alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §256. Acceptance of land ceded by State of Washington; assumption of jurisdiction

The provisions of the act of the Legislature of the State of Washington, approved March 8, 1941 (Chapter 51 of the Laws of 1941 of the State of Washington), ceding to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over and within all the territory included on March 8, 1941, in the tract of land in the State of Washington, set aside for the purposes of a national park and known as the Olympic National Park, are accepted. Subject to the reservations made by the State in the act of cession, the United States assumes sole and exclusive jurisdiction over such territory.

(Mar. 6, 1942, ch. 151, §1, 56 Stat. 135.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of State of Washington "approved March 8, 1941", referred to in text, may be found in Rem. Rev. St., §8110–1 and Revised Code of Washington Annotated, §37.08.210.
#### Vicky R. Gabay, Respondent, v Molly Bender, Individually and as Executrix of William Gottlieb, Deceased, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 389]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered April 6 and June 2, 2006, which, in an action for partition and sale of a residential apartment building, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for the keys to individual apartments in the building, and denied defendant’s motion for recusal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The issue of whether the Special Referee could properly consider plaintiffs right to the keys under the order of reference was rendered academic by plaintiffs submission of a formal motion to the court for the keys. That motion was properly granted. Any co-owner of real property has the right to enter upon the common estate and take possession of the whole thereof, subject only to the equal right of co-owners in interest with whose possession he or she may not interfere *(Jemzura v Jemzura,*36 NY2d 496, 503 [1975]). Such right of access includes the right to allow invitees onto the property *(Race v Meyer,*219 AD2d 67, 71 [1996]). We reject defendant’s argument that to allow real estate brokers and prospective purchasers into the building, as plaintiff proposes, would be to subvert the interlocutory judgment directing a sale at public auction. Moreover, we note that on oral argument defendant’s counsel conceded that defendant’s predominant motivation for at least some of the conduct at issue was to influence downward the ultimate selling price of the property, as she intends to purchase plaintiffs share at the auction.

Nor does defendant show any agreement whatsoever Hmiting plaintiffs right of access, assuming its enforceability in the present context. The ex parte communications between the court and the Special Referee concerning the latter’s authority to consider plaintiffs right to the keys is not a ground for recusal. “Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal. This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court when the alleged appearance of impropriety arises from inappropriate awareness of ‘nonjuridical data’ ” *(People v Moreno,*70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132267 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132267 

 COA: 260356; 243126 

Kent CC: 01-008381-FH 

TARVIS ANTHONY CUTTS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2004 and 

August 22, 2006 judgments of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this 

Court. 

p1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 29, 2006 

 Clerk
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 29 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following proposed foreign military sale to the 

4 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is prohibited: 

5 (1) The sale of the following defense articles, 

6 including defense services and technical data, de7 scribed in Transmittal No. 19–01, submitted to Con8 gress pursuant to section 36(b) of the Arms Export 

9 Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)) and published in 

10 the Congressional Record on June 4, 2019: The pro11 posed sale of follow-on logistics support and service 

12 for the Royal Saudi Air Force aircraft, engines, and 

13 weapons; publications and technical documentation; 

14 support equipment; spare and repair parts; repair 

15 and return; calibration support and test equipment; 

16 personnel equipment; United States Government and 
2 

†SJ 29 ES 

1 contractor technical and logistics support; and other 

2 elements of program support. 

Passed the Senate June 20, 2019. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 29 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proices. Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and serv- posed foreign military sale to the Kingdom of
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Teliphone Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10–Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Metrakos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 the Company.





/s/ George MetrakosGeorge Metrakos

Chief Executive Officer





Dated: June 10, 2010
HomeLatest FilingsPrevious Page

    - SEC Home  »
    - Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System  »
    - Company Search  »
    - Current Page

333 WEST WACKER DR.CHICAGO IL 60606         

333 WEST WACKER DR.CHICAGO IL 60606         3129178146

Nuveen Enhanced Floating Rate Income Fund CIK#: 0001998759 (see all company filings)
State location: IL | State of Inc.: **MA**File Number: **812-15530**

||
||
§ 541.7 Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) review of the incident report. A Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) will review the incident report once the staff investigation is complete. The UDC's review involves the following: ( a ) *Available dispositions.* The UDC will make one of the following decisions after reviewing the incident report: ( 1 ) You committed the prohibited act(s) charged, and/or a similar prohibited act(s) as described in the incident report;
( 2 ) You did not commit the prohibited act(s) charged; or
( 3 ) The incident report will be referred to the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) for further review, based on the seriousness of the prohibited act(s) charged.
( 4 ) If you are charged with a Greatest or High severity prohibited act, or are an inmate covered by § 541.4, the UDC will automatically refer the incident report to the DHO for further review.
( b ) *UDC members.* The UDC ordinarily consists of two or more staff. UDC members will not be victims, witnesses, investigators, or otherwise significantly involved in the incident.
( c ) *Timing.* The UDC will ordinarily review the incident report within five work days after it is issued, not counting the day it was issued, weekends, and holidays. UDC review of the incident report may also be suspended if it is being investigated for possible criminal prosecution.
( d ) *Inmate appearance.* You are permitted to appear before the UDC during its review of the incident report, except during UDC deliberations or when your presence would jeopardize institution security, at the UDC's discretion. Also: ( 1 ) You may appear either in person or electronically (for example, by video or telephone conferencing) at the UDC's discretion.
( 2 ) You may waive your appearance before the UDC. If you waive your appearance, the UDC will review the incident report in your absence.
( 3 ) If you escape or are otherwise absent from custody, the UDC will conduct a review in your absence at the institution where you were last confined.
( e ) *Evidence.* You are entitled to make a statement and present documentary evidence to the UDC on your own behalf. The UDC will consider all evidence presented during its review. The UDC's decision will be based on at least some facts and, if there is conflicting evidence, on the greater weight of the evidence.
( f ) *Sanctions.* If you committed a prohibited act or prohibited acts, the UDC can impose any of the available sanctions in Tables 1 and 2 of § 541.3, except loss of good conduct time credit, FSA Time Credits, disciplinary segregation, or monetary fines.
( g ) *Referral to the DHO.* If the UDC refers the incident report to the DHO for further review, the UDC will advise you of your rights at the upcoming DHO hearing, as detailed in § 541.8.
( h ) *Written report.* You will receive a written copy of the UDC's decision following its review of the incident report.
( i ) *Appeals.* You may appeal the UDC's action(s) through the Administrative Remedy Program, 28 CFR part 542, subpart B.
[75 FR 76267, Dec. 8, 2010; 75 FR 81854, Dec. 29, 2010; 87 FR 2719, Jan. 19, 2022]
### SUBCHAPTER LIX–Z—NEW ORLEANS JAZZ NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
## COURT OF APPEA LS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00356

- CR

Joseph Flores

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 372nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (1246108D )

Oc tober 10, 2013

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordere d that the appeal is dismissed

.

SECOND D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### § 548.17 Work assignments.

When the religious tenets of an inmate's faith are violated or jeopardized by a particular work assignment, a different work assignment ordinarily shall be made after it is requested in writing by the inmate, and the specific religious tenets have been verified by the chaplain. Maintaining security, safety, and good order in the institution are grounds for denial of such request for a different work assignment.
### SUBCHAPTER III–B—PARK SYSTEM RESOURCE PROTECTION
### §4001. Congressional findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) the commercial fishing industry of the United States significantly contributes to the national economy, and could make a greater contribution if fish resources within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone were more fully utilized;

(2) the commercial fisheries of the United States provide significant employment in coastal areas and in processing and distribution centers;

(3) fish contribute an important nutritional component to the American diet;

(4) increased consumption of seafood in the United States could significantly lower the risk of many cardiovascular diseases;

(5) Federally supported development programs for commercial fisheries are unable to meet present and future marketing needs;

(6) many fish species are underutilized by the United States fishing industry because of underdeveloped markets; and

(7) the United States fishing industry has the potential to expand greatly its contribution to interstate and foreign commerce, favorably affecting the balance of trade.

(Pub. L. 99–659, title II, §202, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3715.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 99–659, title II, §201, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3715, provided that: "This title [enacting this chapter and amending section 713c–3 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade] may be cited as the 'Fish and Seafood Promotion Act of 1986'."

#### Report to Congress on Fish and Seafood Promotion

Pub. L. 99–659, title II, §219, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3731, provided that: "The Secretary shall, not later than March 1, 1989, submit to the Congress a report on the effectiveness of the implementation of this title [enacting this chapter and amending section 713c–3 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade] in achieving the purposes of this title."
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0080

_____________________________

JAMES L. THOMAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

March 5, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Office of Candice K. Brower, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional 

Counsel, and Michael J. Titus, Assistant Regional Conflict 

Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6334

ROBERT D. DRINKARD, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

VERNON SMITH, M.D., CHARLES E. THOMPSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-02-168)

Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 12, 2002

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert D. Drinkard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Drinkard’s complaint also alleged good time credits were

taken from him in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The

district court found this claim was not cognizable under § 1983 and

dismissed the claim without prejudice to Drinkard’s rights to

refile the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Drinkard

does not challenge the district court’s dismissal without prejudice

of this claim on appeal. Thus, appellate review of this portion of

the district court’s order is waived. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

2

PER CURIAM:

Robert D. Drinkard, Jr., a Virginia inmate, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his medical treatment

complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001), for

failure to state a claim.* See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). 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 Drinkard v. Director, Virginia Dep’t of

Corrections, No. CA-02-168 (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2002). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         800
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               800
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1868
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1068)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   800
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1200)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.0)



</TABLE>
#### § 551.106 Institutional employment.

Unless a pretrial inmate signs a waiver of his or her right not to work, the Warden may not require the inmate to work in any assignment other than housekeeping tasks in the inmate's own cell and in the community living area.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14030-14032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5944]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0110]


Extension of Memorandum of Understanding Between the Food and 
Drug Administration and Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y 
Calidad Agroalimentaria of the United Mexican States Concerning Entry 
of Mexican Cantaloupes Into the United States of America

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of 
an extension of memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA and 
Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria of 
the United Mexican States. The purpose of the MOU is to establish, and 
build confidence in, a system that increases the likelihood that 
cantaloupes from Mexico offered for import into the United States 
comply with U.S. law. This MOU also establishes a risk-based 
classification system for firms in Mexico producing cantaloupes for 
import into the United States to protect the public health.

DATES: The agreement became effective on October 26, 2005, amended on 
April 19, 2007, and extended on October 28, 2010, for 1 year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Naomi Kawin, Office of Global 
Engagement, Office of International Programs, Food and Drug 
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 3416, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8372, FAX: 301-595-7941.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which 
states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others 
shall be published in the Federal Register, the Agency is publishing 
notice of this MOU.

    Dated: March 9, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P

[[Page 14031]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MR11.048


[[Page 14032]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15MR11.049

[FR Doc. 2011-5944 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2023 KW 0997 VERSUS KEVIN DUKES 

### JANUARY 18, 

### 2024
In Re: Kevin Dukes, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs, 19th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 01- 19-491. BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. JMG WRC WIL



### COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# LltEP'

UTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
Exhibit 12(A)2

CERTIFICATION

I, Juan Antonio Quiroga García, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Grupo Industrial Maseca, S.A. de C.V.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



5.     The
company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors
and the audit committee of company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



| |  | By: | /s/JUAN ANTONIO QUIROGA GARCÍAName:    Juan Antonio Quiroga García
Title:      Senior Corporate Controller
| |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
June 30, 2005

---



QuickLinks
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136797 & (56) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

GWANJUN KIM, Justices 

Plaintiff/CounterDefendant-Appellant, 

and 

KEESOO KIM,

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 136797 

 COA: 277362 
 Kent CC: 07-000187-CZ 

RONALD C. WERNETTE, JR., and

BON GOU LEE,

Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for 

miscellaneous relief is DENIED. 

d1020 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk