alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

May 25, 2021

In the Matter of

Morris Business Development Co.,

File No. 500-1

ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF

TRADING

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Morris Business 

Development Co. (“MBDE1”) (CIK No. 1133901), a suspended California corporation located in 

Newport Beach, California with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its 

periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 

10-K for the period ended March 31, 2014. On August 24, 2020, the Commission’s Division of 

Corporation Finance (“Corporation Finance”) sent a delinquency letter to MBDE requesting 

compliance with its periodic filing requirements, but MBDE did not receive the delinquency 

letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by 

Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 C.F.R. Section 232.301 and Section 5.4 of 

EDGAR Filer Manual). As of April 13, 2021, the common stock of MBDE was quoted on OTC 

Link operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (formerly “Pink Sheets”) (“OTC Link”), had six

market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 

15c2-11(f)(3). 

 

1 The short form of each issuer’s name is also its stock symbol.
2

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors 

require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is 

ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the 

securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 

26, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 9, 2021.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary
§ 806.1 Scope. ( a ) This part establishes the scope and procedures for review and approval of projects under section 3.10 of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact, Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509, *et seq.,* (the compact) and establishes special standards under section 3.4(2) of the compact governing water withdrawals, the consumptive use of water, and diversions. The special standards established pursuant to section 3.4(2) shall be applicable to all water withdrawals and consumptive uses in accordance with the terms of those standards, irrespective of whether such withdrawals and uses are also subject to project review under section 3.10. This part, and every other part of 18 CFR chapter VIII, shall also be incorporated into and made a part of the comprehensive plan.
( b ) When projects subject to Commission review and approval are sponsored by governmental authorities, the Commission shall submit recommendations and findings to the sponsoring agency, which shall be included in any report submitted by such agency to its respective legislative body or to any committee thereof in connection with any request for authorization or appropriation therefor. The Commission review will ascertain the project's compatibility with the objectives, goals, guidelines and criteria set forth in the comprehensive plan. If determined compatible, the said project will also be incorporated into the comprehensive plan, if so required by the compact. For the purposes of avoiding conflicts of jurisdiction and of giving full effect to the Commission as a regional agency of the member jurisdictions, no expenditure or commitment shall be made by any governmental authority for or on account of the construction, acquisition or operation of any project or facility unless it first has been included by the Commission in the comprehensive plan.
( c ) If any portion of this part, or any other part of 18 CFR Chapter VIII, shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
( d ) Except as otherwise stated in this part, this part shall be effective on January 1, 2007.
( e ) When any period of time is referred to in this part, such period in all cases shall be so computed as to exclude the first and include the last day of such period. Whenever the last day of any such period shall fall on Saturday or Sunday, or on any day made a legal holiday by the law of the United States, such day shall be omitted from the computation.
( f ) Any Commission forms or documents referenced in this part may be obtained from the Commission at 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, or from the Commission's Web site at *www.srbc.net .*
[71 FR 78579, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 29390, June 29, 2017]
### §228c. Acquisition of lands within enlarged boundaries by donation, purchase, or exchange; transfer of jurisdiction over Federal lands

(a) Within the boundaries of the Grand Canyon National Park, as enlarged by sections 228a to 228j of this title, the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary") may acquire land and interest in land by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.

(b) Federal lands within the boundaries of such park are hereby transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary for the purposes of sections 228a to 228j of this title.

(Pub. L. 93–620, §4, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2090.)
### §430uu–4. Authorization of appropriation

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums not exceeding $42,500 as are necessary for the acquisition of lands and interests in land pursuant to sections 430uu to 430uu–4 of this title.

(Pub. L. 88–24, §5, May 17, 1963, 77 Stat. 19; Pub. L. 92–272, title I, §101(2), Apr. 11, 1972, 86 Stat. 120.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1972—Pub. L. 92–272 substituted "$42,500" for "$20,000".
§ 42.407 Procedures to determine compliance. ( a ) *Agency staff determination responsibility.* All federal agency staff determinations of title VI compliance shall be made by, or be subject to the review of, the agency's civil rights office. Where federal agency responsibility for approving applications or specific projects has been assigned to regional or area offices, the agency shall include personnel having title VI review responsibility on the staffs of such offices and such personnel shall perform the functions described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Application review.* Prior to approval of federal financial assistance, the federal agency shall make written determination as to whether the applicant is in compliance with title VI (see 28 CFR 50.3(c) II A). The basis for such a determination under “the agency's own investigation” provision (see 28 CFR 50.3(c) II A(2)), shall be submission of an assurance of compliance and a review of the data submitted by the applicant. Where a determination cannot be made from this data, the agency shall require the submission of necessary additional information and shall take other steps necessary for making the determination. Such other steps may include, for example, communicating with local government officials or minority group organizations and field reviews. Where the requested assistance is for construction, a pre-approval review should determine whether the location and design of the project will provide service on a nondiscriminatory basis and whether persons will be displaced or relocated on a nondiscriminatory basis.
( c ) *Post-approval review.* ( 1 ) Federal agencies shall establish and maintain an effective program of post-approval compliance reviews regarding approved new applications (see 28 CFR 50.3(c) II A), applications for continuation or renewal of assistance (28 CFR 50.3(c) II B) and all other federally assisted programs. Such reviews are to include periodic submission of compliance reports by recipients to the agencies and, where appropriate, field reviews of a representative number of major recipients. In carrying out this program, agency personnel shall follow agency manuals which establish appropriate review procedures and standards of evaluation. Additionally, agencies should consider incorporating a title VI component into general program reviews and audits.
( 2 ) The results of post-approval reviews shall be committed to writing and shall include specific findings of fact and recommendations. A determination of the compliance status of the recipient reviewed shall be made as promptly as possible.
( d ) *Notice to assistant attorney general.* Federal agencies shall promptly notify the Assistant Attorney General of instances of probable noncompliance determined as the result of application reviews or post-approval compliance reviews.
§ 76.41 Expungement of records. ( a ) The Attorney General shall expunge all official Department records created pursuant to this part upon application of a respondent at any time after the expiration of three (3) years from the date of the final order of assessment if: ( 1 ) The respondent has not previously been assessed a civil penalty under this section;
( 2 ) The respondent has paid the penalty;
( 3 ) The respondent has complied with any conditions imposed by the Attorney General;
( 4 ) The respondent has not been convicted of a federal or state offense relating to a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); and
( 5 ) The respondent agrees to submit to a drug test, and such test shows the individual to be drug free.
( b ) A non-public record of a disposition under this part shall be retained by the Department solely for the purpose of determining in any subsequent proceeding whether the person qualifies for a civil penalty or expungement under this part.
( c ) If a record is expunged under this part, the individual for whom such an expungement was made shall not be held guilty of perjury, false swearing, or making a false statement by reason of his failure to recite or acknowledge a proceeding under this part or the results thereof in response to an inquiry made of him for any purpose.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 28, 2017

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2017

153074(58)

SHELBY TOWNSHIP,

Respondent-Appellant,

SC: 153074

v COA: 323491 

MERC: 12-000067

COMMAND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF

MICHIGAN,

Charging Party-Appellee. 

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of charging party-appellee to extend the 

time for filing its brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if 

submitted on or before May 26, 2017.
(No. 32835.

#### The People of The State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, *vs.*John Chennault, Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed November 18, 1953.*

Louis J. Giliberto, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Latham Castle, Attorney General, of Springfield, and John Guticnecht, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, and Arthur F. Manning, all of Chicago, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. Justice KlingbiEl

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff in error was prosecuted by information in the municipal court of Chicago for unlawfully having in his possession a habit-forming drug, in violation of the Uniform Narcotics Drug Act. Without representation by counsel he pleaded not guilty, and waived trial by jury. After hearing the evidence the court found him guilty and sentenced him to confinement in the county jail for five years and to pay a fine of $5000. He has sued a writ of error out of this court to review the judgment, presenting only the common-law record.

To reverse the judgment plaintiff in error argues that the information is defective; that the statute is unconstitutional ; that the municipal court was without jurisdiction *347over the offense; that the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the constitution; and that plaintiff in error was denied due process of law because of the absence of counsel. None of the constitutional questions at issue here was presented to or passed upon by the municipal court.

The offense for which plaintiff in error was convicted is a misdemeanor *(People*v. *O’Connor,*414 Ill. 51,) and hence no direct review of the present judgment can lie in this court unless some constitutional issue is sufficiently presented to satisfy the requirement for such review. In order to authorize a direct review by this court on writ of error, the constitutional question must have been raised in the trial court and passed upon by it. *(People*v. O’Connor, 414 Ill. 51; *People*v. *Cosper,*405 Ill. 543.) Since this requirement was not met in the case at bar, jurisdiction for the purpose of review is in the Appellate Court.

The cause will be transferred to the Appellate Court, First District.

^ *Cause transferred.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0678

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

REX WILLIAM ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 24, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 18 2023

10/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0678
Exhibit 21
     
     Subsidiaries of Registrant                                Exhibit 21
     
<TABLE>
                                                 State of      Percentage
                                               Jurisdiction    of Voting
                                                     of        Securities
                 Company                       Organization      Owned
    <S>                                            <C>           <C>
     Southeast Real Estate Resources
      Corporation                                  Florida       100%
     Southeast Power Corporation                   Florida       100%
     Fiber Optic Services, Inc.                    Florida       100%
     Mamba Engineering Company, Inc.
       (inactive)                                  Florida       100%
     St. Cloud Mining Company                      Florida       100%
     Florida Transport Corporation                 Florida       100%
     Steeple Rock Mining Company (inactive)        Florida       100%
     The Goldfield Consolidated Mines       
       Company (inactive)                          Florida       100%
       Subsidiaries of The Goldfield
         Consolidated Mines Company
         Detrital Valley Salt Corporation
           (inactive)                              Florida       100%
         The Lordsburg Mining Company              Florida       100%
</TABLE>
     
     All of the above subsidiaries are included in the consolidated
     financial statements of the Company at December 31, 1998.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 35,440 4 JORGE MORALES, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 7 Lisa B. Riley, District Judge 8
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 WECHSLER, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction 1 of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. [MIO 1] This Court’s 2 notice of proposed summary disposition proposed to hold that the evidence offered 3 at trial was sufficient to support the verdic t rendered. [CN 3] De fendant has filed a 4 memorandum in opposition to that dispositi on, which we have duly considered. 5 Unpersuaded, we now affirm. 6
{2} In order to obtain a conviction, the State was required to establish at trial that 7 Defendant possessed methamphetamine , knowing or believing that it was 8 methamphetamine, and intending to transferpossession of that methamphetamine to 9 someone else. [RP 119] At De fendant’s trial, testimony wa s offered that thirty-three 10 small baggies found in Defendant’s motel room contained methamphetamine. [DS 5] 11 During a subsequent interview with agents of the Pecos Valley Drug Task Force, 12 Defendant “told them that the methamphetamine was his, explained where he obtained 13 the drugs, how much he paid for the drugs and what he expected to earn from his sale 14 of the drugs.” [MIO 2] As suggested inour notice of proposed summary disposition, 15 the above-described evidence would generally be sufficient to lead a reasonable 16 person to believe that De fendant knowingly possessed methamphetamine, intending 17 to transfer that methamphetamine to someone else. [CN 3] 183 {3} When an appeal is assigned to the su mmary calendar, “the burden is on the 1 party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.” 2 Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. 3 Defendant’s memorandum in opposition maintains that the eviden ce was insufficient, 4 but it does not point out any factual or legal error in the notice of proposed 5 disposition. Consequently, and for the reasons addressed in the notice of proposed 6 disposition, we affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court. 7
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________ ______________________ 9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 10

WE CONCUR: 11

________________________________ 12 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 13

________________________________ 14 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 15
### §342a. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–9, title II, §2108(d)(2), Mar. 12, 2019, 133 Stat. 730

Section, act Jan. 19, 1929, ch. 77, §1, 45 Stat. 1083, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to accept certain property for the extension of the Acadia National Park.
### §450oo–7. Docking facilities

The Secretary of the Interior, subject to the availability of appropriated funds, shall construct and maintain docking facilities at the Northwest Company area for use in connection with the monument. Such facilities shall be available for use by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and its recognized members, without charge to them, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 85–910, §8, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1753.)
§ 367.1280 Account 128, Other special funds. ( a ) This account must include the amount of cash and book cost of investments that have been segregated in special funds for insurance, employee pensions, savings, relief, hospital, and other purposes not provided for elsewhere. This account must also include unrealized holding gains and losses on trading and available-for-sale types of security investments. A separate account with appropriate title, must be kept for each fund.
( b ) Amounts deposited with a trustee under the terms of an irrevocable trust agreement for pensions or other employee benefits must not be included in this account.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6886/November 29, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-21243

In the Matter of :

:

THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT OF : ORDER

AMERICAN CRYPTOFED DAO LLC :

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding with an Order Instituting 

Proceedings (OIP) on November 18, 2022. The proceeding is a stop order proceeding, authorized 

pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Securities Act of 1933. The Commission ordered that the hearing 

before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding commence at 10:00 a.m. EST on 

December 1, 2022. See OIP at 6 (“IT IS ORDERED that public proceedings be . . . instituted . . . , 

such hearing to be commenced at 10:00 A.M. on December 1, 2022 . . . and to continue thereafter at 

such time and place as the hearing officer may determine.”) The Commission warned that, if 

Respondent fails to appear at the hearing, it “may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be 

determined against the Respondent upon consideration of [the OIP], the allegations of which may be 

deemed to be true.” OIP at 6.

On November 22, 2022, the undersigned ordered the parties to confer and file a joint report by 

November 29, 2022, estimating the length of the hearing, including their proposed witness and exhibit 

lists, and proposing a post-hearing briefing schedule. Am. CryptoFed DAO, Admin. Proc. Rulings 

Release No. 6882, 2022 SEC LEXIS 3129 (A.L.J.). Thereafter, Respondent filed a number of motions

with the undersigned, all of which were essentially directed toward delaying the hearing. However, 

only the Commission can postpone the hearing, as emphasized on November 25, 2022: “the 

Commission ordered that the hearing commence on December 1. Absent an order from the 

Commission, the hearing will commence as scheduled, on December 1 at 10:00 a.m. EST. . . . The OIP 

does not authorize the undersigned to postpone the commencement of the hearing.” (emphasis in 

original). Am. CryptoFed DAO, Admin. Proc. Rulings Release No. 6884, 2022 SEC LEXIS 3153

(A.L.J.); see also 15 U.S.C. § 77h(d) (providing that the Commission may issue a stop order “after 

opportunity for hearing (at a time fixed by the Commission within fifteen days after” service).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge
### §410jj–8. Reevaluation of management, etc., policies

At such time when there is no longer a resident patient community at Kalaupapa, the Secretary shall reevaluate the policies governing the management, administration, and public use of the park in order to identify any changes deemed to be appropriate.

(Pub. L. 96–565, title I, §109, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3324.)