alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HAZEL WOOD CROUSE v. FLOYD M. CROUSE.

(Filed 6 January, 1953.)

1. Appeal and Error § 39e—

Where the record fails to show what testimony the witness would have given had she been permitted to answer the question, the exclusion of the testimony cannot be held prejudicial.

2. Divorce and Alimony § 14—

Nonsuit *held,*proper in this action for alimony without divorce because of failure of evidence to support the allegations of the complaint setting forth the cause of action.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Crisp, Special Judge,*at May Term, 1952, of ALAMANCE.

Action by wife against busband for alimony without divorce under G.S. 50-16.

The complaint alleges as grounds for the plaintiff’s right to maintain her suit that her husband, the defendant, separated himself from her and failed to provide her with the necessary subsistence according to his means and condition in life; that the defendant maliciously turned her out of doors; and that the defendant offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome. The action was tried before Judge Crisp and a jury at the May Term, 1952, of the Superior Court of Alamance County. When the plaintiff had introduced her evidence and rested her ease, the defendant moved to dismiss the action upon a compulsory nonsuit, and the court allowed the motion and entered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*II. Clay Ilemric for plaintiff, appellant.*

*J. Elmer Long and Clarence Ross for defendant, appellee.*

Pee Cueiam.

The plaintiff’s counsel propounded this question to her on her re-direct examination: “Will you tell the jury about that ?” The court sustained the defendant’s objection to the question, and the plaintiff noted an exception to this ruling. This exception presents nothing for review because the case on appeal does not show what testimony the plaintiff would have given had she been permitted to answer the question. *Lipe v. Bank, ante,*328, 72 S.E. 2d 759. The remaining exceptions are addressed to the entry of the compulsory nonsuit, and are untenable because the evidence adduced by the plaintiff at the trial was insufficient to prove the allegations of her complaint.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 33-62402) pertaining to the 1991 Incentive Stock Option Plan,
Stock Grants and Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements, the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-93546) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan,
1994 Director Stock Option Plan and the Written Compensation Agreement with R.
David Ridgeway, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-21699)pertaining
to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-21701) pertaining to the 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Non-Qualified
Stock Option Agreements, the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-06865)
pertaining to the registration of 1,614,802 shares of common stock, the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-14483) pertaining to the
registration of 1,125,580 shares of common stock, the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-21117) pertaining to the registration of 493,895 shares of
common stock, the Registration statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-28315) pertaining
to the registration of 318,607 shares of common stock, the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-18575) pertaining to the registration of
5,000,000 shares of common stock and $5,000,000 of debt securities, the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-53327) pertaining to the
registration of 421,528 shares of common stock, the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-60637) pertaining to the registration of 1,580,500 shares of
common stock, the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-67381) pertaining
to the registration of 150,000 shares of common stock, the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-86867) pertaining to the registration of 425,000
shares of common stock, the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-38474)
pertaining to the registration of 244,880 shares of common stock, the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-40008) pertaining to the 2000 Stock
Option Plan, the 1999 Broad-Based Stock Incentive Plan and a Non-Qualified Stock
Option Agreement, and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-43778)
pertaining to the 1994 Director Stock Option Plan, of iNTELEFILM Corporation of
our report dated February 16, 2001 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements as of December 31, 2000 and for the years ended December 31, 2000 and
1999 included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2001.





/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 27, 2002
Exhibit 3.2
                                                                     -----------


                                                              State of Delaware
                                                             Secretary of State
                                                       Division of Corporations
                                                      Filed 09:00 AM 04/25/2002
                                                              020264016-3341519


                                STATE of DELAWARE
                           CERIFICATE of AMENDMENT of
                          CERTIFICATE of INCORPORATION

o       First: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Greg Manning
        Delaware, Inc. resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed
        amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation,
        declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the
        stockholders of said corporation for consideration thereof. The
        resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows: Resolved,
        that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by
        changing the Article thereof numbered "1" so that, as amended, said
        Article shall be and read as follows: "1. Name. The name of the
        corporation is "Greg Manning Auctions, Inc."

o       Second: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of
        Directors, a special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was
        duly called and held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the
        General Corporations Law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the
        necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of
        the amendment.

o       Third: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
        provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
        Delaware.

o       Fourth: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under
        or by reason of said amendment.



                                           BY: /s/ Larry Crawford
                                              ---------------------------------


                                           NAME: Larry Crawford, Chief Financial
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                 (Type or Print)       Officer
| Name                               |                                                       | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation |
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                       |                               |
| EnerDel,      Inc.                 |                                                       | Delaware                           |
| EnerFuel,      Inc.                |                                                       | Florida                            |
| NanoEner,      Inc.                |                                                       | Florida                            |
| EnerDel      Japan, Inc.           |                                                       | Japan                              |
| Ener1      Battery Company         |                                                       | Florida                            |
| Enertech      International, Inc.* |                                                       | Republic      of Korea             |
| Emerging      Power, Inc.**        |                                                       | New      Jersey                    |
|                               |                                                       |                               |
|                               |                                                       |                               |
| *                                  | 89%      owned subsidiary                                  |                               |   |
| **                                 | 100%      owned subsidiary of Enertech International, Inc. |                               |   |

----
·.. _ Cause 2. Ex parte TgRRY GLENN HARRIS



### 5. 

## RECEIVEDIN COURT

### OFCRIMINAL

### APPEALS 

## JUN 

## 162015 AbelAcoota,Clall'k IN THE 19th JUDICIAL

DISTRICT COURT FOR McLENNAN COUNTY,TEXAS MOTION TO COMPEL HABEAS CORPUS AD 'l'ESTIFICANDUM

6. COMES**NOW,T~RRY** GELNN**HARRIS,appli~ant** in the above styled 7. and numbered cause,pursuant to tne interest of justice andbrings 8. this MOTION TO COMPEL AD TESTIFICANDUM;· as per Article 11.31 of 9. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). 10. "'The personon whom thewrit is served shall bringbefore the JUdge the person inhis custody,or underhis restraint."**11~ Art.ll~3l,CCP**  ofTexas.

