alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SAIDEE B. MEYER v. FENNER & BEANE and J. P. MIDDLEMAS.

(Filed 9 January, 1929.)

Pleadings — Demurrer—Effect of Demurrer — Gaming.

A demurrer to a complaint on tlie ground that its allegations were insufficient to constitute a cause of action will not be sustained if, taking the pleading in its entirety it is sufficient in one or more of its parts; and where the demurrer is that the contract sued on was a wagering one and no recovery could be had under C. S., 2144, 2145, and two causes of action are alleged, if only one of them should be good the demurrer should be overruled.

Appeal by defendant, J. P. Middlemas, from *McElroy, J.,*at September Term, 1928, of BuNcombe.

Plaintiff alleges that she had two classes of contracts with the defendants, Fenner & Beane, stock brokers, and their qgent or manager, J. P. Middlemas, which netted her losses by reason of breaches of said contracts on the part of the defendants:

First, contracts to buy stock on “margins.”

Second, contracts to purchase stock for actual delivery.

The defendant, J. P. Middlemas, demurred to the complaint on the ground that the contracts alleged were gaming contracts and therefore void under C. S., 2144 and 2145.

From a judgment overruling the demurrer, said defendant appeals, assigning error.

*J os. W. Little for plaintiff.*

*A. Hall Jobnston for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

Conceding that the first class of contracts may be void, because in violation of sections 2144 and 2145 of the Consolidated Statutes, still it would appear that the demurrer was properly overruled, as the second class of contracts does not seem to come within the purview of the statutes above mentioned. It is the established rule that where a general demurrer is filed to a complaint as a whole, if any *477count of tbe pleading is good and states a cause of action, the demurrer should be overruled. *Griffin v. Baker,*192 N. C., 297, 134 S. E., 651.

A complaint must be fatally defective before it will be rejected as insufficient. *Blackmore v. Winders,*144 N C., 215, 56 S. E., 874. If any portion of it, pr'to any extent, it presents facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or if facts sufficient for that purpose can be fairly gathered from it, the pleading will stand. *Brewer v. Wynne,*154 N. C., 467, 70 S. E., 947; *Hoke v. Glenn,*167 N. C., 594, 83 S. E., 807.

A demurrer goes to the heart of a pleading and challenges the right of the pleader to maintain his position in any view of the matter, admitting, for the purpose, the truth of the allegations of fact contained therein. *Brick Co. v. Gentry,*191 N. C., 636, 132 S. E., 800; *Wood v. Kincaid,*144 N. C., 393, 57 S. E., 4.

Affirmed.
PUBLIC VERSION OF BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL

VERSION 1 1

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.

 Public Version of BCI

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

 Please see attached.

3. 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/

 8419909580

4. Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First): Aliasso, Joe

Organization Name: IMA Life North America, Inc.

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

Requestor Representative: Jon P. Yormick, Phillips Lytle, LLP

5. Requestor’s relationship to the product: Importer

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

 Yes

7. Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential 

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

 Public Version of BCI
PUBLIC VERSION OF BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL

VERSION 1 2

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

 No.

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

 No.

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.

2017 Value: [ ] 2017 Quantity: [ ] PCS

2016 Value: [ ] 2016 Quantity: [ ] PCS

2015 Value: [ ] 2015 Quantity: [ ] PCS

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).

 Please see attached.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2228

Molekule, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

_05.09.19.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,

Joseph Barloon

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-2018-0025-2005

REHAU Automotive LLC:

This letter concerns the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the 

notice published at 83 FR 32181 (‘July 11 notice’). I am pleased to notify you that although 

your individual request previously had been denied, the United States Trade Representative – in 

response to other requests – has determined to grant an exclusion that covers the product 

described in your request. This 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 responsive 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
**EXHIBIT99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, James W. Klingler,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report Troy Group, Inc.on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2002 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q/A fairly presents inall material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TroyGroup, Inc.

 
|   | By:                                           | /s/James W. Klingler |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------|
|   | Name: James W. Klingler                       |
|   | Title: Chief Financial  Officer and Secretary |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of Integrated Process Equipment Corp. (the "Company") on Form S-8 (Registration
No. 33-79178) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission") on May 20, 1994, the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8
(Registration No. 33-80936) filed with the Commission on June 28, 1994, the
Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 Amendment No. 3 (Registration No.
33-90384) filed with the Commission on May 12, 1995, the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-16287) filed with the Commission on
November 18, 1996 (the "1996 S-3") and Amendment No. 1 to the 1996 S-3 filed
with the Commission on January 17, 1997, of our report dated August 18, 1995, on
our audits of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of June
30, 1995 and for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, which
report is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended.



/s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP
------------------------------------

New York, New York
January 14, 1997


                                       7
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In Re: Thomas Laughner

No. 06-14-00184-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the 

relief sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED OCTOBER 22, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7562]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Notice

    Before Administrative Judges: Peter B. Bloch, Chair, Dr. James 
H. Carpenter, Thomas D. Murphy.
[Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 50-425-OLA-3; Re: License Amendment (Transfer 
to Southern Nuclear) ASLBP No. 96-671-01-0LA-3]
March 22, 1995.
    In the matter of Georgia Power Company, et al.; (Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
    Pursuant to 10 CFR Sec. 2.752, we will hold a public evidentiary 
hearing beginning at 9 am on April 17, 1995, at the Hearing Room (T 3 
B45), Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence concerning 
alleged misrepresentations about diesel generators at the Vogtle 
Nuclear Power Plant. The first week of hearing may include Saturday 
April 22. Thereafter, the hearing will recess until May 17. It will 
reconvene on that date at a place that is to be determined in light of 
the needs of the parties.

    For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Peter B. Bloch,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 95-7562 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
** **

** **

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-54356) of our reportdated, January 23, 2003,  with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of M-Systems Flash Disk Pioneers Ltd. included in the Annual Report(Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
| Tel-Aviv, Israel |   | /s/ KOST FORER and GABBAY            |
|------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| May 25, 2003     |   | A Member of Ernst & Young Global |

 

 

 

 

____(1)____
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAGDALENO LUNA-VARGAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74281

Agency No. A092-546-612

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Magdaleno Luna-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming

FILED

APR 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74281

an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review.

Luna-Vargas’ sole contention is that the IJ violated due process because his

adverse credibility determination relied in part on a statement from a smuggled

alien who was not present to testify. We lack jurisdiction to review this contention

because Luna-Vargas failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358

F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th

Cir. 2004) (“A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a

general challenge to the IJ’s decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form

the basis of the appeal.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7177]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Corporation for Open Systems International

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 22, 1994, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Corporation for Open 
Systems International (``COS'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, the changes are as follows: 1) Anritsu 
Wiltron, Morgan Hill, CA, and Hitachi Telecom, Norcross, GA, became 
Associates of COS's SONET Interoperability Forum (the ``Forum'') on 
November 30, 1994, and September 27, 1994, respectively; (2) DSET 
Corporation, Bridgewater, NJ, and Open Networks Engineering, Inc., Ann 
Arbor, MI, became Auditing Members of the Forum on October 20, 1994, 
and September 30, 1994, respectively; (3) Vivo Software, Inc., Waltham, 
MA, became an Associate of COS's Video Teleconferencing Executive 
Interest Group on November 11, 1994.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activities of COS. Membership in COS remains open, and COS intends to 
file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On May 14, 1986, COS filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 11, 
1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 21260).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
28, 1994. This notice has not yet been published in the Federal 
Register.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7177 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### T-1, INC., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. John W. HARDIE and Marilyn J. Hardie, Defendants/Appellants.

Nos. 62971, 63291.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Aug. 3, 1993.

Kevin M. Sirop, Chesterfield, for defendant-appellant.

Robert J. Brummond, Lawrence S. Denk, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff entered into a contract with partnership. This contract required partnership to purchase plaintiff’s interest in a limited partnership. Defendants guaranteed the contract. When the partnership refused to purchase, plaintiff brought suit on defendants’ guarantee. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which was granted. Defendants appeal.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have *311no precedential value. 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).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3039

Compass Innovations, 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

d0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138286 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138286 

 COA: 289519 

Wayne CC: 05-012119-FC 

CARL WINFRED BROOKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 2, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
Exhibit 10.1
    

    

    

    
      AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE COPYTELE, INC. 2010 SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN
    

    

    

    
      By resolution of the Board of Directors of CopyTele, Inc. on July 6,
      2011, the Board of Directors approved an amendment to the CopyTele, Inc
      2010 Share Incentive Plan to increase the number of shares of Common
      Stock that may be issued thereunder from 15,000,000 to 27,000,000.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 99



                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT


Board of Directors
Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck
Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 2001 and the related consolidated
statements of income and cash flows for the six-month and three month periods
ended June 30, 2001 and 2000 and the consolidated statement of changes in
shareholders' equity for the six month period ended June 30, 2001. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 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 generally accepted auditing standards, 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 generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated February 27, 2001 we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2000, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

/s/S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.


Steubenville, Ohio
August 8, 2001

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
626 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, Ohio 43952-1982
Phone: 740-282-2771
Facsimile: 740-282-1606