alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### E. A. GOINS v. RONALD McLOUD.

(Filed 24 March, 1948.)

1. Ejectment § 2—

A magistrate has jurisdiction of proceedings in summary ejectment only if there is a contract of tenancy creating the relationship of landlord and tenant and if defendant holds over after the expiration of the term, and the remedy does not extend to a tenant at sufferance or at will. G. S., 42-26.

2. Ejectment § 9—

The jurisdiction of the Superior Court on appeals in summary ejectment is derivative, and where the jury, upon conflicting evidence, in a trial free from error, finds that defendant did not enter into possession as tenant of plaintiff, judgment for defendant is not error.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Paitan, Special Judge,*September-October Term, 1947, Oaldweli,.

No error.

*656Proceeding in summary ejectment instituted in a magistrate’s court and heard on appeal in the court below.

The -jury for their verdict found that defendant did not enter upon and occupy the premises as tenant of plaintiff. The court thereupon entered judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed.

*W. II. Strickland for plaintiff appellant.*

*Max C. Wilson■ for defendant appellee.*

BarNhilu, J.

The magistrate before whom this action was instituted had jurisdiction only in the event the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between plaintiff and defendant. Gr. S. 42-26; *Howell v. Branson, 2*26 N. C., 264, 37 S. E. (2d), 687. On appeal the jurisdiction of the Superior Court was derivative and trial there was limited to the issues properly raised in the court of origin. *Wells v. West,*212 N. C., 656, 194 S. E., 313; *Allen v. Insurance Co.,*213 N. C., 586, 197 S. E., 200; *Cheek v. Insurance Co., 215*N. C., 36, 1 S. E. (2d), 115; *Leonard v. Coble,*222 N. C., 552, 23 S. E. (2d), 841; *Howell v. Branson, supra.*In brief these were: (1) Was there a contract of tenancy creating the relationship of landlord and tenant; and if so, (2) did defendant hold over or continue in possession after the expiration of his term?

That defendant entered into possession of the premises as tenant of plaintiff was denied. The evidence in respect thereto was in sharp conflict. The jury has resolved the question in favor of defendant, in a trial free from error.

Plaintiff argues that defendant is at least a tenant at sufferance or at will. If so, his remedy is not by summary ejectment, and the issue was not triable in this cause.

In the trial below we find

.No error.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 33-54398, 33-78348, 333-07515, 333-43547, 333-56697, 333-32118 and
333-62714 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-60925 and 333-96369 on Form S-3 of Metretek
Technologies, Inc. (f.k.a. Marcum Natural Gas Services, Inc.) of our report
dated March 13, 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Metretek
Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Denver, Colorado
March 27, 2002
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-2018-0025-2710

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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23

                     [WIPFLI ULLRICH BERTELSON CPA'S LOGO]

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

Board of Directors and Stockholders
Tufco Technologies, Inc.
Green Bay Wisconsin

        We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Tufco
Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1995, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the
years ended September 30, 1994 and 1995. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

        We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that out audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

        In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Tufco
Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries at September 30, 1995, and the results of
their operations and cash flows for the periods indicated in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.


                                        /s/  WIPFLI ULLRICH BERTELSON
                                        ------------------------------------
                                           Certified Public Accountants

November 9, 1995
Green Bay, Wisconsin
8 REA SE y gp s a fi SB
ecsoolrs eR] EAE [oon no. DESORIPTION Lan CHK. APPD. APPD,
REFERENCE ONLY CHANGE OF TERMINAL
("ON ONIMVHO) S28) 2 _B0.Sep.2008| 066411| MATERIALS PLATING LIST Y.WATANABE | K.MIYAMOTO T.KUME
UAE

A TABLE|: TERMINAL MATERIALS AND PLATING LIST (sP4tt}+ 4» $8 I—-b He)

CODE|PART TITLE| SJ No. |MATERIALS PLATING APPLICABLE WIRE
s  |3487504F1] 038527 [HIGH CONDUCTIVITY |TIN PLATING |CHFUS 0.22sq. AVSS 0.3sq. CHFUS 0.35sq.
T T COPPER ALLOY ARH 2% ALL CAVITIES CAN BE APPLIED, 44+ EF+ tp
HI - mw [M34S75c4F2| 038528 | @SBERSS CHFUS 0.58q. AVSS 0.58q. CAVS 0.5sq. CHFS 0.75sq.
I I ALL CAVITIES CAN BE APPLIED. Sr t7+ Hip
LU c  |M34s7504F3] 038747 CAN SD 0.35saq.
TWO BOTH ENDS CAVITIES CAN BE APPLIED.

