alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stan L. ADAM and Michelle A. Adam, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Helen P. LAWHON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15750.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Jan. 11, 1989.

*381Bob J. Keeter, Springfield, for plaintiffs-respondents.

Evelyn A. Gwin, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.

GREENE, Judge.

Defendant, Helen P. Lawhon, attempts to appeal from a trial court order overruling her motion to quash an order of garnishment, which order sought to garnish a checking account in Boatmen’s National Bank of Springfield, Missouri, in which checking account Helen Lawhon had a joint interest.

The purpose of the garnishment was to enable plaintiffs, Stan L. Adam and Michelle A. Adam, to recover the unpaid portion of a money judgment previously entered in their favor and against Helen La-whon, and to recover unpaid court costs that had been assessed against the defendant.

While a trial court order quashing a garnishment amounts to a final judgment from which appeal will lie, *Landmark Bank of Ladue v. General Grocer Co.,*680 S.W.2d 949, 955 (Mo.App.1984), an order overruling a motion to quash a garnishment is not, *Household Finance Corp. v. Seigel-Robert Plating Co.,*483 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Mo.App.1972).

The trial court order overruling the motion to quash does not constitute a final disposition of the case, *ORF v. Computer Institute, Inc.,*480 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Mo.App.1972), as the statutory steps that are to be followed following the answers of the garnishee to interrogatories propounded to it have been made have not been completed. *See*§§ 525.140 to 525.310, RSMo 1986. Since there is no final disposition of the case, any attempt to appeal is premature.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

HOLSTEIN, C.J., and CROW, P.J., concur.
#### STATE v. GEORGE *L.*JONES.

(Filed 29 March, 1961.)

1. Bastards § 6—

Testimony of prosecutrix that defendant was the father of her child! •that he admitted paternity, that he had contributed monies to prosecutrix for a short time and then continuously refused further support, notwithstanding that he was gainfully employed, is sufficient to be submitted to the jury on a charge of willful failure to support an illegitimate child.

*3522. Bastards § 4—

In a prosecution for willful failure of defendant to support his illegitimate child, the burden is upon the State to show beyond a reasonable doubt the element of paternity and the element of willfulness of the refusal to furnish support, and an instruction which' places such burden of proof solely upon the element of paternity is prejudicial.

Appeal by defendant from *Parker, J.,*October 31, 1960 Term, of LENOIR.

Defendant was tried on a bill of indictment which charged wilful failure to support his illegitimate child. From the verdict of guilty and a judgment based thereon defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Roun-tree for the State.*

*J. Harvey Turner for defendant appellant.*

Pee Curiam.

The court properly overruled defendant’s motion for nonsuit. The testimony of the mother that defendant was the father of the child, that he had admitted paternity, and had provided monies for her confinement and for the support of the child for a short time after birth, coupled with the testimony that defendant was gainfully employed and had been for several years, that requests had been made for the support of the child, that defendant had refused to pay anything, which refusal continued several months prior to the indictment, was sufficient to require submission of the question of his guilt to the jury.

Defendant is, however, entitled to a new trial. He excepts to the following portion of the charge: “The Court instructs you that in order to justify a verdict of guilty the State must satisfy you of two propositions: First, that the defendant is the father of the illegitimate child, Anthony L. Connor, and it must satisfy you of that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, as being the father of this illegitimate child that he willfully failed and refused to provide adequate support for the child.” This portion of the charge limits the duty of the State to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to one element — paternity. It is as much the duty of the State to establish wilful failure to support by evidence showing that fact beyond reasonable doubt as it is to so establish paternity. *S. v. Cook,*207 N.C. 261, 176 S.E. 757.

New trial.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3415

Enerpac:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-2948

Price Pump Company:

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
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4337 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4337

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize the appointment of 
    spouses of members of the Armed Forces who are on active duty, 
   disabled, or deceased to positions in which the spouses will work 
                               remotely.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Spouse Employment Act''.

SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF MILITARY SPOUSES.

    Section 3330d of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
                (4);
                    (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
            ``(3) The term `remote work' refers to a particular type of 
        telework under which an employee is not expected to report to 
        an officially established agency location on a regular and 
        recurring basis.''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) The term `telework' has the meaning given the term in 
        section 6501.'';
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) a spouse of a member of the Armed Forces on active 
        duty, or a spouse of a disabled or deceased member of the Armed 
        Forces, to a position in which the spouse will engage in remote 
        work.''; and
            (3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``subsection (a)(3)'' 
        and inserting ``subsection (a)(4)''.

            Passed the Senate November 30 (legislative day, November 
      29), 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4337

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize the appointment of 
    spouses of members of the Armed Forces who are on active duty, 
   disabled, or deceased to positions in which the spouses will work 
                               remotely.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the quarterly report of Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending October 29, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew E. Rubel, Chief Executive Officer and President of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: December 7, 2005       /s/ Matthew E. Rubel         Matthew E. Rubel    Chief Executive Officer and President    (Principal Executive Officer)  
52
## 

EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-32213) pertaining to the 1988 Restricted Stock Plan
and the 1991 Directors' Stock Option Plan of Matrix Pharmaceutical, Inc., of our report dated January 21, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Matrix Pharmaceutical,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

Ernst
& Young LLP

Palo
Alto, California
March 14, 2000



## QuickLinks
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-2018-0025-3204

Brinly Hardy Co:

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
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the quarterly report of Golden State Vintners, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John G. Kelleher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbannes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:

(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/JOHN G. KELLEHERJohn G. Kelleher
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|                                                                         |  | 

---



QuickLinks
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-2018-0025-10453

Tektronix, 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
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4232 

To address the recovery of certain costs with respect to certain Reclamation 

facilities in the Colorado River Basin, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2022 

Mr. KELLY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To address the recovery of certain costs with respect to 

certain Reclamation facilities in the Colorado River 

Basin, 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. RECOVERY OF CERTAIN COSTS WITH RESPECT 

4 TO CERTAIN COLORADO RIVER BASIN REC5 LAMATION FACILITIES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to hydropower pro7 duction from any Reclamation facility in the Colorado 

8 River Basin with hydropower as an authorized project 

9 purpose, the Secretary of the Interior shall not— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4232 IS

1 (1) allocate to preference hydropower contrac2 tors who receive power from the applicable Reclama3 tion facility any operations and maintenance costs 

4 for any period during which the applicable facility is 

5 not able to generate hydropower as a result of dry 

6 hydrologic conditions; or 

7 (2) recover from preference hydropower con8 tractors construction costs for the Reclamation facil9 ity for any water year during which, for a period of 

10 more than 180 days, no power is produced by the 

11 applicable facility. 

12 (b) NONREIMBURSABLE COSTS.—Any costs incurred 

13 by the United States under subsection (a) shall be nonre14 imbursable to the United States. 

15 (c) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section alters or affects 

16 any water right with respect to— 

17 (1) the United States; 

18 (2) any Indian Tribe, band, or community; 

19 (3) any State or political subdivision of a State; 

20 or 

21 (4) any person. 

22 (d) FUNDING.—In addition to amounts otherwise 

23 available, there is appropriated to the Secretary of the In24 terior and the Administrator of the Western Area Power 

25 Administration for each fiscal year, out of any funds in 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4232 IS

1 the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as are 

2 necessary for the Secretary of the Interior and the Admin3 istrator of the Western Area Power Administration, re4 spectively, to carry out authorized activities and obliga5 tions that would otherwise be carried out using amounts 

6 collected from preference hydropower contractors as pay7 ments for the costs described in subsection (a). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

380392/87(&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*&%521=(



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,


<(6

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267
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-2018-0025-2120

Ardagh Group:

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
#### J. M. ROBERTSON et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF YANCEY COUNTY et al.

(Filed 15 December, 1926.)

Taxation — Schools—Purchase of Bands — Bonds.

Without legislative authority, a board of education of a county may not purchase additional land for school purposes, or the county commissioners issue bonds for the purpose, and an injunction -will lie against their doing so.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Johnson, Emergency Judge,*at Chambers, 6 September, 1926. From Yaitcey. Eeversed.

Action for permanent injunction, restraining defendants from incurring an indebtedness of $30,000, for the payment of the purchase price *766of certain land to be used for school purposes. From judgment dissolving a temporary restraining order theretofore issued, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*B. W. Wilson and A. Hall Johnston for plaintiff.*

*No counsel for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

At the commencement of this action, defendant board of education of Yancey County, was negotiating for the purchase of certain land in said county, to be used for school purposes. It proposed to incur an indebtedness of $30,000 for the purchase of said land, and to request the board of county commissioners to issue bonds of Yancey County in said sum, fo raise money to pay the purchase price for said land. It is conceded that there is no legislative authority for the board of education to purchase said land, or for the board of county commissioners to issue said bonds. It was, therefore, error to dissolve the temporary restraining order theretofore issued by Judge Stack. *Tate v. Board of Education of McDowell County, ante,*516. Chapter 120, Public Laws 1924, Extra Session, does not apply to Yancey County. It is not contended, however, that the purchase of said land is required to enable the board of education of Yancey County to maintain public schools, as required by the Constitution, in said county.

Whether it is a wise policy for the board of education to purchase this land, for the reasons it assigns in its answer to the complaint, does not present a question of law for our decision; we decide, only, that neither the board of education nor the board of county commissioners has the power, without legislative authority conferred by statute, either general or special, to contract an indebtedness for the purchase of land for school purposes.

The judgment must be

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02315]



[[Page 6525]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, February 25, 2016, 12:00 
p.m. to 04:00 p.m., National Library of Medicine, 6705 Rockledge Drive, 
Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20817 which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 26, 2016 (81 FR 4319).
    The meeting of the Special Emphasis Panel will be held on March 25, 
2016 instead of February 25, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. and will end at 4:00 
p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: February 2, 2016.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-02315 Filed 2-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P