alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hoffer *v.*Carlisle Community Hotel Company (et al., Appellant).

Argued March 15, 1938.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker and Rhodes, JJ.

*458
      *Joseph P. McKeehan,*for appellant.

*E. M. Biddle, Jr.,*with him *Hyman Goldstein,*for appellee.

April 13, 1938:

Per Curiam,

On June 12, 1937, on petition of the sheriff of Cumberland County, a rule was granted to show cause why an issue in interpleader should not be awarded to determine the ownership of certain personal property levied on by the sheriff under a writ of fieri facias issued on a judgment obtained by Charles C. Hoffer against Carlisle Community Hotel Company, which property was claimed by Carlisle Deposit Bank and Trust Company, Trustee.

On October 19, 1937 the court entered an order discharging the rule for an interpleader and directing the sheriff to surrender the property levied upon to the claimant. During the continuance of the term, and following a petition of the execution creditor to vacate temporarily the order of October 19, 1937, the court, on November 2,1937, made the following order: “And now, November 2,1937, the order made October 19,1937, discharging the rule for interpleader, is hereby vacated, and claimant having objected to this order, an exception is granted.” From this order the claimant appealed to this court.

The execution creditor has moved to quash the appeal on the ground that the order appealed from was interlocutory, and that there is no statutory authority for an appeal from such an interlocutory order.

The court of common pleas has power, on proper occasion, during the continuance of the term, to vacate an order found by it to have been improvidently en*459tered. Whether the action was proper may he inquired into when the rule, which was reinstated by such vacation, is finally disposed of.

The order of vacation was, in the circumstances, interlocutory, and no statutory authority for an appeal exists until the pending rule is discharged or, in case the rule is made absolute, the issue is tried and determined.

The practice is governed by our ruling in *Wruble v. Day,*34 Pa. Superior Ct. 100, where an appeal from an interlocutory order in similar circumstances was quashed.

Appeal quashed.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1141

To provide duty-free treatment for certain steam or other vapor generating

boilers used in nuclear facilities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 2001

Mr. COLLINS (for himself, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, and Mr. TANNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means

A BILL

To provide duty-free treatment for certain steam or other

vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Generator Tariff

5 Elimination Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN BOILERS

7 USED IN NUCLEAR FACILITIES.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 84 of the Harmonized

9 Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by strik10 ing subheading 8402.11.00 and inserting the following
2

•HR 1141 IH

1 new subheadings, with the article description for sub2 heading 8402.11 having the same degree of indentation

3 as the article description for subheading 8402.12.00:

‘‘ 8402.11 Watertube boilers with a steam

production exceeding 45 t per

hour ............................................

8402.11.10 For use in nuclear reactors .... Free 45%

8402.11.20 Other ....................................... 5.2% Free (A, CA,

E, IL, J, MX)

45%

’’.

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by

6 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered,

7 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on

8 or after the 15th day after the date of the enact9 ment of this Act.

10 (2) APPLICATION TO LIQUIDATIONS OR RELIQ11 UIDATIONS.—Notwithstanding section 514 of the

12 Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law and

13 subject to paragraph (3), any article described in

14 subheading 8402.11.10 of the Harmonized Tariff

15 Schedule of the United States, as added by sub16 section (a) that was entered, or withdrawn from

17 warehouse for consumption—

18 (A) on or after January 1, 2000, and

19 (B) before the date that is 15 days after

20 the date of the enactment of this Act,

21 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if such sub22 heading 8402.11.10 applied to such entry or with23 drawal, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall re-
3

•HR 1141 IH

1 fund any excess duty paid with respect to such

2 entry.

3 (3) REQUESTS.—Liquidation or reliquidation

4 may be made under paragraph (2) with respect to

5 any entry only if a request therefor is filed with the

6 Customs Service, within 180 days after the date of

7 the enactment of this Act, that contains sufficient

8 information to enable the Customs Service—

9 (A) to locate the entry; or

10 (B) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be

11 located.

Æ
#### Victor E. Basile, Jr., Appellant, v Maniktala Associates, P. C., et al., Respondents.

Order affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Murphy, J. All concur, Lowery, J., not participating. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.—dismiss causes of action.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
                   Appendix A to Item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
                       Commercial and Industrial Companies
                           Article 5 of Regulation S-X
                      (in Thousands except per share data)
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                           3,048
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    202,166
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               230,737
<PP&E>                                         178,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,036
<BONDS>                                         13,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           193
<OTHER-SE>                                     249,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   396,879
<SALES>                                        179,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               179,911
<CGS>                                          111,596
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    608
<INCOME-TAX>                                       256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                352
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       352
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
1Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) states, in relevant part:

If service of the summons and complaint is not made

upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of

the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own

initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss

the action without prejudice as to that defendant or

direct that service be effected within a specified

time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause

for the failure, the court shall extend the time for

service for an appropriate period.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Arthur Lubin, et al.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-103-SM

ET Transportation Services, Inc.

O R D E R

A review of court records indicates that the complaint in

this action was filed on March 20, 2006, and that no proof of

service of the summons and complaint has been filed as required

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)1.

The plaintiff is directed to serve the summons and complaint

on the defendant(s) and to file proof of that service with the

Clerk of Court on or before July 20, 2006. If the defendant(s)

is not served with the summons and complaint on or before that

Case 1:06-cv-00103-SM Document 7 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 2
2

date, and if the plaintiff fails to show cause in writing why

service has not been effected, a report and recommendation will

be made to the assigned United States District Court Judge that

the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. R. 4 and 41.