TZ BPO E+

L M34875C4F4| 038893 AVSS 0.85sq. CAVS 0.85sq.

TWO BOTH ENDS CAVITIES CAN BE APPLIED.
Tt BOF CF + AD

* (12.85) |

+
—_
g | *” ae
a
~
Pe —
= = 1 = U
1 “ ~ +0.3
KA 38 2 21.3
+0.2 7 '
2.2 f=}
(PITCH) 4o.2
4.4
SECT. A-A
(SCALE 5:1)
SOCKET HOUSING
2 [RETAINER 1 PPE+PA66 (ALLOY ) COLOR: BLACK
WIRE 1 [HOUSING 1_| PPE+PA66 (ALLOY ) _ COLOR: GRAY
(SEE TABLET) eS 2 i o x # # fe E as
No. DESCRIPTION ary. MATERIAL FINISH REMARKS
an {HRB (SPECT FICATION) fe IMC ORIGINAL DATE) IRE (SCALE) yU-A(SERLTES) . eh
a JACS-1754 3.06c.2004 2:4 Mx 34 GAMES F LERAS H | om
JAHL-1754 t
“ SOCKET TERMINAL ZR(TITLE) JAPAN AVIATION
e (SEE TABLE) REFERENCE Wa (CENERAL TOLERANCE) 4 S.HARA ELECTRONICS ws
“ ——— tik (DIMENSION) | fMi& (ANGLES) a : MxX340038F 1 She INoustrY, Lto. | %
: to.8 [xe = APPD| SOCKET HOUSING _
oy 2 Hes 6 NO.
° x #004 | xeece han TISHIWA HBSS (DRAWING WO.) [RR
5 xx #£0.1 RECMASS)
8 voce @+=} $J100823 2

ITT TTT TTT TTT. TY JAE CONNECTOR DIV. PROPRIETARY
D 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8D 90 100 COPYRIGHT(C) 2004, JAPAN AVIATION ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY, LTD,
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-2018-0025-2806

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00018-CR

Charles Anthony LHERAULT,

Appellant

v.

The State 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10281

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

SIGNED September 30, 2015.

_____________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice
Form of Certificate


 Exhibit 4.1 

 

	
	











 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be
construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

															
	TEN COM	 	-	  	as tenants in common	  		 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -	 	........... Custodian ...................
	TEN ENT	 	-	  	as tenants by the entireties	  		 		 	 (Cust)                     (Minor)
	JT TEN	 	-	  	as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common	  		 		 	 under Uniform Gifts to Minors  Act ........................................
		 		  		  		 		 	 (State)

		 		  		  		 		 	
						
		 		  		  		 	UNIF TRF MIN ACT -	 	......... Custodian (until age ......)
		 		  		  		 		 	 (Cust)
		 		  		  		 		 	  

..............under Uniform Transfers

		 		  		  		 		 	 (Minor)
		 		  		  		 		 	  

to Minors Act ..........................

		 		  		  		 		 	 (State)


 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

For Value received, the undersigned hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto 

 
  
 PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE 
  

 
  
  

 
 of the Common Shares represented by the within
Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute(s) and appoint(s) 
  

			
	  
	 	Attorney

 to transfer the said Common Shares on the books of the Trust with full power of substitution in the premises.

  

							
	Dated:	 	  
	 		  	  

		 		 		  	Assignor
				
		 	  
	 		  	  

		 		 		  	Assignor

  

					
	In presence of	 	  
	  	

  

			
	NOTICE:	 	THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY
CHANGE WHATEVER.

 Signature(s) Guaranteed: 
  

			
	By	 	  

	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN
APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
#### William H. EGGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 55302.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 4, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 2, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied June 13, 1989.

*383Beverly A. Beimdiek, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Christopher M. Kehr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his second Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Movant was convicted of capital murder pursuant to § 565.001, RSMo 1978 (repealed 1983). He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for fifty years. That conviction was affirmed in *State v. Eggers,*675 S.W.2d 923 (Mo.App.1984).

Movant filed his first Rule 27.26 motion on June 6, 1985. That motion was denied and the denial was affirmed in *Eggers v. State,*734 S.W.2d 300 (Mo.App.1987). Movant filed his second Rule 27.26 motion on December 14, 1987. This motion was denied as an impermissible successive motion. Movant now appeals that denial.

Rule 27.26(d) precludes consideration of a successive 27.26 motion where the ground presented could have been raised in the prior motion. Rule 27.26(d) (repealed 1988). In his second 27.26 motion, movant presented claims of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Movant asserts these claims could not have been raised in his first motion because he had no communication with his 27.26 counsel and was, therefore, precluded from the insight of an attorney regarding these additional claims.

