alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §825p. Jurisdiction of offenses; enforcement of liabilities and duties

The District Courts of the United States, and the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of violations of this chapter or the rules, regulations, and orders thereunder, and of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder. Any criminal proceeding shall be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred. Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is an inhabitant, and process in such cases may be served wherever the defendant may be found. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 1254, 1291, and 1292 of title 28. No costs shall be assessed against the Commission in any judicial proceeding by or against the Commission under this chapter.

(June 10, 1920, ch. 285, pt. III, §317, as added Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 687, title II, §213, 49 Stat. 862; amended June 25, 1936, ch. 804, 49 Stat. 1921; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §32(b), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §127, 63 Stat. 107.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

As originally enacted, this section contained reference to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Act June 25, 1936, substituted "the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia" for "the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia", and act June 25, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949, substituted "United States District Court for the District of Columbia" for "district court of the United States for the District of Columbia". However, the words "United States District Court for the District of Columbia" have been deleted entirely as superfluous in view of section 132(a) of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, which states that "There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district", and section 88 of Title 28 which states that "the District of Columbia constitutes one judicial district".

"Sections 1254, 1291, and 1292 of title 28", referred to in text, were substituted for "sections 128 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U.S.C. title 28, secs. 225 and 347)" on authority of act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, the first section of which enacted Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11180 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDRECO LOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(4:01-CR-177-6)

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A jury convicted Andreco Lott, federal prisoner # 27068-177, of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, two counts of bank robbery, two counts of conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery, and four counts of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. See United States v. Lott , 66 F. App’x 523 (5th Cir. 2003). The district court sentenced Lott to a total aggregate term of imprisonment of 1,111 months, to be followed by concurrent terms of three and five years of supervised release. The district court ordered Lott to pay restitution in the amount of $87,359.85,2

jointly and severally with his codefendants, with payment to begin immediately. The district court also ordered Lott to pay special assessments of $900 immediately. More than one year after his conviction and sentence became final, Lott filed a “Motion to Modify Assessments Court Cost and Restitution Order and Set Installment Payments” and a petition to establish quarterly installments. The purpose of the motions was for the district court to establish a payment plan for the special assessments and restitution. Lott alleged that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was requiring him to pay more per month than he could afford. Lott appeals the district court’s denial of these motions. Lott’s motions challenged the manner in which the BOP was administering the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. His motions did not explicitly attack any action by the sentencing court. Lott’s motions are in the nature of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions and should have been filed in the district of his incarceration. See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the district court’s order is VACATED and this

case is REMANDED with instructions for the district court to enter

an order dismissing Lott’s petitions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

VACATED and REMANDED.
§ 750.107 Class 3 and 4 signs outside informational sites. ( a ) The erection or maintenance of the following signs may be permitted within protected areas, outside informational sites: ( 1 ) Class 3 signs which are visible only to Interstate highway traffic not served by an informational site within 12 air miles of the advertised activity;
( 2 ) Class 4 signs which are more than 12 miles from the nearest panel within an informational site serving Interstate highway traffic to which such signs are visible.
( 3 ) Signs that qualify both as Class 3 and 4 signs may be permitted in accordance with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
( b ) The erection or maintenance of signs permitted under paragraph (a) of this section may not be permitted in any manner inconsistent with the following: ( 1 ) In protected areas in advance of an intersection of the main-traveled way of an Interstate highway and an exit roadway, such signs visible to Interstate highway traffic approaching such intersection may not be permitted to exceed the following number: Distance from intersection
Number of signs 0-2 miles
0. 2-5 miles
6. More than 5 miles
Average of one sign per mile.
The specified distances shall be measured to the nearest point of the intersection of the traveled way of the exit roadway and the main-traveled way of the Interstate highway.
( 2 ) Subject to the other provisions of this paragraph, not more than two such signs may be permitted within any mile distance measured from any point, and no such signs may be permitted to be less than 1,000 feet apart.
( 3 ) Such signs may not be permitted in protected areas adjacent to any Interstate highway right-of-way upon any part of the width of which is constructed an entrance or exit roadway.
( 4 ) Such signs visible to Interstate highway traffic which is approaching or has passed an entrance roadway may not be permitted in protected areas for 1,000 feet beyond the furthest point of the intersection between the traveled way of such entrance roadway and the main-traveled way of the Interstate highway.
( 5 ) No such signs may be permitted in scenic areas.
( 6 ) Not more than one such sign advertising activities being conducted as a single enterprise or giving information about a single place may be permitted to be erected or maintained in such manner as to be visible to traffic moving in any one direction on any one Interstate highway.
( c ) No Class 3 or 4 signs other than those permitted by this section may be permitted to be erected or maintained within protected areas, outside informational sites.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

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.

June 10, 2015

s0603 

# Order

Clerk June 10, 2015

151383

- 4

SC: 151383

- 4

In re KMN, Minor. COA: 322329; 322883

Newaygo CC Family Division:

14

- 000805

- AD

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2015

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

persuaded that the question s presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No

. 

### FAA- 

# Po 102

- 

## };lj 

# J Directorate Identifier:



### lj'y ou make c hanges to the values in the table below. you must ensure the to tals update according l y 

### {l they do not , click (or Tab) in to and th en out ofrh e changed ce !!.

Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g. , aircraft , engine, (e.g., Insp ection , propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number o f Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do n ot include on condition costs h ere access, tes ting , (@$85 /h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### replace internal 1.5**~'** 1:27. "0 $16 , 860 '-I (L'JS 7 \() 

### 123 S2,0X9,cl62

.5 

### tube 0

::-. 0.00 

# ' o. on ', 0.00 

## s 0.00 '\ O

.U(J ) 0. {)() "> 0.00 \, (l '00 $ () 00 

# " () 00 

### ". () .00 '-, 0.00 I 

## s 0.00 

## s O.OIJ $ 0.00 

## s 0.00 

# " o. no 

# s 0.00**t~'** ,) (). 00 

# ' () 00 

## s 0.00 

## s 0.00 \ 0 ()() 

# s 0

. 00 \ () 00 

# " 0.00 

## s 0.00**~'** 

### uoo 

## s () .00 

## s o. no 

## s 0 (l()**~** () (}() 

## s 0. 00 \ 0 00 

# ,, () 01) 

## s 0.00 

## s u.oo 

## s (). ()() ') 0.00 

## s 0.00 \ 0 ()() 

# s () 00 

## s 0.00 \:, (1.00 :.:; '· 0.00 ! 

## s 0

.00 

## s 0.00 

### :s 0.00 :, 

### o.no '\ (),()() 

# s 0.00 

### ' 

## s 0.00 ') () 00 

# s 0.00
1 

## s (). ()() (' () .00 

## s 0.00**~** The known number ofproducts in comJ)liance: Total Costs of compliance for 

### U , S, fleet: $2 , 089 ,463 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if known) $

On-Condition Costs: • Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Co st Cost per Product (e.g. , Inspection , (include access , (@$85 /hour) testing , and clos e- replacement) up) 

### replace external 3.0 \ >:'.Oil $8,391 ')R,646.00 

### tube (as reqd) '> () 00 

# s 0.00**~'** I). (li) 

# s 0 ()() 

# s o no**~** 0

. 00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to exp lain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might n ot be obvious. Thisfield can also b e used to explain warranty costs):

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory action " ?

# ~ YES* 

# 0 NO 

### [J *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:
Is the AD significant?

# · YES* 

# 0 NO 

### [J *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. '

- ' YES 

# 0 NO 

### [J Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska

. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

# ~ YES* 

# 0 NO 

### [J *Explanation:
#### Jefferson Terminal Corporation et al. v. Home Insurance Company.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

WYNDEL DEVERO,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 72 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Q Comm International,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the period  ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Paul Hickey,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2)   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

/s/ Paul Hickey
------------------------
Paul Hickey
Chief Executive Officer

June 13, 2003
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM

In re: Michael Robert Dickinson

CHAPTER 13

CASE NUMBER: 18-34024

TO: Clerk of the Court

1. A proof of claim was electronically filed on behalf of Bank of America, N.A.

2. For account ending 5032 in the amount of $ 642.47

3. Docketed by the Court on 9/11/2018 as Claim number 06.

You are notified that such proof of claim is hereby withdrawn by and on 

behalf of Bank of America, N.A.

DATED: 09/14/2016

Bank of America, N.A.

/s/Derek Johnson

Case 18-34024-KRH Doc 18 Filed 09/21/18 Entered 09/21/18 18:03:23 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 92772 / August 26, 2021

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension of trading 

in the securities of UNITED CANNABIS CORPORATION (CNABQ) commencing at 9:30 a.m. 

EDT on August 27, 2021 and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 10, 2021.

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of the foregoing company due 

to a lack of current and accurate information about the company because it has not filed certain 

periodic reports with the Commission. This order was entered pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

The Commission cautions brokers, dealers, shareholders and prospective purchasers that they 

should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available 

information and any information subsequently issued by this company.

Brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11, at 

the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered relating to the securities 

of the subject company unless and until the broker or dealer has strictly complied with all of the 

provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by the rule, it 

should refrain from entering quotations relating to the securities of this company that has been 

subject to the trading suspension until such time as it has familiarized itself with the rule and is 

certain that all of its provisions have been met. Any broker or dealer with questions regarding

the rule should contact the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC 

at (202) 551-5777. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of the rule,

the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action. 

If any broker, dealer or other person has any information which may relate to this matter, they 

should immediately communicate it to the Delinquent Filings Branch of the Division of 

Enforcement at (202) 551-5466, or by e-mail at DelinquentFilings@sec.gov.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of BlastGard International, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the companys financial condition and results of operations.



May 15, 2008





/s/ Andrew McKinnon

Andrew McKinnon, Chief Executive Officer
#### Max Mayer, Doing Business Under the Name of Silver Lady Company, Respondent, v. Jac. Feinberg & Son, Inc., Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Martin, P. J., and Glennon, J., dissent and vote to reverse and grant a new trial.
|  |  | [if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications.
Title      
Draft environmental impact statement : Hi-Grouse Project : Goosenest    Ranger District, Klamath National Forest, Siskiyou County, California.     | Appendix
SuDocs No.  A  13.105/2:R 5-MB-206/DRAFT
Item  No.  0082-A-05 (online)
System No. 000747355
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

 
 
 
Last updated:  September 24,  2016  Page Name:  http://permanent.fdlp.gov/
  |
|--|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### § 212.13 [Reserved]
#### Laura H. Howard, Plaintiff in Error, v. Julia Wagner et al., Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 15,250.

*Evidence—when cross-examination improper.*It is error to permit cross-examination as to a transaction which was not shown to have been authorized or binding upon the party against whom it was elicited.

Forcible detainer. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John H. Hume, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1908.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed February 14, 1911.

Statement by the Court. Plaintiff in error brought an action in forcible detainer in the Municipal Court *634of Chicago against defendants in error, to recover possession of certain premises. A trial was had before a jury, which found in favor of defendants.

Defendants were in possession of the property under a contract of purchase from the grantor of plaintiff. Certain payments, due under the contract, not having been made, a demand in writing for possession was served upon defendants, and this demand was followed by the suit.

Plaintiff made her case, and clearly established her •right to recover, and no evidence was offered on behalf of the defense. The only attempt made by the defendants in error to establish any defense consisted in developing a theory upon cross-examination of one Boach, a witness for the plaintiff, who, upon cross-examination, testified to an agreement between himself and the defendants in error relating to a purchase and sale of an interest in a houseboat,—by the terms oí which Boach was to sell the houseboat, and, after deducting the amount due himself, pay the balance upon the contract for the real estate in question, and he further stated that the houseboat had not been sold. He further testified, also upon cross-examination, that, on the day the cause was called for trial, one of the defendants offered to pay him $20 on account of the real estate contract relating to the premises in question, which payment was refused unless the defendants should pay the court costs, etc.

To all this matter, thus brought out in cross-examination, plaintiff in error objected that it was not anywhere shown that Boach had any authority from plaintiff to make the houseboat contract, or in any manner bind her in relation thereto. In fact there was no evidence tending to show that she knew anything about it.

Robert F. Kolb, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance by defendant in error.

*635Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff having made her case, and there being nothing in the record to show any authority on the part of Boach to make for plaintiff any agreement relating to the houseboat, nor, indeed, that he represented her in any manner, the court erred in permitting Boach’s cross-examination concerning the houseboat, and it should have given the requested peremptory instruction to find the defendants guilty.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

*jReversed and remanded.*
389 P.2d 20

#### Nicholas G. SIMON and Helene W. Simon, Petitioners, v. Hon. Paul TACKETT, District Judge in and for the County of Bernalillo, Respondent.

No. 7565.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 5, 1964.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and CARMODY, CHAVEZ, NOBLE and MOISE, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that the petition for alternative writ of prohibition be and the same is hereby denied.