The plaintiff is directed to contact the Clerk of Court’s

Office for this judicial district at 55 Pleasant Street, Concord,

New Hampshire 03301, telephone number 603-225-1423, for any

procedural assistance he may require.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 8, 2006

cc: Arthur Lubin, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00103-SM Document 7 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 2
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-079-01-PB

Dorothy Collins

O R D E R

On August 22, 2011, defendant appeared for a preliminary 

hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on three alleged violations 

of conditions of supervision, as charged in the government's 

petition dated August 18, 2011 (doc. no. 139). Defendant is on 

release from her conviction in 2007 for Interference with 

Commerce by Threats or Violence, Possession of a Firearm with an 

Obliterated Serial Number, and Possession of a Firearm by a 

Convicted Felon.

The government alleges that, while on supervised release, 

defendant violated the conditions of her release by committing 

the crimes of illegal possession and use of a controlled 

substance (Standard Conditions #1 and #3) and failing to enroll 

in a program for narcotic addiction or drug or alcohol 

dependency (Standard Condition #2). The defendant waived the 

preliminary hearing, thereby conceding that the government’s 

Case 1:06-cr-00079-PB Document 144 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 3
2

evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause that she had 

violated the conditions as charged in the petition. 

Defendant sought release under Rule 32.1(a)(6). The 

government sought detention. Under Rule 32.1(a)(6), defendant 

bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing 

evidence that she will not flee and that she poses no danger to 

any other person or to the community. The court issued its 

ruling orally from the bench. The court incorporates its oral 

ruling herein, and for the reasons stated on the record, finds

that defendant did not meet her burden to show by clear and 

convincing evidence that her release, even on strict conditions, 

would pose no danger to any other person or the community. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained 

pending a final revocation hearing. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or his designated representative for confinement in a 

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody 

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On 

order of a court of the United States or on request of an 

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the 

Case 1:06-cr-00079-PB Document 144 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 3
3

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 23, 2011

 

cc: Daniel D. Lustenberger, Esq.

Debra M. Walsh, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00079-PB Document 144 Filed 08/23/11 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 99.1

#### CERTIFICATION 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 of Covance Inc. (Covance)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher A.
Kuebler, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

|(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 Covance.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 30, 2002

| | /s/ CHRISTOPHER A. KUEBLER                                                                                             
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Christopher A. Kuebler
      Chairman of the Board      and Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive Officer)

24
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated March 22, 2007 and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on March 29, 2007, (72 FR 14832), Roche Diagnostics Operation, Inc., Attn: Regulatory Compliance, 9115 Hauge Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
ScheduleLysergic acid diethylamide (7315)
IAlphamethadol (9605)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
ICocaine (9041)
IIEcgonine (9180)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMorphine (9300)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of diagnostic products for distribution to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substances listed. Dated: January 30, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator,  Office of Diversion Control,  Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E8-2141 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54169-54170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21741]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 20, 2008, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the

[[Page 54170]]

National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 
4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. 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, National 
Instruments, Austin, TX has been added as a party to this venture. 
Also, SEPT.Europe, Munich, GERMANY; Reid-Ashman Mfg., St. George, UT; 
Q-Star Test, HR Erugge, BELGUIM; Rood Technology GmbH Co., Nordlingen, 
GERMANY; BitifEye Digital Solutions GmbH, Boeblingen, GERMANY; 
Manufacturing Technology Center Semiconductor Company, Nagaolcakyo 
City, Kyoto, JAPAN; and Zhou Feng (individual member) Hougang, 
SINGAPORE have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On May 27, 2003, Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. 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 17, 2003 (68 FR 35913).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 4, 
2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 16, 2008 (73 FR 40883).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E8-21741 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert O'Brien, President, Director and Principal Financial Officer of Quad Metals Corporation (the Registrant) do 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 my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Registrant.

Date:  April 21, 2003

/s/Robert O'Brien

Robert O'Brien

President, Director and Principal Financial Officer
1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No

. 123,467

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appellee ,

v.

T RAVIS L EE H UFFSTUTLER , Appellant

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; J ASON G EIER , judge. Opinion filed June 18 , 202 1

. Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition under K.S.A. 20 20 Supp. 21

- 6820 (g) and (h).

B efore M ALONE , P .J., P OWELL and W ARNER , J J

.

P ER C URIAM : Travis Lee Huffstutler appeals the district court's decision imposing
a 60

- day jail sanction for his probation violation. We granted Huffstutler's motion for summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). The State has filed no response.

O n June 20, 2019, Huffstutler pled guilty to one count of burglary of a vehicle and
one count of misdemeanor theft for crimes committed in December 2018. On December 4, 2019, the district court imposed a controlling sentence of 16

- months ' imprisonment but

g ranted a dispositional departure to probation for 12 months.2 At a hearing on October 30, 2020, Huffstu t ler admitted to violating the conditions of his probation by " fail[ing] to remain law abiding. " At the request of both parties , the district court impos ed a 60

- day jail sanction and gave Huffstutler credit for the full 60 days that he had served

. The district court did not modify or extend the probation in any way. Huffstutler's counsel timely filed a notice of appeal.

The district court's imposition of the jail sanction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error
of fact. State v. Ingham , 3 08 Kan. 1466, 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018).

We are somewhat at a loss as to why Huffstutler has brought this appeal. Huffstutler admitted to violating his probation by failing to remain law abiding. The district court imposed the 60

- day jail sanction Huffstu tler requested, and the sanction was authorized under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22

- 3716(c)(9). Under these facts, the d istrict court
would have been within its discretion to revoke Huffstut ler's probation and order him to serve his original sentence. See K.S.A. 20 20 Supp. 22

- 3716(c)(7)(B) and (c)(7)(C). There
was no abuse of discretion by ordering the 60

- day jail sanction.

Affirmed.