We do not find movant’s argument persuasive. “[A] lack of legal knowledge on the part of the movant does not excuse his failure to present known facts in a previous motion.” *Brown v. State,*674 S.W.2d 578, 580[3] (Mo.App.1984). Moreover, if we construe movant’s claim as a claim of ineffective assistance by his previous 27.26 counsel, that also is not a ground for relief in a second 27.26 motion. *Miller v. State,*704 S.W.2d 719, 720[2] (Mo.App.1986). For these reasons, movant’s second 27.26 motion was properly denied.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned, being a
director or officer, or both, of CAPRI CORP., a Minnesota corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint MEHUL J. DAVE and P.
BALASUBRAMANIAN, with full power to each of them to act alone, as the true and
lawful attorneys and agents of the undersigned, with full power of substitution
and resubstitution to each of said attorneys to execute, file or deliver any and
all instruments and to do all acts and things which said attorneys and agents,
or any of them, deem advisable to enable the Company to comply with the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission in respect thereto, relating to annual
reports on Form 10-KSB or Form 10-K, including specifically, but without
limitation of the general authority hereby granted, the power and authority to
sign his name as a director or officer, or both, of the Company, as indicated
below opposite his signature, to annual reports on Form 10-KSB or Form 10-K or
any amendments or papers supplemental thereto; and each of the undersigned does
hereby fully ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agents, or any of
them, or the substitute of any of the, shall do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has caused this Power of
Attorney to be executed as of this 22nd day of September, 2000.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                    SIGNATURE                                            TITLE
                    ---------                                            -----
<S>                                                    <C>
                                                       Director, Chairman of the Board, President
/s/ Mehul J. Dave                                      and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
--------------------------------------------           Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
Mehul J. Dave


/s/ P. Balasubramanian                                 Director, Executive Vice President, Secretary
--------------------------------------------           and Treasurer
P. Balasubramanian


/s/ Robert W. Heller                                   Director
--------------------------------------------
Robert W. Heller


/s/ Thomas Mueller                                     Director
--------------------------------------------
Thomas Mueller


/s/ Jason W. Levin
--------------------------------------------           Director
Jason W. Levin

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4833]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

Business Development Center Applications: Portland, Oregon

AGENCY: Minority Business Development Agency, Commerce.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: On page 8633 in the issue dated Wednesday, February 15, 1995, 
third column, second paragraph, the award number is corrected to read, 
``10-10-95013-01''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Steven Saho at (415) 744-3001.

11.800  Minority Business Development Center

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance)

    Dated: February 22, 1995.
Frances B. Douglas,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Minority Business 
Development Agency.
[FR Doc. 95-4833 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-21-P
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4477



# 
S TEVEN A NDRE R EED ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-99-476-PJM) Submitted: November 22, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Daniel W. Stiller, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynn A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Odessa P. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Steven Andre Reed appeals his conviction and sentence of twelve months and one day of imprisonment pursuant to his guilty plea for theft of government property, 18 U.S.C.A. § 614 (West 2000). We affirm. Reed raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues that his residence was illegally searched pursuant to a defective warrant, therefore, theevidence seized during that search should be suppressed and the sentence vacated. In the alternative, Reed argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for abuse of a position of trust under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.3 (1998). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo, United States v. Kitchens , 114 F.3d 29, 31 (4th Cir. 1997), and accord substantial deference to the judgment of the magistrate issuing the search warrant, United States v. Oloyede , 982 F.2d 133, 138 (4th Cir. 1992). The district court made factual findings of a permissible inference between the location of the stolen property and Reed’s residence, therefore, concluding that the warrant was supported by probable cause. See United States v. Anderson , 851 F.2d 727, 729 (4th Cir. 1988). Finding no reversible error, we affirm the denial of Reed’s motion to suppress the evidence. Section 3B1.3 of the Guidelines provides for a two-level increase if a defendant "abused a position of public or private trust . . . in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense." USSG § 3B1.3. On appeal, this Court will reverse a district court’s imposition of an enhancement based on a defendant’s abuse of a position of trust only if the court’s determination is clearly erroneous. See United States v. Helton , 953 F.2d 867, 869 (4th Cir. 1992). Finding no such clear error, we affirm Reed’s conviction and 2 U NITED S TATES v. R EEDsentence. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. R EED
Exhibit 32.2

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

I,
Kevin C. Eichler, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that based upon a review of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended
September 30, 2004 (theForm 10-Q), the Form 10-Q 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 8, 2004 | By:     /s/ KEVIN C. EICHLER              
|                         | Kevin C. Eichler                          
|                         | Vice President and Chief Financial 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

---