' ' . .. . . 12.**Ap~licant** is currently in custody of the TDCJ,in ihe L.C. 13.· Powledge Unit,located**i~ P~le~tiheiTex~s;in**  Anderson County; ap14. plicant's TDCJ# is 1664009. 15. Applicant is requesting the Honorable Court to issue from 16. the bench, a warrant ordering the Sheriff of McLennan County to 17. transport said offender to the court issuing the warrant t6 18. participate in the hearing in this matter to give testimony. 19. Applicant contends that his presence is required because he 20. could aid counsel in his defense; the court should.base·their eva21. luation upon applicants demeanor, not relying onth·e-:sole testi22. many of trial counsel appointed by the court;the court should 23. grant the motion in the interest of Justice. Applicant contends 24. the case relies on his testimony rather than that of appointed 25. counsel for the defense. TerryHarris-2010-544-ClA MCADT-1 of 21. Applicant contends that his presence will serve the ends of 2. Justice by**rel~aving** the burden of appointing counsel on behalf 3. of the state; applicant contends his presence at the hearing**c·-""'~4.** would aid the court in finding common ground among the vast



## -

# . 5. evidence to his favor; applicant could aid in the cross exami6. nation ot witness for the prosecution; the court should hear the 7. applicant's own words and present appropriate rebuttal. 8. PRAYER



### ·- 9. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant Terry Glenn Harris 10. respectfully prays that tnis Honorable Court will grant this 11. MOTION TO COMPEL HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM and in all things 12. considered. 13. Rsepectfully submitted, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Terry enn Harris,petitioner #16640 9 1400 FM 3452,Powledge Unit**~alestine,Texas** 75803

Executed on

# this~day of June,2015.

TerryHarris-2010-544-ClA MCADT-2 of 2' '



# -.. In re: Cause 2010-544-ClA,Ex parte Harris-19th Judicial District To**~he** clerk of·the Court: Please find enclosed the following WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM to**be~filed** in the above named court and under the
cause**number~listed** . Thank you for your attention to matter and know that ytiur time is greatly appreciated.

cc:fiJ.e
Terry G enn Harris,l664009 1400 FM 3452,Powledge Unit. Palestine,Texas /5803
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MURFREESBORO BANCORP FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,653
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,411
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     15,127
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,870
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,730
<LOANS>                                         51,816
<ALLOWANCE>                                        648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,804
<DEPOSITS>                                      68,334
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,458
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                433
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,068
<OTHER-SE>                                        (489)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  82,804
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,856
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  725
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    58
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,639
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,338
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,401
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,238
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      175
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    181
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         181
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       126
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.33
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   473
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  648
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               648
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Opinion issued June 23 , 2022

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 22
- 00206
- CR

——————————— IN RE J . B . BLACK , Relat or

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDU M OPINION J.B. Black, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to rule on his motion for appointment of new counsel. 1 We deny the petition. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Hightower

. Do not p ublish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 47.2(b).

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. J.B. Black , cause number 1723527 , pending in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Hazel B. Jones p residing.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3898

Holroyd Precision Rotors, 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
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-2018-0025-3417

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
#### Gregory LOMAX, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 66376.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Feb. 14, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 20, 1995.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., and REINHARD and CARL L. GAERTNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On June 23, 1993, movant’s jury trial on a charge of possession of heroin began. Apparently before the jury was finally selected, movant indicated his desire to plead guilty. Pursuant to Rule 24.02, the trial court informed movant of his rights and determined that the plea was voluntary.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
ex10_8.htm










TWENTY- FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT












This Twenty-First Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of March 1, 2011, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Thomas Martin ("Executive").












Recitals








	
A)  

	
On March 31, 1998 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.













	
B)  

	
Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twenty prior occasions;













	
C)  

	
Employer and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:












Agreement












1.           Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement, which provides:







3.1           Term.  The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on April 1, 1998 and shall continue until March 31, 2011 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").












is hereby amended, effective as of March 1, 2011, to provide as follows:












3.1           Term.  The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on April 1, 1998 and shall continue until March 31, 2012 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").













	
2.

	
All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.






















Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.






















EXECUTIVE                                                                                                EMPLOYER


PRICESMART, INC.







Thomas Martin                                                                           By: ___________________







______________________                                                             Name: Jose Luis Laparte                                                      







Its: President
Exhibit 32.1

            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                         RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the quarterly report of Kolorfusion International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for quarter ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, Stephen Nagel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

         1.       the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

         2.       the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respect, the financial condition and
                  results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 22, 2004               By: /s/ Stephen Nagel
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Stephen Nagel
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer