alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## 2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
9-18-2006 

# C lo ve rl a nd Gr ee n v

. P A Mi l k M a rk

et in g B d

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2336

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" C lo ve rl a nd Gr e e n v

. P A M i l k M a rke t in g Bd " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 394. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/394

## PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 05-2336
CLOVERLAND-GREEN SPRING DAIRIES, INC., Appellant THOMAS E. MCGLINCHEY; GERTRUDE GIORGINI; SUE A. SPIGLER, (“Milk Consumers”) (Intervenors in D.C.)

v. PENNSYLVANIA MILK MARKETING BOARD; BOYD WOLFF*, in his capacity as member of the Board; LUKE F. BRUBAKER, Individually and as member of the Board; BARBARA GRUMBINE*, in her capacity as member of the Board; BOYD WOLFF, Individually; BARBARA GRUMBINE, Individually PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF MILK DEALERS (Intervenors in D.C.) (*Amended - See Clerk’s Order dated 6/29/05)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 99-cv-00487) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
Argued June 8, 2006 Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed September 1, 2006)

## 2 

## ORDER AMENDING PUBLISHED OPINION AMBRO, Circuit Judge IT IS NOW ORDERED that the publishe d Opinion in the above case filed September 1, 2006, be amended as follows: On page 41, note 17, penultimate line, insert the words “does not” before the word “resolve” and after “price)”, so th at the sentence ends “primarily concerned with price) does not resolve the constitutional problem.”.
By the Court,
/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge
Dated: September 18, 2006
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-33132, 333-80363, 333-07577) of CROWNFINANCIAL GROUP, INC., formerly M.H. MEYERSON & CO., INC., and in the related Prospectus and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-53410, 333-83371) pertaining to the Stock Option Plans of CROWN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., formerly M.H.MEYERSON & CO., INC., of our report dated April 21, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of CROWN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., formerly M.H. MEYERSON & CO., INC., included in this amended Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for theyear ended January 31, 2003. 

 

*/s/ VincentR. Vassallo, CPA*

*Sea Cliff, New York*

*March 9, 2004*
#### § 201.69 Furnishing information to competitor buyers.

No packer, dealer, or market agency, in connection with transactions subject to the provisions of the act, shall, in person, or through employed buyers, for the purpose of restricting or limiting competition, manipulating livestock prices, or controlling the movement of livestock, prior to, or during the conduct of, his buying operations: (a) Furnish competitor packers, dealers, market agencies, or their buyers or representatives, similarly engaged in buying livestock, with information concerning his proposed buying operations, such as the species, classes, volume of livestock to be purchased, or prices to be paid; or (b) furnish any other buying information to competitor buyers.

[19 FR 4531, July 22, 1954, as amended at 24 FR 3183, Apr. 24, 1959]
# C_2007092EN.01000502.xml

| 27.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4582 — HTA/CDPQ/GICSI/Budapest Airport)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 92/10)

On 15 March 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4582. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4582. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
SERVED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ARCTIC SLOPE NATIVE ASSOCIATION, LTD. 

DOCKET NO. F AA-2015-2437 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

REASSIGNING AND DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On September 5, 2015, Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin transferred to the 

Food and Drug Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge 

Goodwin to the undersigned. 

On November 2, 2015, Complainant's Counsel served a Withdrawal of Complaint stating 

that ''the parties have reached a settlement." Accordingly, pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.215, this 

proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Complainant shall send the Judge and the Docket a copy of any compromise order or 

final order assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Richard D. Monkman, Respondent's Counsel 

Sonosky, Chamber, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP 

900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 700 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AAL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West 7ili A venue, Box 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5271 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

Docket No. FAA-2015-2437 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
Order filed October 27 , 2022



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 21 9

- C R

__________
IN RE EDDIE DALE UNDERWOOD

Original Mandamus Proceeding

O R D E R

We have reviewed the “Motion to Recus e App ellate Judges ” filed in this cause

on October 18, 2022
, as it pertains to seeking the recusal of Justice W. Bruce

Williams

. Pursuant to Rule 16.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

Justice Williams has considered the motion in chambers. Justice Williams has found no reason to recuse himself and, pursuant to Rule 16.3(b), has certified the issue to the entire court for a determination by the other justices of this court. 1 See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 16.3(b). Chief Justice John M. Bailey and Justice W. Stacy Trotter

have decided the matter without Justice Williams’s participation

.

1 A copy of Justice Williams ’s written certification is attached to this order.2 The recusal of appellate court justices is controlled by Rule 16 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The grounds for recusal of an appellate court justice

are provided in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 16.2; see

T EX

. R. C IV

. P . 18b. We find no reason for Justice Williams to recuse himself and hold that none of the grounds set out in Rule 18b are applicable to J ustice Williams

in this case. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P . 18b ; see also Manges v. Guerra , 673 S.W.2d 180,

185 (Tex. 1984); McCullough v. Kitzman , 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2001, pet. denied). The request for the recusal of Justice W. Bruce Williams is denied.

PER CURIAM

October 27 , 202 2 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., and Trotter , J.

Williams , J., not participating.
#### § 351.17 Identification required.

Certified technical animal fats being exported directly from a certified plant or transferred between certified plants for storage for export are subject to the requirements of § 325.11 of this chapter. In addition, such shipments between certified plants shall be accompanied by MP Form 85 (Declaration to Accompany Technical Animal Fats Between Certified Technical Animal Fat Plants)[2] prepared by the operator of the certified plant from which shipment is made, certifying that the product has been obtained by rendering raw materials derived from federally or State inspected and passed carcasses, or parts of carcasses. Technical animal fat described on MP Form 85 as tallow must meet the definition of “Tallow” in § 351.2.

###### Footnotes -
  351.17

[2] Copy filed as part of the original document.
#### § 381.89 Bruises.

Any part of a carcass which is badly bruised shall be condemned and, if the whole carcass is affected as a result of the bruise, the whole carcass shall be condemned. Parts of a carcass which show only slight reddening from a bruise may be passed for food.
# C_2011319EN.01002202.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/22

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — ClientEarth v Council

(Case T-452/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Manifest inadmissibility)

2011/C 319/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Hockman QC, and P. Kirch, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: C. Fekete and B. Driessen, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervening parties on behalf of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by C. Vang and S. Juul Jørgensen Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by H. Leppo and M. Pere, Agents); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by K. Petkovska, A. Falk, S. Johannesson and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents)

Intervening parties on behalf of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Council decision of 26 July 2010 refusing to grant the applicant full access to an opinion of the Council’s Legal Service (Document No 6865/09) on the European Parliament’s draft amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | ClientEarth shall bear its own costs and also pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ClientEarth shall bear its own costs and also pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

1

---
### §1393. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–492, title I, §107(b), Oct. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1482

Section, Pub. L. 89–563, title I, §104, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 93–492, title I, §107(a), Oct. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1481, provided for National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council; subsec. (a) relating to establishment and membership of Council, representative of the general public, publication of names of members, and selection of Chairman; subsec. (b) relating to consultations with Secretary of Transportation; and subsec. (c) relating to compensation and travel expenses of members.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Section 107(b) of Pub. L. 93–492 provided that the repeal of this section is effective Oct. 1, 1977, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–272, §7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379.
INTHE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF MONTANA AF 06-0216
IN THEMATTER OF THE SUPREME COURT COMMISSION ON TECHNOLOGY 

# ORIGINAL
ORDER

The terms ofPeg Allison, the Honorable Audrey Barger, Representative Kenneth Holmlund, the Honorable Larry Carver, P. Mars Scott, and the Honorable Randal Spaulding on theMontana Supreme Court Commission on Technology have expired. The term ofJohn Mudd will expire on April 1, 2022. The Courtthanks each ofthem for their service to the Commission, to this Court, and to the people ofMontana. IT IS ORDERED that Peg Allison, the Honorable Audrey Barger, Representative Kenneth Holmlund, P. Mars Scott, and the Honorable Randal Spaulding are hereby reappointed to the Commission on Technology for terms expiring on October 31, 2024. John Mudd or his designee is hereby reappointed to the Commission for a term expiring April 1, 2025. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Honorable Stacey Nerison is hereby appointed to replace the Honorable Larry Carver for a term expiring October 21,2024. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to PegAllison, the Honorable Audrey Barger, the Honorable Larry Carver, Representative Kenneth Holmlund, the Honorable Stacey Nerison, P. Mars Scott, the Honorable Randal Spaulding, John Mudd, each member ofthe Commission on Technology, and tothe State Bar ofMontana. DATEDthis 15 day ofFebruary, 2022.



### FEB 1 5 2022 Bowen Grt.t rivvood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ChiefJustice 02/16/2022

Case Number: AF 06-0216

# (

i , A _ il , . 5
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Public-Private Partnership Accepting Technical Assistance Applications 

for Rural Capacity Building 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11, 2019 – Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett today 

announced that USDA and four of its partners are accepting applications from rural communities and regions 

for technical assistance to implement economic development planning projects.

USDA and its partners will review the applications as part of the Rural Economic Development Innovation 

(REDI) initiative. USDA is partnering with the National Association of Counties, Rural Community Assistance

Partnership, McClure Engineering Company, and Purdue University Extension/Community & Economic 

Development Initiative of Kentucky.

Successful applicants will receive free technical assistance to develop and implement rural economic 

development plans. Rural communities with 50,000 or fewer people are eligible to apply. Applications will be 

scored, reviewed and selected on a competitive basis.

Interested parties can learn more about this initiative during a webinar on Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2019, at 1:00 PM

EST.

Contact RD.Innovation@osec.usda.gov to request an application. The application deadline is April 5, 2019. 

#
#### § 77.8 Interstate movement from accredited-free States and zones.

Cattle or bison that originate in an accredited-free State or zone may be moved interstate in accordance with 9 CFR part 86 without further restriction under this part.

[78 FR 2065, Jan. 9, 2013]
#### § 329.4 Notification of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over article or livestock detained; form of written notification.

Within 48 hours after the detention of any livestock or article pursuant to this part, an authorized representative of the Secretary shall give oral or written notification of such detention to any Federal authorities not connected with the Program, and any State or other governmental authorities, having jurisdiction over such livestock or article. In the event notification is given orally, it shall be confirmed in writing, as promptly as circumstances permit.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ )

ELIZABETH LeTOURNEAU, )

)

P laintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 12

- 1644 ( RBW )

)

ANTHONY CALANDRA, et al.

, )

)

Defendants

. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By order dated February 28, 2013, the plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this

action s hould not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendants in a timely fashion under Rule

4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court set March 22, 2013 as the deadline for the

plaintiff’s response; to date, the plaintiff has file d neither a response nor a request for additional

time to do so. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action and plaintiff’s motion to appoint

counsel will be denied as moot. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

REGGIE B. WALTON

United States District Judge

DATE: March 29, 2013
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-6139

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-93-369-B)
2

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Zimmerman,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Jan Paul

Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Barbara Suzanne Skalla,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Robert Queen appeals from the district court's orders

denying as moot his motions for return of seized property, for an

itemization of property seized, to incorporate newly discovered

evidence, and for reimbursement for forfeited property. Because the

government properly destroyed seized contraband, 21 U.S.C.A. §

881(a) (West 1981 & Supp. 1997), prepared an itemization of property seized, and returned to Queen or his designee all of the

property listed as seized from Queen, the district court properly

denied the motions as moot. Queen also asserts that a greater sum

of money was seized from him than that reported and returned to

him, and he seeks reimbursement for damage to his property while in

the possession of the government. While we affirm the denial of

Queen's motions as moot, we modify the district court orders to

reflect that the disposition is without prejudice to Queen's ability to pursue a remedy under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2671-80 (1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
EXHIBIT
      10.3

     

    PROMISSORY
      NOTE

    


    


    Amount:
      $10,000                  Date:
      May
      1, 2008

    San
      Antonio, Texas

    


    


    For
      value
      received from ATSI Communications, Inc. (“Holder”), Fiesta Communications, Inc.
      (“Fiesta”) promises to pay Holder the principal sum of Four Thousand
      dollars ($10,000) with
      interest from date at the rate of eight percent (8%) per year.

     

    Principal
      is payable in lawful money of the United States of America at 3201 Cherry Ridge,
      Suite C300, San Antonio, Texas 78230 or at such place as may later be designated
      by written notice from the Holder to Fiesta hereof, on the date and in the
      manner following:

    


    All
      principal and accrued interest is due on or before three (3) months from the
      date of this note, or July 31,
      2008. 

    


    This
      Note
      is not secured.

    


    Both
      parties understand that the amount or value above does not exceed the maximum
      interest allowed by law, under the statutes of the state of Texas, and
      acknowledge that the terms are reasonable given the nature of the
      loan.

    


    
      	
              Fiesta
                Communications, Inc.

            	 
	 	 
	
              /s/
                Arthur L. Smith

            	 
	
              May
                1, 2008