alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2494

CHARLES W. KENDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICEMAX, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-133-2) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles W. Kendle, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Lucas, KristinaHelen Vaquera, Ruth Goodboe, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Charles W. Kendle appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kendle v. OfficeMax, Inc. , No. CA-00-133-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2000). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9819]



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


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Amendment to Tribal/State Compact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2710, of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-497), the Secretary of the Interior 
shall publish, in the Federal Register, notice of approved Tribal/State 
Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III (casino) gaming on 
Indian reservations. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, through her delegated authority, has 
approved the Amendment to the Tribal/State Gaming Compact Between the 
Squaxin Island Tribe and the State of Washington executed on January 
26, 1995.

DATES: This action is effective April 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Indian 
Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 
20240. (202) 219-4068.

    Dated: April 4, 1995.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-9819 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9422]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Financial Assistance Award: Tiby M. Martin

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy announces that pursuant to 10 
CFR 600.6(a)(2) it is making a financial assistance award under Grant 
Number DE-FG01-95EE15620 to Tiby M. Martin. The proposed grant will 
provide funding in the estimated amount of $99,000 by the Department of 
Energy for the purpose of saving energy through development of the 
inventor's ``High Pressure Common Rail System'' that will enable 
development of future higher efficiency, low emissions diesel engines. 
This award will be made 14 calendar days after publication to allow for 
public comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Energy has determined in 
accordance with 10 CFR 600.14(e)(1) that the unsolicited application 
for financial assistance submitted by Tiby M. Martin is meritorious 
based on the general evaluation required by 10 CFR 600.14(d) and the 
proposed project represents a unique idea that would not be eligible 
for financial assistance under a recent, current or planned 
solicitation. This new high pressure technology will provide better 
fuel atomization and shorter duration therefore achieving a more 
complete fuel burn resulting in improved fuel economy and cleaner 
emissions. The effort will be toward the development of a prototype 
system consisting of the common rail with injectors and electronic 
control module which will then be tested across pump speeds, injection 
pressures and fuel outputs. The proposed project is not eligible for 
financial assistance under a recent, current or planned solicitation 
because the funding program, the Energy Related Invention Program 
(ERIP), has been structured since its beginning in 1975 to operate 
without competitive solicitations because the authorizing legislation 
directs ERIP to provide support for worthy ideas submitted by the 
public. The program has never issued and has no plans to issue a 
competitive solicitation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please write the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Placement and Administration, ATTN: Rose Mason, HR-
531.21, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585.
    The anticipated term of the proposed grant is 36 months from the 
date of award.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 6, 1995.
Lynn Warner,
Contracting Officer, Office of Placement and Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-9422 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
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-2018-0025-7640

United Scope LLC: 

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
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. See 4th 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 opinion 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
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
§1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Terry G.
Roussel and Sharon C. Kaiser, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Cornerstone
Core Properties REIT, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three -month period ended
September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of  Cornerstone Core Properties REIT,
Inc.





/s/
      TERRY G. ROUSSELDate:  November
      11, 2008
                Terry
      G. RousselChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)





/s/
      SHARON C. KAISERDate:  November
      11, 2008
                Sharon
      C. KaiserChief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5498 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to provide to certain aliens covered 

shelter or housing on military installations located in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS (for herself and Mr. CARTER of Texas) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to provide to certain 

aliens covered shelter or housing on military installations 

located in the United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO 

4 PROVIDE SHELTER OR HOUSING ON CERTAIN 

5 MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO CERTAIN 

6 ALIENS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds authorized to 

8 be appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal 

9 year made be used to provide covered shelter or housing 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5498 IH

1 for specified aliens on military installations located in any 

2 of the 50 States or the District of Columbia. 

3 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 (1) The term ‘‘covered shelter or housing’’ 

5 means shelter or housing provided to specified aliens 

6 pursuant to an applicable Federal, State, or local 

7 law, regulation, or order. 

8 (2) The term ‘‘military installation’’ has the 

9 meaning given such term in section 2801 of title 10, 

10 United States Code. 

11 (3) The term ‘‘specified alien’’ means an alien 

12 (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and 

13 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) who has not 

14 been admitted (as defined in such section). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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-2018-0025-7818

Nissan North America, 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Order entered December 9, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01455-CV

VENATOR MATERIALS PLC, ET AL., Appellants

V.

MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND FIREMEN’S 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02030

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed December 5, 2019 motion for extension of 

time to file their brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellants’ brief due on or before 

January 22, 2020.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
#### JOHN BROWN & COMPANY, Respondent, v. OAK PARK BANK, Appellant.

No. WD 50325.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 27, 1995.

Timothy J. Murphy, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jon Bortnick, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding commission for the sale of real estate to the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Larry K. WARREN and Larry K. Warren, Jr., a Minor, By and Though His Mother and Next Friend, Elizabeth M. Warren, Appellants, v. Kimberly THOMPSON and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. WD 47124.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 12, 1993.

*514Dennis D. Goodden, Independence, for appellants.

Danna D. Brabender, Kansas City, for respondent Kimberly Thompson.

Patrick Mark Reidy, Kansas City, for respondent American Family Mut. Ins. Co.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BERREY and SMART, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

In a negligence action resulting from an automobile collision, the jury rendered verdicts against the plaintiffs, Larry K. Warren and his minor son, Larry, Jr. The Warrens moved for a new trial on the ground that the jury verdict was against the weight of evidence. After the trial court overruled that motion, the Warrens instituted this appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Because the plaintiff has the burden of proof, a verdict in defendant’s favor need not be supported by any evidence. *Bakelite Co. v. Miller,*372 *S.W.2d*867, 871-72 (Mo.1963). Therefore, the evidence need not be recounted because the sufficiency of the evidence to support a defendant’s verdict is not a question amenable to appellate review. *Id.*

The Warrens’ sole point on appeal presents nothing for appellate review. The Warrens assert error in the trial court’s denying them a new trial on the ground that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. However, weighing evidence remains a trial court function. *Castle v. Modern Farm Equip. Co.,*729 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Mo.App.1987). An appellate court cannot rule on the weight of the evidence in a jury-tried case. *George v. Eaton,*789 S.W.2d 56, 61 (Mo.App.1990).

Reasons for this longstanding rule abound. The plaintiff bears the burden to prove that the defendant was negligent and that the injuries directly resulted from the defendant’s negligence. *Joseph v. Orscheln Bros. Truck Line, Inc.,*609 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Mo.App.1980). When the plaintiff relies on evidence that is not legally conclusive, the defendant need not present evidentiary support and may rest on the plaintiffs failure to meet the burden of proof. *Bakelite,*372 S.W.2d at 872. The jury determines credibility. *Castle,*729 S.W.2d at 653. The trial court alone has discretion to grant or deny a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. *Gambrell v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club,*621 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Mo.App.1981); *Joseph,*609 S.W.2d at 240. The trial court’s overruling a motion for new trial on that ground constitutes a conclusive determination that cannot be overturned on appeal. *Bakelite,*372 S.W.2d at 872; *Gambrell,*621 S.W.2d at 385; *Joseph,*609 S.W.2d at 240.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
China TMK Battery Systems Inc.: Exhibit 10.26 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.26

Summary of Credit Facility Contract of (the “Contract”) entered
into by and 
between Shenzhen Sanjun Battery Co., Ltd. (“Party A”) and Bank
of China Shenzhen 
Futian Branch (“Party B”) on June 18, 2008. 

Main Contents:


Contract Number: [2009] Zhen Zhongyin Fuer Zi No.050107

Party B provides revolving credit facility to Party A. The
amount of the credit facility under this Contract is RMB19,000,000. 

The term of the credit facility is from the date of this
Contract to June 18th, 2010, and can be extended through mutual
agreement. 

Conditions to grant the credit facility:


	 	1. 	
      Leave the signature and chop of Party A with Party B and
      fill in relevant forms;

	 	 	 
	 	2. 	
      Open a bank account to be used for the credit
      facility;

	 	 	 
	 	3. 	
      Wu Hetian as the shareholder and legal representative of
      Party A provides personal guaranty;

	 	 	 
	 	4. 	
      Party A and Party B together with Pingan Insurance enter
      into a Tri-Party Transfer of Compensation Agreement;

	 	 	 
	 	5. 	
      Party A pays Party B a loan usage fee of 0.5% of the
      amount of the loan.



Security: 

Wu Hetian provides maximum amount guaranty, and enters into a
maximum amount guaranty agreement.

The followings are omitted: 

	Representations and Warranties
  
	Reservation of right
  
	Event of Default
  
	Dispute Resolution
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Byron JACKSON, Defendant/Appellant. Byron JACKSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 60206, 61997.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 18, 1993.

Judith C. LaRose, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Runzi, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*433ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986 (Count I), attempted first degree robbery, § 564.011, RSMo 1986 (Count II), and two counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986 (Counts III and IV). He was sentenced by the court as a persistent offender to prison terms of fifteen years on each of Counts I, III and IV, and ten years on Count II. Counts I, III, and IV were to be served consecutively and Count II was to run concurrent to the other charges.

After sentencing, defendant filed a *pro se*Rule 29.15 motion, which was later amended after appointment of counsel. The motion court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing. Pursuant to Rule 29.15(l) these appeals have been consolidated. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 20079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9968]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Depot Maintenance Operations 
and Management

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Depot Maintenance 
Operations and Management will meet in closed session on May 2, 1995 at 
the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia. In order for the Task Force to 
obtain time sensitive classified briefings, critical to the 
understanding of the issues, this meeting is scheduled on short notice.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will provide advice, recommendations and suggested 
implementations for improvements to the Department's depot maintenance 
operations.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting, concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly this meeting 
will be closed to the public.

    Dated: April 18, 1995.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-9968 Filed 4-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M