 
                American history. We can draw strength and inspiration 
                from the enduring lessons of Judaism, and it is 
                entirely fitting that we honor the great traditions of 
                its followers.

                NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the 
                United States of America, by virtue of the authority 
                vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United 
                States, do hereby proclaim April 30 through May 7, 
                1995, as ``Jewish Heritage Week.'' I call upon the 
                people of the United States to observe this week with 
                appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                twentieth day of April, in the year of our Lord 
                nineteen hundred and ninety-five, and of the 
                Independence of the United States of America the two 
                hundred and nineteenth.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1>><Clinton2>

[FR Doc. 95-6788
Filed 4-20-95; 3:06 pm]
Billing code 3195-01-P
#### James M. FRAZER, Movant, v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

No. 95-SC-652-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Dec. 21, 1995.

*ORDER GRANTING REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW*

James M. Frazer of Monticello was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months in 1994. *Kentucky Bar Association v. Frazer,*Ky., 883 S.W.2d 878 (1994). By order entered April 20, 1995, this Court suspended Frazer for an additional 60 days to run consecutive to the original suspension. Frazer filed an application for reinstatement to the practice of law in this Commonwealth pursuant to SCR 3.510 and complied with all the requirements of the rules pertaining to reinstatement.

The Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association recommended that the application for reinstatement be granted. We concur with the recommendation of the Board.

It is therefore ordered that James M. Frazer be and is hereby reinstated to the practice of law in this Commonwealth on condition of the payment of any costs incurred by the Character and Fitness Committee’s investigation.

ENTERED: December 21, 1995.

STEPHENS, C.J., and GRAVES, LAMBERT, REYNOLDS, STUMBO and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ„ concur.

KING, J., did not sit.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens

Chief Justice