alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Lynch, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy J. Cropper, J.), rendered on August 19, 1987, which convicted defendant, following his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced him to *ZVi*to 10 years’ imprisonment, is unanimously affirmed.

The Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and dismissed the second degree murder charge on the ground of lack of corroboration of the testimony of an unindicted accomplice. Thereafter, the People sought reargument at which time the court was advised of the existence of the testimony by a nonaccomplice witness which the Grand Jury had heard. The court, thus, concluded that the testimony "fairly and reasonably tend[ed] to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime” and reinstated the dismissed murder count. Defendant then pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree. On appeal, defendant contends that the court lacked the authority to reinstate a dismissed count of an indictment. We disagree. In that regard, it should be noted that the trial court was empowered to grant reargument. CPL 210.20, relied upon by defendant, is simply inapplicable to the instant situation. Indeed, there is no statutory provision preventing a Trial Judge from rectifying its prior error by reinstating a dismissed indictment upon reargument. To foreclose such action would require the People to go before a second or perhaps third Grand Jury, each Grand Jury hearing the same evidence as the first. Further, where there is a clearly erroneous dismissal of an indictment or count thereof, it is unreasonable to foreclose a court from reconsidering its previous determination, and there is no indication that the Legislature intended to preclude the Judge from reinstating an indictment or dismissed count upon rear*135gument. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro and Milonas, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3006-3007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-784]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board has submitted the 
following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office 
of Management and Budget for review and approval.

Summary of Proposal(s):

(1) Collection title: Application and Claim for Sickness Insurance 
Benefits
(2) Form(s) submitted: SI-1a, SI-1b, SI-3, SI-7, SI-8, ID-7H, ID-11A
(3) OMB Number: 3220-0039
(4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: January 31, 1995
(5) Type of request: Revision of a currently approved collection
(6) Respondents: Individuals or households
(7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 93,400
(8) Total annual responses: 333,600
(9) Total annual reporting hours: 33,591
(10) Collection description: Under Section 2 of the Railroad 
Unemployment Insurance Act, sickness benefits are provided for 
qualified railroad employees. The collection obtains information from 
employees and physicians needed for determining eligibility for and 
amount of such benefits.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Copies of the form and supporting 
documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance 
officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information collection 
should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 
North Rush [[Page 3007]] Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 and the 
OMB reviewer, Laura Oliven (202-395-7316), Office of Management and 
Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 
20503.
Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-784 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
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-2018-0025-4213

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7649]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Corps of Engineers


Proposal To Issue a Nationwide Permit

AGENCY: Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to a proposal to issue a 
new nationwide permit which was published in the Federal Register on 
Thursday, March 23, 1995, (60 FR 15439-15443). On page 15440, in the 
third column, paragraph d. should be replaced with the following 
language:
    d. The discharge is part of a single and complete project and that 
for any subdivision created or subdivided after March 6, 1995, the 
discharges authorized under this NWP may not exceed an aggregate total 
loss of waters of the United States of \1/2\ acre for the entire 
subdivision.

    Dated: March 23, 1995.
Michael L. Davis,
Chief, Regulatory Branch, Operations, Construction and Readiness 
Division, Directorate of Civil Work.
[FR Doc. 95-7649 Filed 3-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-92-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7475]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,049]


Hartz Mountain Corp., Harrison, NJ, Investigations Regarding 
Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance; Correction

    This notice corrects the notice for petition TA-W-30,049 which was 
published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1994 (59 FR 36791) in FR 
Document 94-17395.
    This revises the date received and the date of petition on the 
fifteenth line of the third and fourth columns in the appendix table on 
page 36791. The date received and the date of petition should both read 
``April 1, 1994'' in the third and fourth columns on the fifteenth line 
of the appendix table.

    Singed in Washington, DC., this 20th day of March, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-7475 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
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-2018-0025-4865

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
Motion Granted and Order filed June 15, 2022. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00622-CV

____________

ANSON DISTRIBUTING, LLC, Appellant

V.

STARCO IMPEX, INC. AND USA MILLENNIUM, LP, Appellees

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-42352

ORDER

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion for an extension if time to file its’

response and reply brief. The motion is granted. In accordance with our order of 

November 18, 2021, setting a briefing schedule:

• Appellant’s combined response and reply brief is due July 6, 2022

(word count 22,500); and

• Appellees’ reply brief is due July 27, 2022 (word count 7,500).

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Jewell.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6801

DANIEL T. LIPSCOMB , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SUPERINTENDENT JAMES F. WHITLEY; LIEUTENANT SAVILLE; CAPTAIN HEATH CUSTER , Defendants

- Appellees , and KIM BENSON, Jail Investigator; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BURRELL; LIEUTENANT COOPER; LIEUTENANT DERITO; SERGEANT MACKEY , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. ( 7:20

- cv - 00411

- EKD

- PMS )

Submitted : February 6, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6801 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 Daniel T. Lipscomb , Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Fessier , Brittany Elizabeth Shipley , TIMBERLAKE SMITH , Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6801 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Daniel T. Lipscomb seeks to appeal the district court’s order staying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment pending further briefing . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Lipsc omb seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. * Accordingly, we grant Lipscomb’s motion to amend his informal brief and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

* To the extent that Lipscomb seeks to appeal the district court’s final order, his premature filing is insufficient to serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment. See In re Bryson , 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005)

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6801 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
**Exhibit 99.3**

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

March  28, 2003

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K by Pillowtex Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2002 (the “Report”), as filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned, Michael T. Gannaway, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, doeshereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officer’s knowledge:

(1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78mor 78o(d)); and

(2)       The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the date first above written.

 

|   |   |   |                                               |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ MICHAEL T. GANNAWAY                            |
|   |   |   |                                                    |
|   |   |   | **Michael T. Gannaway****Chief Executive Officer** |
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS S E C O N D D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S CHIEF JUSTICE BONNIE SUDDERTH
JUSTICES ELIZABETH KERR J. WADE BIRDWELL DABNEY BASSEL DANA WOMACK MIKE WALLACH BRIAN WALKER TIM CURRY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER 401 W. BELKNAP, SUITE 9000 FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76196-0211 TEL: (817) 884-1900 FAX: (817) 884-1932 www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa CLERK DEBRA SPISAK
CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY LISA M. WEST
GENERAL COUNSEL CLARISSA HODGES February 17, 2022 Criminal District Clerk, Denton County P.O. Box 2146 Denton, TX 76202-2146 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
Hon. David L. Evans Regional Presiding Judge Tom Vandergriff Civil Courts Building 100 N. Calhoun, 4th Floor Fort Worth, TX 76196 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
Andrea Simmons Asst. Criminal District Attorney 1450 E. McKinney, Ste. 3100 Denton, TX 76202 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Hon. Robert Bruce McFarling Judge, 362nd District Court Denton County 1450 E. McKinney, Ste. 3431 Denton, TX 76209 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
Kristin R. Brown The Law Office of Kristin R. Brown, PLLC 17304 Preston Rd Ste 1250 Dallas, TX 75252-4632 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 02-20-00036-CR, 02-20-00037-CR, 02-20- 00038-CR Trial Court Case Number: F17-2958-431, F17-2959-431, F17-2960-431 Style: Derrick Walton
v. The State of Texas Today the Second Court of Appeals issued an opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause. Copies of the opinion and judgment are attached and can also be viewed on our Court’s webpage at: http://www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa

.02-20-00036-CR

February 17, 2022 Page 2 Respectfully yours, DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6940]



[[Page 14998]]

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application to Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Polaris Industries, Inc., Common Stock, $.01 Par 
Value) File No. 1-11411

March 15, 1995.
    Polaris Industries, Inc. (``Company'') has filed an application 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant 
to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and 
Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to withdraw the above specified 
security (``Security'') from listing and registration on the American 
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Amex'').
    The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    According to the Company, in addition to being listed on the Amex 
and the Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc. (``PSE'') the Security is listed 
on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''). The Security commenced 
trading on the NYSE at the opening of business on February 24, 1995, 
and concurrently therewith the Security was suspended from trading on 
the Amex.
    In making the decision to withdraw the Security from listing on the 
Amex, the Company considered the direct and indirect costs and expenses 
attendant on maintaining the listing of its securities on the NYSE, the 
Amex and the PSE. The Company does not see any particular advantage in 
the trading of the Security in both the Amex and the NYSE.
    Any interested person may, on or before April 6, 1995, submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts bearing upon whether 
the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the 
exchanges and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission 
for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the 
information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the 
application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission 
determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6940 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7996]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service


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

    The collection of information listed below has been submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for reapproval under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 
Copies of the proposed information collection and related forms may be 
obtained by contacting Dennis Jones at 303-231-3046. Comments and 
suggestions on this information collection should be made directly to 
the Bureau Clearance officer at the telephone number listed below and 
to the OMB, Paperwork Reduction Project (1010-0022), Washington, D.C. 
20503, telephone 202-395-7340.
    Title: Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance.
    OMB Approval Number: 1010-0022.
    Abstract: The Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance is submitted 
by those individual and companies producing minerals from leased Indian 
lands or from leased Federal onshore or offshore lands. Respondents 
report monthly the sales and royalties of oil, gas, and solid minerals 
taken from Federal and Indian lands. The Minerals Management Service 
(MMS) uses the data to monitor royalties received, for audits, and to 
compare reported sales data with production data reported in the MMS 
Production Accounting and Auditing System.
    Bureau Form Number: MMS-2014.
    Frequency: Monthly.
    Description of Respondents: Companies producing and processing 
minerals from Federal onshore or offshore leases, and from Indian 
leases.
    Estimated Completion Time: 3 or 7 minutes per reported line.
    Annual Responses: 2,000.
    Annual Burden Hours: 240,600.
    Bureau Clearance Officer: Arthur Quintana 703-787-1101.

    Dated: March 1, 1995.
James W. Shaw,
Associate Director for Royalty Management.
[FR Doc. 95-7996 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Paul Michael TUTER, Appellant.

No. 20475.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

March 19, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 9, 1996.

*112Thomas Patrick Deaton, Springfield, for appellant.

J. Ronald Carrier, Prosecuting Attorney, Robert V. Franson, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, Greene County, Springfield, for respondent.

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for driving while intoxicated. He contends the trial court:

> [Ejrred in overruling defendant’s motion to dismiss information to prevent double jeopardy because sentencing defendant for driving while intoxicated violated his Fifth Amendment freedom from double jeopardy in that the trial court sentenced defendant to pay a fine and to serve time in jail after a separate proceeding in which the Department of Revenue had already punished defendant for the same offense by revoking his license to drive for one year.

Under similar facts, the Missouri Supreme Court, in *State v. Mayo,*915 S.W.2d 758 (Mo.banc 1996), determined that the prohibition against double jeopardy does not bar a driving-while-intoxicated prosecution after a revocation or suspension, under Section 302.500, *et seq.,*RSMo 1994.

We are constitutionally bound to following the controlling decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court. *State v. Isom,*906 S.W.2d 870, 875 (Mo.App.1995); Article V, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution (1945). Under *Mayo,*there was no error.

The judgment is affirmed.

SHRUM, C.J., and PARRISH, J., concur.