alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SAMUEL WOLF v. H. GOLDSTEIN.

(Filed 27 October, 1926.)

Appeal and Error — Judgments Set Aside — Discretion oí Court.

The discretion, of a trial judge to set aside a verdict is practically unlimited, and will not be reviewed on appeal except in matters of abuse, instances not likely to arise.

Appeal by plaintiff from *MidyeUe, J.,*at March Civil Term, 1926, of New Haitoveb. Affirmed.

*Rodgers & Rodgers for plaintiff.*

*No counsel for defendant.*

Per CuriaM.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover on certain notes alleged to have been executed by defendant to Mylisb, Mann & Drucker, for a valuable consideration, before maturity, endorsed, sold and delivered to tbe plaintiff by payee. That no part of tbe notes have been paid, and that tbe same are due and owing.

Defendant sets up certain defenses not necessary to set forth.

Tbe issues submitted to tbe jury and tbeir answers thereto, were as follows:

“1. Were tbe notes sued upon extorted from tbe defendant by threatening to defeat tbe offer of composition made by him in tbe bankruptcy proceeding's instituted against him? Answer: No.

“2. Were tbe notes sued upon procured from tbe defendant in fraud of bis other creditors? Answer: No.

“3. Were tbe notes sued upon executed by defendant upon tbe condition that they were to be void if tbe offer of composition made by him was declined by tbe United States Court in Bankruptcy? Answer: No.

*“é.*Is tbe plaintiff tbe bolder in due course of tbe notes sued upon? Answer: Yes.

*“5. Is*tbe plaintiff owner of tbe notes? Answer: Yes.

*819“6. What amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover *%*Answer: $1,200 and interest at 6 per cent per annum from dates of notes.”

Upon tbe coming in of tbe verdict, plaintiff tendered judgment to tbe court below in accordance with tbe jury finding. Tbe court below made tbe following order: “Tbe verdict in tbis cause is set aside in tbe discretion of tbe court.” Plaintiff assigned error and appealed to tbe Supreme Court: “For tbat tbe court refused to sign tbe judgment tendered by plaintiff as set forth in tbe record and set aside tbe verdict in bis discretion and allowed tbe defendant tbe right to file an amended answer of payment.”

Tbe trial court has a discretion in respect to setting aside verdict, exercise of which, in tbe absence of abuse, is not reviewable in tbe Supreme Court. 15 Enc. Digest of N. C. Reports, p. 112 and cases cited.

*Walker, J.,*in *Jarrett v. Trunk Co.,*142 N. C., p. 469, says: “While tbe necessity for exercising tbis discretion, in any given case, is not to be determined by tbe mere inclination of tbe judge, but by a sound and enlightened judgment, in an effort to attain'the end of all law, namely, the doing of even and exact justice, we will yet not supervise it, except, perhaps, in extreme circumstances, not at all likely to arise; and it is therefore practically unlimited.” *Billings v. Charlotte Observer,*150 N. C., 540; *Hensley v. Furniture Co.,*164 N. C., 148; *Settee v. Electric Ry.,*170 N. C., 365; *Forester v. Betts,*179 N. C., 608; *Likas v. Lackey,*186 N. C., 398; *S. v. Sauls,*190 N. C., 810.

Tbe judgment below is

Affirmed.
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

38036(3$5$7253/$7(&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*67$,1/(6667((/



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,


12

12

 .*



,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676
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-2018-0025-4507

CW Bearing USA, 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/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
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6964** 

BRYANT KEITH BENTLEY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DR. COLON, former Chief Dental Officer; MR. SMITH, Dental Hygienist , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 0:13

- cv - 02322

- RBH )

Submitted : October 20 , 201 5 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, K EENAN , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Bryant Keith Bentley, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM: Bryant Keith Bentley appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 3 88 (1971).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Bentley v. Colon , No. 0:13

- cv - 02322

- RBH (D.S.C. May
27, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the fact s and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT
  RECITALS
   NOW, THEREFORE,
 1.
    
    Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed in the
Credit Agreement.2.
    
    In Article 1, Section 1.1 of the Credit Agreement the Revolving Termination
Date is changed from January 31, 2011 to January 31, 2012.3.
    
    In Article 1, Section 1.1 of the Credit Agreement, the Bank Revolving
Commitment is changed from Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000.00) to Ten Million Dollars
($10,000,000.00).4.
    
    In Article 12, Section 12.2 of the Credit Agreement, the first paragraph is
deleted and the following is inserted in its place:
  5.
    
    This Amendment is a modification only and not a
novation.6.
    
    Except for the above stated amendments, the Credit Agreement shall be and
remain in full force and effect with the changes herein deemed to be incorporated
therein. This Amendment is to be considered attached to the Credit Agreement and made a
part thereof.




---



##### 



7.
    
    The parties acknowledge and agree that this Amendment is limited to the terms above
stated and shall not be construed as an amendment of any other terms or provisions of
the Credit Agreement. The parties hereby specifically ratify and affirm the terms and
provisions of the Credit Agreement except as herein changed. This Amendment shall not
establish a course of dealing or be construed as evidence of any willingness on the
Banks part to grant other or future amendments, should any be requested.8.
    
    The Borrower agrees to pay all fees and out of pocket disbursements incurred by
the Bank in connection with this Amendment.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 BORROWER AND PARENT:
TUFCO, L.P.By:
    Tufco LLC, itsManaging General PartnerBy:
    Tufco Technologies, Inc.Its Sole Managing Member/s/ Michael B. WheelerMichael B. WheelerAuthorized Officer for the Managing MemberTUFCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC./s/ Michael B. WheelerMichael B. WheelerChief Financial Officer, Vice President
and SecretaryBANK:
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,/s/ Bruce E. ZakBruce E. ZakRegional President 
 2




---



##### 



GUARANTORS:
TUFCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC./s/ Michael B. WheelerMichael B. WheelerChief Financial Officer, Vice President
and SecretaryTUFCO LLCBy:
    Tufco Technologies, Inc.,Its Sole Managing Member/s/ Michael B. WheelerMichael B. WheelerAuthorized Officer of the Managing MemberHAMCO MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTING LLCBy:
    TUFCO, LPits Sole Managing MemberBy:
    TUFCO LLC,its Managing General PartnerBy:  TUFCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,its Sole Managing Member/s/ Michael B. WheelerMichael B. WheelerChief Financial Officer, Vice President and Secretary 3
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

SC2012, SADDLE CAP FOR SCREW JACK

8431100090 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
No. 72-955.

#### Spomer, State's Attorney of Alexander County, Illinois *v.*Littleton et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument with No. 72-953 [immediately *supra].*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6458

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LORENZO KENYON MASON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00103-MR-1; 1:11-cv-00259-MR)

Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Kenyon Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Kenyon Mason seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his motion seeking relief under the All 

Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), 

as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, 

and dismissing it on that basis. The district court’s order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2012); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Mason has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 
3

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5074 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5074

      To amend the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 to delay 
implementation of the inclusion of oral-only ESRD-related drugs in the 
               Medicare ESRD prospective payment system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2023

  Mr. Carter of Georgia (for himself, Ms. Kuster, Mrs. Miller of West 
  Virginia, and Ms. Sewell) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 to delay 
implementation of the inclusion of oral-only ESRD-related drugs in the 
               Medicare ESRD prospective payment system.

    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 ``Kidney Patient Access to 
Technologically Innovative and Essential Nephrology Treatments Act of 
2023'' or the ``Kidney PATIENT Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ORAL-ONLY POLICY UNDER MEDICARE ESRD 
              PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM.

    Section 632(b) of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (42 
U.S.C. 1395rr note) is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``Two-year''; and
            (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking 
        ``may not implement'' and all that follows through ``January 1, 
        2025.'' and inserting ``shall not implement the policy under 
        section 413.174(f)(6) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations 
        (relating to oral-only ESRD-related drugs in the ESRD 
        prospective payment system) to incorporate the payment for oral 
        drugs indicated for the reduction, management, or control of 
        the serum phosphate of an individual, until the earlier of 
        January 1, 2033, or such time as an intravenous drug indicated 
        for the reduction, management, or control of the serum 
        phosphate of an individual has been approved by the Food and 
        Drug Administration.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10402

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHARLES LAVON BREWER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:11-CR-3-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Charles Lavon

Brewer 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). Brewer has not filed a response. We have reviewed

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

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

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 22, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-10402 Document: 00511704694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2011
No. 11-10402

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-10402 Document: 00511704694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2011
JODY MICHAEL KIRKLAND,

Former Husband

,

Appellant,

v.

LAURIE JEAN KIRKLAND,

Former Wife

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 5

- 1860

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 5, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Linda F. McCallum , Judge

.

James P. Brunet of the Brunet Firm, LLC, Jacksonville

, for Appellant

.

Laurie Jean Kirkland, pro se, Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, LEWIS, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4461

ECM Industries LLC: 

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

_04.15.19.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3842

Academy, Ltd:

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

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4853

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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel