alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RAY W. COX v. BETTIE POWELL COX.

(Filed 28 June, 1957.)

Abatement and Revival § o—

A plea in abatement for pendency of a prior action between tbe parties is a plea in bar, and tbe court must dispose of sucb plea before considering other matters in issue.

Appeal by defendant from *Seawell, J.,*in Chambers at December Criminal Term, 1956, of Waice.

*Ehringhaus & Ellis for defendant, appellant.*

*Emanuel & Emanuel for plaintiff, appellee.*

JohNSon, J.

This is a companion case of *Cox v. Cox,*involving the same parties, this day decided in an opinion filed contemporaneously herewith. In the companion case the wife is suing the husband for *533divorce on the ground of two years separation. In the instant case the husband is suing the wife for divorce on the same ground. The immediate controversy in both cases relates to the custody of the infant child of the marriage, Richard Allen Cox. All the essential facts are set out in the opinion in the companion case. In that case the Wife noted an appeal to this Court from Judge Seawell’s order of 28 November, 1956, vacating the clerk’s previous judgment of voluntary nonsuit entered while the custody hearings were in progress. Thereafter the husband instituted this action on 4 December, 1956, and filed petition in the cause, similar to his petition in-the companion case, praying the court to determine the custody of the child. The hearings were then resumed. Judge Seawell treated the hearings as being held in both cases. He acted on the theory that the attempted appeal in the companion case, being from a nonappealable interlocutory order, was a nullity. But to guard against the eventuality of error in this respect, the further hearings were treated as being held in both cases, and when the hearings were over he entered judgments, in substance precisely alike, dated 13 December, 1956, in each case, awarding custody of the child to the mother, with part-time privileges to the father.

Meanwhile, as soon as the second case was instituted by the husband, the wife filed a plea in abatement asking dismissal on the ground that another action was pending involving the same subj ect matter between the same parties. The wife requested that this plea be heard before the petition for custody. The request was denied, and the hearing on the plea in abatement was continued until after 10 January, 1957, to allow the husband to answer the plea. The wife did not participate in any of the further hearings respecting custody. However, she excepted to the judgment as entered and appealed. This is the only exception brought up with the appeal. We treat the exception as challenging the correctness of the court’s refusal to hear the plea in abatement before going forward with the hearing on custody. The challenge will be sustained. The plea in abatement was a plea in bar. The court should have disposed of it before hearing the custody case on its merits. For this oversight the judgment as rendered in this case must be vacated. It is so ordered. Decision here in nowise affects the validity of the judgment rendered in the companion case.

Reversed.
EXHIBIT 13.2




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




In connection with the Annual Report of
Lorus Therapeutics Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended May 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Elizabeth Williams, Director of Finance and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 21, 2006




/s/ Elizabeth Williams Elizabeth Williams Director
of Finance and Acting Chief Financial Officer


---
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-2018-0025-4900

Arrowhead Electrical Products, 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 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
THIRD SUPPLEMENT DATED MARCH 29, 2000 TO THE

                 CONFIDENTIAL PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM DATED

                                DECEMBER 15, 1999

               WESTERN KENTUCKY LITHOTRIPTERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                  Western Kentucky Lithotripters Limited Partnership, a Kentucky
limited partnership (the "Partnership"),  by this Third Supplement hereby amends
and supplements its Confidential Private Placement Memorandum dated December 15,
1999, as amended and as supplemented (the "Memorandum").  Capitalized terms used
herein are defined in the Glossary appearing in the Memorandum. Persons who have
subscribed  for or are  considering  an  investment  in the Units offered by the
Memorandum should carefully review this Third Supplement.

Extension of the Offering

                  Pursuant to the authority  given to the General Partner in the
Memorandum, the General Partner hereby elects to extend the offering termination
date to April 7, 2000 (or earlier in the discretion of the General Partner, upon
the sale of all Units as provided in the Memorandum).
---

**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      John
      E. Bourgoin, certify, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on
      Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended
      September 30, 2007 (the “*Form 10-Q*”), to which this
      certificate is an exhibit 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.




Date:
                November 14, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                JOHN E. BOURGOIN
              *John
                  E. Bourgoin*
              *President
                and Chief Executive 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.
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-2018-0025-2659

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ADAMS GOLF, INC. AND
ITS SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,707
<SECURITIES>                                    10,497
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                       981
<INVENTORY>                                     19,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,623
<PP&E>                                          11,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,421
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,946
<SALES>                                         15,710
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,710
<CGS>                                            4,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,415
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   207
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,185)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,144)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,041)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,041)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7627]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal for the collection of information listed below has 
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35). Copies of the proposed collection of information and related form 
and explanatory material may be obtained by contacting the Bureau's 
clearance officer at the phone number listed below. Comments and 
suggestions on the requirements should be made directly to the Bureau 
clearance officer and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 
Reduction Project (1029-0048), Washington, D.C. 20503, telephone 202-
395-7340.

Title: Permanent Program Performance Standards--Underground Mining 
Activities, 30 CFR Part 817
OMB approval number: 1029-0048
Abstract: Sections 515 and 516 of Public Law 95-87 provide that 
permittees conducting surface mining operations with underground mining 
activities shall meet applicable performance standards of the Act. The 
information is used by the regulatory authority in monitoring and 
inspecting the operations for compliance with the Act.
Bureau form number: None
Frequency: On occasion, quarterly, and annually
Description of respondents: Underground Coal Mining Operators
Estimated Completion Time: 4 hours
Annual Responses: 74,933
Annual Burden Hours: 301,772
Bureau clearance officer: John A. Trelease (202) 343-1475

    Dated: January 10, 1995.
Andrew F. DeVito,
Chief, Branch of Environmental and Economic Analysis.
[FR Doc. 95-7627 Filed 3-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
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-2018-0025-3864

Yaesu USA 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5119 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide small businesses with 

additional time to file beneficial ownership information, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2023 

Mr. NUNN of Iowa (for himself and Mrs. BEATTY) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide small 

businesses with additional time to file beneficial ownership information, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Small Business 

5 and Prevent Illicit Financial Activity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP INFORMATION REPORT7 ING DEADLINES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. 

8 Section 5336(b)(1) of title 31, United States Code, 

9 is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5119 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (B)— 

2 (A) by inserting ‘‘(but which may not ad3 just the report submission deadline)’’ after 

4 ‘‘Treasury’’; and 

5 (B) by striking ‘‘in a timely manner, and’’; 

6 (2) in subparagraph (C)— 

7 (A) by inserting ‘‘(but which may not ad8 just the report submission deadline)’’ after 

9 ‘‘Treasury’’; and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘at the time of’’ and in11 serting ‘‘not later than 90 days after the date 

12 of such’’; 

13 (3) in subparagraph (D)— 

14 (A) by inserting ‘‘(but which may not ad15 just the report submission deadline)’’ after 

16 ‘‘Treasury’’; and 

17 (B) by striking ‘‘in a timely manner, and 

18 not later than 1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘not later 

19 than 90 days’’; and 

20 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(H) UNABLE TO OBTAIN.—FinCEN may 

22 not by rule, guidance, or otherwise, permit any 

23 reporting company from submitting a report re24 lating to the inability of the reporting company 

25 to obtain or identify information in the alterVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:02 Aug 18, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5119.IH H5119

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5119 IH

1 native to submitting a report required under 

2 this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 99.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors

Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated
balance sheet of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc., and its consolidated subsidiary as of June 30, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated
statement of changes in shareholders equity for the six-month period ended June 30, 2008 and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2008 and 2007. These consolidated financial statements are
the responsibility of the Companys management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope
than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express
such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them
to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated February 29, 2008 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.
|                        
|S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.    
|Steubenville, Ohio      
|August 11, 2008
#### In re MARRIAGE OF Eugene E. WILSON and Madonna M. Wilson. Eugene E. WILSON, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Madonna M. WILSON, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 61241.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Southern Division.

Nov. 3, 1992.

Patricia Ann Riehl, Hollingsworth & Associates, Hillsboro, for respondent/appellant.

William B. Beedie, Farmington, for petitioner/ respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment in a dissolution case. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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).
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-2018-0025-4916

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel