alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### E. B. ATKINSON et al. v. THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE et al.

(Filed 28 June, 1933.)

Municipal Corporations F e — Evidence of fraud and collusion between officers and vendor held sufficient in action to set aside deed to city.

In this action to set aside and cancel a deed to a city on the ground of fraud and collusion between the officers of the city and the officers and stockholders of the vendor, the evidence is held to permit the inference that the sale was made without warrant of law, that the price paid was grossly excessive, and that certain city officers were financially interested in the transaction to the knowledge of the other defendants, and that the interests of the city were not adequately protected by those defendants charged with that duty, and the evidence is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Clement, J.,*at August Term, 1932, of BUNCOMBE.

Civil action by plaintiff, wbo sues on bebalf of bimself and other taxpayers, (1) to cancel deed from French Broad Cemetery Company to city of Asheville, purporting to convey 181.22 acres of land for cemetery purposes, on tbe ground of fraud and collusion between certain officers of tbe city and officers and stockholders of tbe cemetery company; and (2) for an accounting for funds thus wrongfully obtained from tbe city of Asheville. For a fuller statement of tbe case, see report on former appeal, *Atkinson v. Greene,*197 N. C., 118, 147 S. E., 811.

In tbe present suit, tbe city of Asheville has joined with tbe plaintiff in tbe prosecution of tbe action.

At tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence, there was a judgment of nonsuit, from wbicb plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*J. Q. Merrimon, Marcus Erwin and Alfred S. Barnard for plaintiff.*

*Robert M. Wells, A. Hall Johnston and Garter <& Garter for defendants, other than the city of Asheville.*

*37Stacy, C. J.

There is allegation to the effect, and the evidence permits the inference, though it may not compel the conclusion, that the sale in question was without adequate warrant of law; that the price paid was grossly excessive; that at least two of the city officials, to the knowledge of the other defendants, were financially interested in the transaction; and that the interests of the city of Asheville were not properly eared for by those of the defendants charged with such duty.

This evidence, it would seem, is sufficient to carry the case to the jury under the principles announced in *Brown v. R. R.,*188 N. C., 52, 123 S. E., 633, *S. v. Williams,*153 N. C., 595, 68 S. E., 900, and differentiates it from *Harrison v. New Bern, 193*N. C., 555, 137 S. E., 582, cited and relied upon by defendants.

¥e refrain from a discussion of the evidence, as its credibility is for the jury.

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-777]



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

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY
Agency for International Development


Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby 
given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid 
(ACVFA).

Date: January 25, 1995 (8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.)
Location: State Department

    The purposes of the meeting are: to determine strategies for 
educating the U.S. public on sustainable development and foreign 
assistance in the national interest; and to review USAID's draft 
``Partnership Initiative'' document.
    The meeting is free and open to the public. However, notification 
by January 20, 1995, through the Advisory Committee headquarters is 
required. Persons wishing to attend the meeting must call Lisa Douglas-
Watson (703) 351-0243 or Susan Saragi (703) 351-0244 or FAX (703) 351-
0228/0212. Persons attending must include their name, organization, 
birthdate and social security number for security purposes.

    Dated: December 28, 1994.
Louis C. Stamberg,
Office Director, Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation, Bureau 
for Humanitarian Response.
[FR Doc. 95-777 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5156

Bergstrom, 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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3046

Cardiac Science Corporation:

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7149]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ES-960-1420-00; ES-047166, Group 152, Wisconsin]


Filing of Plat of Survey; Wisconsin

    The plat of the survey of an island in the Milwaukee River, in 
section 14, Township 11 North, Range 21 East, Fourth Principal 
Meridian, Wisconsin, will be officially filed in Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., on May 1, 1995.
    The survey was requested by the District Manager, Milwaukee 
District Office, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
    All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the 
survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, 
Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 
22153, prior to 7:30 a.m. May 1, 1995.
    Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and 
prepayment of the reproduction fee of $2.75 per copy.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
Stephen G. Kopach,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 95-7149 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           545,258
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,696,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                     472,000
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,021,056
<PP&E>                                         7,044,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,336,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                35,413,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         27,727,248
<BONDS>                                       25,441,408
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         132,997
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,995,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  35,413,574
<SALES>                                        5,854,441
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,854,441
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 17,260,112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,702,287
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 472,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,656,858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (14,558,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (14,558,353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (14,558,353)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (2.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (2.33)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,117
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     34,023
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          24,614
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            25,141
<LOANS>                                        126,218
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,582
<DEPOSITS>                                     167,516
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,585
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                375
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,733
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,700
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 203,582
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,997
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,604
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   211
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,812
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,441
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,781
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,031
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,203
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,993
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,993
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.13
<LOANS-NON>                                        133
<LOANS-PAST>                                       176
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,745
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       74
<RECOVERIES>                                        31
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,792
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,781
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             11
        

</TABLE>
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

SEP 14 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CARL WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

SANDI B.,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 98-1087

(D.C. No. 97-D-2769)

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, 

(D. Colo.)

Defendant - Appellee.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining Plaintiff-Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist

the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 
-2-

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s

dismissal of his civil rights action and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis

[IFP] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court dismissed the action without

prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s previous orders

requiring him to cure several deficiencies in his complaint and his 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 motion. The district court also denied Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP on

appeal. He renews his motion to proceed IFP on appeal with this court.

From our review of the record, we cannot say that the district court erred in

dismissing Plaintiff’s action for failure to cure the deficiencies necessary to

proceed with his civil rights claim and to proceed IFP. The fact that Plaintiff’s

pro se pleadings are construed liberally under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972), and Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), does

not excuse the deficiencies in his pleadings. See Ogden v. San Juan County, 32

F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1090 (1995). Further,

Plaintiff still has not corrected the deficiencies in his 28 U.S.C. § 1915 motion

necessary to establish that he is entitled to proceed IFP on appeal. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2) & (b)(1). Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of his action without
1

 Because we affirm the court’s dismissal for failure to cure deficiencies,

we do not address the merits of Plaintiff’s claim that his constitutional rights were

deprived by the unlawful seizure of or interference with his incoming and

outgoing mail.

-3-

prejudice,1

 and we deny his motion to proceed IFP on appeal.

DENIED AND DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe McKay

Circuit Judge
Exhibit 32.1


                        Certification of CEO Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GAMCO Investors, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mario J.
Gabelli, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.


 /s/ Mario J. Gabelli
-------------------------------
Name:   Mario J. Gabelli
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Date:   May 10, 2007

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000896145
<NAME>                        OBJECTSOFT CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                          4,039,358
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                       5,900
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                4,225,721
<PP&E>                            586,454
<DEPRECIATION>                    128,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  4,982,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             214,706
<BONDS>                            38,335
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                              402
<OTHER-SE>                      4,728,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    4,982,161
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  441,130
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     424,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  927,653
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                329,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (1,240,695)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1






Exhibit 10.1




CHANGES TO COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors on May 3, 2010 and,

with respect to Edward J. Pettinella, by the Board of Directors on May 4, 2010




	 	 	 	 	 
	Edward J. Pettinella — President and Chief Executive Officer	 	 	 	 
	Option to Purchase Common Stock — value
	 	$	330,000	(1)
	Shares of Restricted Stock — value
	 	$	1,090,000	(2)






	 	 	 	 	 
	David P. Gardner — Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer	 	 	 	 
	Option to Purchase Common Stock — value
	 	$	125,750	(1)
	Shares of Restricted Stock — value
	 	$	427,250	(2)






	 	 	 	 	 
	Ann M. McCormick — Executive Vice President and General Counsel	 	 	 	 
	Option to Purchase Common Stock — value
	 	$	108,750	(1)
	Shares of Restricted Stock — value
	 	$	326,250	(2)






	 	 	 	 	 
	Scott Doyle — Senior Vice President	 	 	 	 
	Option to Purchase Common Stock — value
	 	$	87,500	(1)
	Shares of Restricted Stock — value
	 	$	262,500	(2)






	 	 	 	 	 
	John E. Smith — Senior Vice President	 	 	 	 
	Option to Purchase Common Stock — value
	 	$	71,250	(1)
	Shares of Restricted Stock — value
	 	$	213,750	(2)








	 	 	 
	(1)	 	In all cases, the grant date will be May 11, 2010 and the exercise price will be the
closing price of a share of the Common Stock of Home Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) as
reflected on the New York Stock Exchange on May 11, 2010 (the “Closing Price”). The number of
options to be granted will be calculated by dividing the awarded value by the value of each
option determined using the Black-Scholes formula. The options will be granted pursuant to
the Company’s 2008 Stock Benefit Plan, as amended, vest 20% on each of the first five grant
date anniversaries (May 11 of 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015) and terminate 10 years after
grant date.

	 
	(2)	 	In all cases, the shares of restricted stock will be granted on May 11, 2010 and the
number of shares of restricted stock to be granted will be calculated by dividing the awarded
value by the Closing Price. The restricted shares will be granted pursuant to the Company’s
2008 Stock Benefit Plan, as amended, and the restrictions will lapse 25% on each of the first
four grant date anniversaries (May 11 of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014).