alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eileen M. DAVIS, Respondent, v. William A. FRISELLA, Appellant.

No. 64915.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

March *7,*1995.

Charles P. Todt, Clayton, for appellant.

Thomas H. Nations, Clayton, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., and CARL r! GAERTNER and CRANE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William Frisella appeals from the judgment and decree modifying provisions of a *253dissolution decree pertaining to child custody and support. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are supported by the evidence, are not against the weight of the evidence and do not erroneously declare or apply the law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kenny WOODS, Appellant.

No. 66283.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 5, 1995.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered after his conviction by jury of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced defendant as a prior and persistent offender to five years imprisonment. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 80.25(b).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7360

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMANUEL S. MCCRAE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-106-BO; CA-03-420-5-BO) Submitted: July 2, 2004 Decided: July 22, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel S. McCrae, Appellant Pro Se. Felice McConnell Corpening, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal in which McCrae challenged the district court’s finding that his § 2255 motion was untimely under § 2255 ¶ 6(1). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Emmanuel S. McCrae appeals from the district court’s order denying as untimely his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We previously granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether remand is appropriate to determine when a duly diligent person would have discovered that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal after being asked to do so. * See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 6(4) (“A 1-year period of limitation shall . . . run from the latest of . . . the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”). The Government has responded, and McCrae has replied. See4th Cir. R. 22(a)(1)(B). Because the district court did not consider the timeliness of McCrae’s § 2255 motion pursuant to § 2255 ¶ 6(4) and because the record does not disclose when McCrae could have discovered with due diligence that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the court to determine whether the § 2255 motion is timely under § 2255 ¶ 6(4). We express no o pinion on the outcome of this determination. We dispense with oral argument because the facts- 3 - and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED
#### Diane EHRHART, Respondent, v. Thomas EHRHART, Appellant.

No. 55673.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Sept. 5, 1989.

Gregory Luzecky, St. Louis, for appellant.

Michael Gibbons, St. Louis, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Thomas Ehrhart (husband) appeals from order of protection issued by the circuit court pursuant to RSMo § 455.050 (1986). The order awarded primary custody of the parties’ four minor children to respondent Diane Ehrhart (wife), ordered husband to pay $44.00 per child per week child support and ordered husband to pay $300.00 in past due health *451insurance payments. Wife was ordered to pay $26.00 per week for the family health insurance. The order further enjoined husband from entering wife’s dwelling or otherwise abusing, threatening or disturbing the peace of wife. Husband argues on appeal that the court failed to hold a “hearing” within the meaning of RSMo § 455.040 (1986). We reverse and remand for a new hearing.

Wife filed a petition seeking protection from alleged abuse by husband. The court entered an ex parte order prohibiting husband from abusing, threatening or disturbing the peace of wife. Thereafter the court held a hearing to determine whether a full order of protection should be issued. At the hearing both husband and wife appeared in person and by counsel. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for husband and wife stipulated that the order of protection should be continued as a full order of protection. The court then conducted an inquiry as to custody and child support. The court variously directed questions at counsel and each of the parties. No witnesses were sworn nor was any documentary evidence offered. At the conclusion of the limited inquiry the court entered its order.

Husband argues that the court failed to conduct a hearing within the meaning of RSMo § 455.040 (1986). We agree. Nothing in the record indicates that the witnesses were sworn, no other evidence was offered at the hearing and counsel was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. In short, no adversarial proceeding of any kind occurred in a case which contained a contested issue. We thus hold that there is insufficient evidence in the record to uphold the award. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

We remand to the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing, on the record, pursuant to RSMo § 455.040 (1986).
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000038

21-MAY-2019

07:56 AM
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7166]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Silvio Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Advisory Committee 
Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of The Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, this notice announces a meeting of the Silvio Conte National Fish 
and Wildlife Refuge Advisory Committee established under the authority 
of The Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act.
    The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral 
statements to the Committee or may file written statements for 
consideration. Summary minutes of meeting will be maintained in the 
office of the Coordinator for the Silvio Conte National Fish and 
Wildlife Refuge Advisory Committee at 38 Avenue A, Turners Falls, MA 
01376, and will be available for public inspection during regular 
business hours (8:30-4:00) Monday through Friday within 30 days 
following the meeting. Personal copies may be purchased for the cost of 
duplication.

DATES: The Silvio Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Advisory 
Committee will meet from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 
19, 1995.

PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Fish and Wildlife Service's 
Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, 
Massachusetts.

TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION: Committee members will discuss outreach for the 
public comment period which follows publication of the draft 
Environmental Impact Statement. They will also discuss strategies for 
outreach and environmental education.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information individuals may contact Committee Coordinator 
Lawrence Bandolin at 413-863-0209.

