alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert Doyle *v.*Frank Douglas Machinery Company.

1. *Practice—when to object to variance.*Where a note is introduced in evidence, without objection, in the court below, it is too late to raise the objection, for the first time, in the Supreme Court, that there is a variance between the note and declaration.

3. *Evidence—parol evidence, if not objected, to, sufficient to prove existence of corporation.*Parol evidence that a party was a corporation, duly-organized, and that it had elected officers, and was doing business as a corporation, if introduced without objection, is sufficient to establish the existence of the corporation.

Writ oe Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. John Burns, Judge, presiding.

Mr. Robert Doyle, *joro se.*

Messrs. Carter, Becker & Dale, for the defendant in ¿error.

Mr. Justice Craig

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This cause was tried by the court, by consent of parties, without the intervention of a jury, and judgment rendered against the defendant for the sum of $3027.62.

The first position assumed by the plaintiff in error is, the *274judgment is not supported by the evidence. We have carefully examined the testimony contained in the record, and the evidence, as it was introduced before the court, without objection, is ample to sustain the judgment rendered.

It is claimed there is a variance between one of the notes offered in evidence and the declaration. This is true; yet the note was introduced in evidence without objection, and it is too late to raise the objection, for the first time, in this court. *Curry*v. *The*People, 54 Ill. 263.

It is, however, urged that the evidence of the existence of the corporation was not sufficient. It was shown by parol evidence, without objection, that the plaintiff was a corporation, duly organized May 14, 1872; that it had elected a president, secretary and treasurer, and that it was acting and doing business as a corporation. This evidence, in the absence of objection, may be regarded as sufficient.

This disposes of the questions raised by the plaintiff in error, and, as we perceive no substantial error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 337.4 When requests for change of name granted.

When the court has granted the petitioner's change of name request, the petitioner shall subscribe his or her new name to the written oath of allegiance.

[56 FR 50500, Oct. 7, 1991]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 84532 / November 5, 2018

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-15507

In the Matter of

JPMorgan Chase & Co., ORDER SETTING FUND

ADMINISTRATOR’S BOND AMOUNT

Respondent.

On March 27, 2014, the Commission issued an order appointing RCB Fund Services, 

LLC (“RCB”) as the fund administrator in this matter and setting the bond amount at 

$200,000,000, the amount of the Fair Fund.

1 On February 12, 2015, the Commission issued an 

Order Approving Plan of Distribution.

2

The Plan of Distribution (“Plan”) provides for the 

distribution, according to the methodology set forth in the Plan, of $200 million collected from 

JP Morgan Chase & Co. (“Respondent”) to investors injured by Respondent’s material 

misstatements in filings with the Commission. Under the Plan, the bond premium is to be paid 

by the Respondent. There is currently a balance of approximately $8,221,768.00 remaining in 

the Fair Fund.

The Fund Administrator has requested that the Commission reduce the bond amount to 

match the approximate remaining balance of the Fair Fund. The bonding company has indicated

it is willing to reduce the bond to the current balance of $8,221,768.00 and, at the same time, it 

 

1 Exchange Act Rel. No. 71825 (Mar. 27, 2014).

2

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 74266 (Feb. 12, 2015).
2

will continue to act as surety and honor any future covered claims on the original bond that arose 

during the period covered by the bond. In the event that acts giving rise to any claim on the bond 

occurred prior to the execution of the bond rider reducing the bond, the applicable limit of 

liability shall be $200,000,000.00. Due to the compelling difference in cost, the staff has 

concluded that there is no need to require a bond greater than the funds now at risk. The staff 

has requested that the Commission set the bond amount that the administrator is required to have 

going forward to $8,221,768.00.

Therefore, in accordance with Rule 1105(c) of the Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and 

Disgorgement Plans, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1105(c), it is hereby ORDERED that the bond amount 

required for RCB going forward is $8,221,768.00.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.3

Brent J. Fields

Secretary

 

3

17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(17).
### §7809. Exclusive economic zone notification

Masters of commercial fishing vessels of countries fishing under the management authority of the South Pacific Fisheries Convention that do not carry vessel monitoring systems capable of communicating with United States enforcement authorities shall, before or as soon as reasonably possible after, entering and transiting the exclusive economic zone bounded by the Convention Area, ensure that all fishing gear on board the vessel is stowed below deck or otherwise removed from the place it is normally used for fishing activities and placed where it is not readily available for fishing activities.

(Pub. L. 114–327, title II, §209, Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1993.)
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 39 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the constitutional rights of Americans 

to peaceably assemble, exercise freedom of speech, and petition the Government for redress of grievances must be respected; that violence and 

looting are unlawful, unacceptable, and contrary to the purpose of peaceful protests; and that Congress condemns the President of the United 

States for ordering Federal officers to use gas and rubber bullets against 

the Americans who were peaceably protesting in Lafayette Square in 

Washington, DC on the night of June 1, 2020, thereby violating the 

constitutional rights of those peaceful protestors. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2020 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BENNET, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, 

Mr. BOOKER, Mr. BROWN, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARPER, 

Mr. CASEY, Mr. COONS, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. 

DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. HARRIS, Ms. HASSAN, 

Mr. HEINRICH, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. JONES, Mr. KAINE, Mr. KING, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. MENENDEZ, 

Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. MURPHY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. PETERS, Mr. REED, 

Ms. ROSEN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SCHATZ, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. SINEMA, 

Ms. SMITH, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. UDALL, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. WARNER, Ms. WARREN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. WYDEN) 

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the constitutional 

rights of Americans to peaceably assemble, exercise freedom of speech, and petition the Government for redress 

of grievances must be respected; that violence and looting 

are unlawful, unacceptable, and contrary to the purpose 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 39 IS 

of peaceful protests; and that Congress condemns the 

President of the United States for ordering Federal officers to use gas and rubber bullets against the Americans 

who were peaceably protesting in Lafayette Square in 

Washington, DC on the night of June 1, 2020, thereby 

violating the constitutional rights of those peaceful 

protestors. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the con3 stitutional rights of Americans to peaceably assemble, ex4 ercise freedom of speech, and petition the Government for 

5 redress of grievances must be respected; that violence and 

6 looting are unlawful, unacceptable, and contrary to the 

7 purpose of peaceful protests; and that Congress condemns 

8 the President of the United States for ordering Federal 

9 officers to use gas and rubber bullets against the Ameri10 cans who were peaceably protesting in Lafayette Square 

11 in Washington, DC on the night of June 1, 2020, thereby 

12 violating the constitutional rights of those peaceful 

13 protestors. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each of the  undersigned  officers  of  Carbonics
Capital  Corporation (f/k/a GreenShift  Corporation) (the "Company"),  certifies
that:

     1.   The Quarterly  Report on Form 10Q/A  (Amendment  No. 1) of the Company
          for the Quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with
          the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange
          Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/      PAUL T. MILLER
                                      ---------------------------------
Dated:   December 23, 2009                     PAUL T. MILLER
                                               Chief Executive Officer

                                      /S/      JACQUELINE FLYNN
                                      ---------------------------------
Dated:   December 23, 2009                     JACQUELINE FLYNN
                                               Chief Financial Officer

This  certification  is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.
#### Miguel A. MEDINA, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

No. 02-3139.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 11, 2002.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) and to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 93373 / October 18, 2021

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20381

In the Matter of

Securities America Advisors, Inc.,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

EXTENSION ORDER

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested an extension of time until May 

31, 2022 to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution under Rule 1101(a) of the Commission’s 

Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1101(a).

On June 30, 2021, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Ceaseand-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act 

of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (the 

“Order”)1 against Securities America Advisors, Inc. (the “Respondent”). In the Order, the 

Commission found that from November 2014 to March 2018, the Respondent failed to 

implement policies and procedures for the review of automatically generated surveillance alerts 

after client disbursements had occurred. The Respondent also failed to implement reasonably 

designed policies and procedures for reviewing client disbursement requests for possible 

misappropriation before the disbursements occurred. As a result of these failures, Hector May, 

 

1 Advisers Act Rel. No. 5762 (June 30, 2021).
2

the owner of an independent state-registered investment adviser whose clients participated in 

certain of the Respondent’s advisory programs, misappropriated, without the Respondent’s

detection, approximately $8 million from the Respondent’s advisory accounts of at least fifteen 

of the Respondent’s advisory clients. The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay a 

$1,750,000.00 civil money penalty to the Commission. The Commission also created a Fair 

Fund pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalty paid can be 

distributed to harmed investors (the “Fair Fund”).

The Fair Fund consists of the $1,750,000.00 paid by the Respondent. The Fair Fund has 

been deposited in an interest-bearing account at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of 

the Fiscal Service, and any accrued interest will be for the benefit of the Fair Fund.

In its request for an extension of time, the Division states that it needs additional time to

obtain information necessary to the distribution, determine the distribution methodology, and 

draft the proposed plan of distribution. Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that the Division’s request for an extension of time until May 31, 2022 to submit a 

Proposed Plan of Distribution is granted. 

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.2

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary 

 

2

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(21)(i)
### §469l–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 105–203, §4, as added Pub. L. 106–291, title I, §150(h), Oct. 11, 2000, 114 Stat. 959; amended Pub. L. 110–229, title III, §361(a)(2), May 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 801, related to preservation of historic sites or structures associated with the Underground Railroad. See section 308303 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
Exhibit 10(a)  Court Order on President of the Trustees Compensation
and Annual Hearing of Accounts dated May 14, 2003

|STATE OF MINNESOTA                                                     | DISTRICT COURT             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------
|COUNTY OF RAMSEY                                                       | SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT   
|                                                                       | Court File No. C5-72-386008
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|In the Matter of the Trust known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties
|                                                                      
|                                                                       | ORDER                      

This
matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on May 14, 2003, upon the
Petition for Allowance of Accounts and for Instructions filed by Joseph S.
Micallef, Roger W. Staehle, Robert A. Stein and John H.
Roe III, the Trustees of the Trust known as Great Northern Iron Ore
Properties (Trust).

Sue
Ann Nelson of Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP appeared on behalf of the
Trustees of the Trust (Trustees).

The
Court, having heard the arguments of counsel, and based upon the Petition, the
affidavits filed in support of the Petition and the entire file and record
herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

| | 1. |  | Due,
published and mailed notice of this hearing was given pursuant to the Courts
Order dated April 9, 2003, as more fully appears from the proof of publication
and affidavits of mailing contained in the file.
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. |  | The accounts of
the Trustees for the calendar year 2002 are approved, settled and allowed in all
respects.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Exhibit 10(a)  Court Order (continued)

| | 3. |  | The requested
increase in the compensation of the President of the Trust from $100,000 per
annum to $150,000 per annum plus an increase in the maximum additional sum from
$35,000 to $50,000 (computed as 1% of the excess of the gross income of the
Trust over $5 million per annum up to a maximum additional sum of $50,000) is
granted.
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                   | BY THE COURT               
|------------------ | ---------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2003 | By:  /s/   Margaret Marinan
|                   | Judge of District Court    

---
### §§483, 484. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–596, §3, July 6, 1960, 74 Stat. 335

Sections, act Sept. 22, 1922, ch. 404, §§1, 2, 42 Stat. 1017, related to exchange of lands in national forests with persons who have relinquished lands as basis for lieu selection, procedure, relinquishment of original lands to such persons, and selection of other lands in lieu of lands relinquished.
Chapter 3 

Affected 

Environment and 

Environmental 

Consequences 
Chapter 3 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................ 1

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................. 1

3.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1

3.2 Issue 1 – Roadless Areas..................................................................... 7

3.3 Issue 2 – Deer Habitat and Subsistence Use..................................... 24

3.4 Issue 3 – Timber Sale Economics...................................................... 56

3.5 Issue 4 – Cumulative Effects of Logging and Road Construction on 

Watersheds............................................................................................... 69

3.6 Alaska Region Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Sensitive 

Species ................................................................................................... 100

3.7 Wildlife .............................................................................................. 107

3.8 Timber and Vegetation Resources................................................... 138

3.9 Fisheries ........................................................................................... 151

3.10 Soils and Geology .......................................................................... 164

3.11 Wetlands......................................................................................... 176

3.12 Transportation................................................................................. 181

3.13 Scenery........................................................................................... 194

3.14 Recreation ...................................................................................... 207

3.15 Socioeconomics ............................................................................. 214

3.16 Heritage Resources........................................................................ 219

3.17 Non-National Forest System Lands and Uses ............................... 224

3.18 Findings and Disclosures ............................................................... 225
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Kendrick A. Luther et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Luther-Keffer Agency, Petitioners, against State Tax Commission, Respondent.

All concur.
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 18069 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 18070 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 18071 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 18072 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 18073 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 18074 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 18075 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 18076 1992
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 18077 1992
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 450 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 450

Recognizing the 71st anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human 
          Rights and the celebration of ``Human Rights Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 10, 2019

    Mr. Coons (for himself and Mr. Tillis) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the 71st anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human 
          Rights and the celebration of ``Human Rights Day''.

Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations 
        on December 10, 1948, represents the first comprehensive agreement among 
        countries as to the specific rights and freedoms of all human beings;
Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the basic principles 
        of liberty and freedom enshrined in the Constitution of the United 
        States and the Bill of Rights;
Whereas awareness of human rights--

    (1) is essential to the realization of fundamental freedoms;

    (2) promotes equality;

    (3) contributes to preventing conflict and human rights violations; and

    (4) enhances participation in democratic processes;

Whereas Congress has a proud history of promoting human rights that are 
        internationally recognized; and
Whereas December 10 of each year is celebrated around the world as ``Human 
        Rights Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates December 10, 2019, as ``Human Rights Day'';
            (2) recognizes the 71st anniversary of the Universal 
        Declaration of Human Rights;
            (3) reaffirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
            (4) supports the right of human rights defenders all over 
        the world to promote the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the 
        Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
            (5) encourages the people of the United States--
                    (A) to observe Human Rights Day; and
                    (B) to continue a commitment to upholding freedom, 
                democracy, and human rights around the globe.
                                 <all>
```
Supplemental Guidance on the Submission of Petitions under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

You are receiving this letter because you have submitted a petition for exemption to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112

- 95)

. This letter is to inform you that on September 25 , 2014 the FAA released Public Guidance for Petitions for Exemption Filed under Section 333, which was not available to you at the time you submitted your petition.

T he FAA recommends that you review the guidance and , if you would like to submit additional information to support your petition , please submit it to your specific docket at www.regulations.gov

. This additional information will assist the FAA in making an effective evaluation of the requested relief.

The guidance is available at http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section _333/how_to_file_a_petition/

.

Additiona lly, t he FAA granted an exemption to Astraeus Aerial on September 25 , 2014 which you may also wish to review. This grant of exemption is available at ht tp://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/media/Astraeus_Aerial

- 11062.pdf

.

You may send supplemental information to the specific docket for your petition for exemption at any time providing further information supporting the request for exemption.