    Dated: March 16, 1995.
Ronald E. Lambertson,
Regional Director, Region 5, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 95-7166 Filed 3-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOSHUA PEREZ-RIVERA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1737 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 7, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Samantha L. Ward, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Warren A. Zimmerman, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17526-17527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8435]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM95-7-23-001]


Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Filing of Corrected 
Tariff Sheets

March 31, 1995.
    Take notice that Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (ESNG) tendered 
for filing on March 28, 1995 certain substitute revised tariff sheets 
included in Appendix A attached to the filing. Such sheets are proposed 
to be effective April 1, 1995.
    On March 14, 1995, ESNG filed revised tariff sheets in Docket No. 
TM95-7-23-000 to track changes in Transco's fuel retention percentages 
and ESNG's pipeline suppliers' storage service rates, both to be 
effective April 1, 1995.
    ESNG has since discovered on its Schedule D1, Text ID 9, Working 
Paper #1, Page 2, Note 2, that when calculating its PS/FT Demand Charge 
the TBO Unit Rate of $0.0165 and the Zone 3 Electric Power Unit Rate of 
$0.0118 (from Transco's Firm Transportation Service Rates, 9th Revised 
Second Revised Sheet No. 40) were used twice, and therefore, the PS/FT 
Demand Charge was overstated by $0.0283. The substitute tariff sheets 
correct this overstatement.
    Additionally, ESNG is refiling its Fifth Revised Sheet No. 7 due on 
the final tariff sheet. ESNG on its redlined copy of Fifth Revised 
Sheet 7, in its original filing, changed from Fourth Revised Sheet No. 
7 to Fifth Revised No. 7, but failed to change the pagination number on 
its final tariff sheet. Included in this filing is a properly paginated 
Sheet No. 7.
    ESNG states that copies of the filing have been served upon its 
jurisdictional customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before April 7, 1995. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will [[Page 17527]] not serve to make protestants parties 
to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8435 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John McDonough, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—felony driving while intoxicated.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawrton and Davis, JJ.
#### Earl Darren BLACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 40629.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 6, 1988.

Jeffrey J. Rosanswank, Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and TURNAGE and COVINGTON, JJ.

*494ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial or Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).
# 

B1 1 0531 700000000 

523.4 

1?, 4 t tiA5 t 

S 1 *It bi-fkiit It 1t, 

TG53 . 17 fri # 

tiAMIX44R//',4 tft 

1•I0
| 1.     | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10Q for the quarter ended September 30,      2008 (the “Form 10Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;      and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
| 2.     | the      information contained in the Form 10Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form  10Q                                            |

| Dated:      November 14, 2008  | /s/ Chester P. Aldridge                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Chester      P. Aldridge                                                                          |
|                                | Chief      Executive Officer (Principal      Executive Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer) |
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

LARRY PARK, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3032 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 16, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Wayne Durden, Judge. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Wayne Durden, Judge. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Laurie Benoit-Knox, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KHOUZAM, C.J., and BLACK, JJ., and CASE, JAMES, R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40957

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDUARDO RAMIREZ-CARDENAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-98-CR-1047-1

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

June 13, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eduardo Ramirez-Cardenas appeals his jury conviction for

illegal entry after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326. RamirezCardenas argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that

he voluntarily entered the United States. The jury was free to

accept or reject Ramirez-Cardenas’ testimony that he was swept

across the Rio Grande River involuntarily, and his testimony did

not create a reasonable doubt rendering the Government’s evidence

insufficient as a matter of law. The jury chose not to believe

Ramirez-Cardenas’ contention that he involuntarily entered the
No. 99-40957

-2-

United States as a result of a near drowning experience. All

reasonable inferences and credibility choices are reviewed in

favor of the verdict, and the jury’s acceptance of the

Government’s version of what happened over Ramirez-Cardenas’

version was reasonable. United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987

F.2d 1129, 1131-32 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5413

Radio Systems Corp:

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

_5-30-2019.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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**WILLIAM HENRY COSBY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 58 MM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23 rd**  **day of May, 2016, the Application for Stay is** DENIED

**.**
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23



The Board of Directors
First State Bancorporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 
333-17727) on Form S-3, and (No. 33-92056 and No. 333-3048) on Form S-8 of First
State Bancorporation of our report dated January 28, 1999, relating to the 
consolidated balance sheets of First State Bancorporation and subsidiary as of 
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of 
operations, comprehensive income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each 
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report 
appears in the December 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K of First State 
Bancorporation.



KPMG LLP



Albuquerque, New Mexico
March 24, 1999
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6531

David C. Poole Company:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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
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-2018-0025-6977

D'Addario & Co.:

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel