alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for

the District of Minnesota.

___________

No. 95-4098

___________

Empire State Bank, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Federal Deposit Insurance *

Corporation, as receiver of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Citizens State Bank of Fulda, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: October 24, 1996

 Filed: December 5, 1996 ___________

Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The District Court1 granted the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation's motion for summary judgment. Empire State Bank, the

plaintiff below, appeals. We affirm.

This case arises out of a settlement agreement between Empire

and the FDIC acting as receiver of Citizens State Bank of Fulda.

Empire claims the FDIC breached the agreement and seeks damages.

The District Court agreed with the FDIC that Empire failed to

demonstrate any damages, there being no showing of a causal

relationship between Empire's alleged damages and the alleged

breach, and the alleged damages being wholly speculative.
 2

The Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate

Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

For reversal, Empire argues that with more discovery it might

have been able to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact, and

therefore that summary judgment was improperly granted. Empire

also argues that the District Court erred in affirming the denial

by the magistrate judge2 of Empire's motion to compel discovery.

Having reviewed the case, we reject Empire's contentions. Summary

judgment was properly granted on Empire's breach of contract claim,

and the District Court's affirmance of the magistrate judge's

ruling on Empire's discovery motion was not an abuse of discretion.

We note that Empire does not contest the District Court's

dismissal, on jurisdictional grounds, of Empire's misrepresentation

claim.

AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0114 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL PRESSEL,

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 February 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 3 2022

01/03/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0114
### §2653. Taxation of multiple skips

#### (a) General rule

For purposes of this chapter, if—

(1) there is a generation-skipping transfer of any property, and

(2) immediately after such transfer such property is held in trust,

for purposes of applying this chapter (other than section 2651) to subsequent transfers from the portion of such trust attributable to such property, the trust will be treated as if the transferor of such property were assigned to the first generation above the highest generation of any person who has an interest in such trust immediately after the transfer.

#### (b) Trust retains inclusion ratio

#### (1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), the provisions of subsection (a) shall not affect the inclusion ratio determined with respect to any trust. Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, notwithstanding the preceding sentence, proper adjustment shall be made to the inclusion ratio with respect to such trust to take into account any tax under this chapter borne by such trust which is imposed by this chapter on the transfer described in subsection (a).

#### (2) Special rule for pour-over trust

#### (A) In general

If the generation-skipping transfer referred to in subsection (a) involves the transfer of property from 1 trust to another trust (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as the "pour-over trust"), the inclusion ratio for the pour-over trust shall be determined by treating the nontax portion of such distribution as if it were a part of a GST exemption allocated to such trust.

#### (B) Nontax portion

For purposes of subparagraph (A), the nontax portion of any distribution is the amount of such distribution multiplied by the applicable fraction which applies to such distribution.

(Added Pub. L. 99–514, title XIV, §1431(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2727.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to generation-skipping transfers (within the meaning of section 2611 of this title) made after Oct. 22, 1986, except as otherwise provided, see section 1433 of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.
§ 101.400 What is the purpose of this subpart? ( a ) This subpart implements section 401 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (31 U.S.C. 6506 *et seq.*) which promotes intergovernmental partnership and strengthens Federalism by relying on state processes and state, area-wide, regional, and local coordination for the review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development.
( b ) While guiding SBA's management, this subpart does not create any right or benefit enforceable at law.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22366-FAM

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BATTERIES PLUS, LLC,

Defendant.

/

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby dismisses 

with prejudice her civil action against Defendant BATTERIES PLUS, LLC.

Dated: August 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, FL 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 10, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system.

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22366-FAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 1 of 1
March 23, 2015

Mr. Bryan Byler

Occupational Safety & Health, Inc.

511 Flagstone Boulevard

Lenoir City, TN 37772

Dear Mr. Byler:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your January 30, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Occupational Safety & 

Health, Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0271), but we are unable to process your 

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000894789
<NAME>                        CLASSICS INTERNATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,583,141
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,012,488
<COMMON>                                       17,379
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,613,008)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (21,321)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21,321)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)



</TABLE>
### §6663. Imposition of fraud penalty

#### (a) Imposition of penalty

If any part of any underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return is due to fraud, there shall be added to the tax an amount equal to 75 percent of the portion of the underpayment which is attributable to fraud.

#### (b) Determination of portion attributable to fraud

If the Secretary establishes that any portion of an underpayment is attributable to fraud, the entire underpayment shall be treated as attributable to fraud, except with respect to any portion of the underpayment which the taxpayer establishes (by a preponderance of the evidence) is not attributable to fraud.

#### (c) Special rule for joint returns

In the case of a joint return, this section shall not apply with respect to a spouse unless some part of the underpayment is due to the fraud of such spouse.

(Added Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §7721(a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2397.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to returns the due date for which (determined without regard to extensions) is after Dec. 31, 1989, see section 7721(d) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as an Effective Date of 1989 Amendment note under section 461 of this title.
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Trail Of Tears
National Historic Trail
AL, AR, GA, IL, KY, MO, NC, OK, TN


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  Trail Planning
 A range of management and implementation plans are used to administer the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail. These documents provide overall guidance for National Park Service administrators and their partners in the trail protection, development, and interpretation.
Management and Implementation Plans
Trail of Tears NHT Interpretive Plan June 2004The National Park Service developed an interpretive plan for the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail in cooperation with the Trail of Tears Association and other trail partners during 2003-04. This document provides guidance regarding trail-wide interpretive themes, goals and actions.
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management and Use PlanA Comprehensive Management and Use Plan for the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail was completed in September 1992. This document describes a framework for the National Park Service and trail partners (federal and state agencies, organizations, private landowers, etc.) to cooperatively manage and protect resouces and to provide for appropriate visitor use and interpretation. An accompanying Map Supplement, also completed in September 1992, contains a set of trail maps.
Map Supplement September 1992
Feasibility Study Revision and Update
 Last updated: August 3, 2023
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: National Trails Office Regions 6|7|8
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
1100 Old Santa Fe Trail
Santa Fe,
NM
87505
 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00331-CR

Fernando TORRES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR1546W

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately 

reflects that the criminal case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a 

certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record 

under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be 

dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant 

causes an amended trial court certification to be filed by July 15, 2015, showing appellant has the 

right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). 

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-CV-14195-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD 

DELTA DANIELLE HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEB HAALAND, as Secretary 

of the United States Department 

of the Interior, 

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 28] which 

was previously referred to the Honorable Shaniek M. Maynard for a Report and 

Recommendation. DE 16. On October 25, 2021, Judge Maynard issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Motion be granted. DE 36. Plaintiff filed objections. 

DE 38. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Maynard’s Report and 

Recommendation, the objections, and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. 

Upon review, the Court finds Judge Maynard’s recommendations to be well reasoned and 

correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in Judge Maynard’s Report and Recommendation 

and concludes that the Motion should be granted for the reasons set forth therein. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. Magistrate Judge Maynard’s Report and Recommendation [DE 36] is hereby 

ADOPTED; 

2. Defendant’s Motion [DE 28] is GRANTED; 

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2021 Page 1 of 2
3. The Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED; and 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 8th day of 

November, 2021. 

 

_______________________________ 

 ROBIN L. ROSENBERG 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record 

Case 2:20-cv-14195-RLR Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2021 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MARCIA SORIN, Individually and on Behalf 

of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, 

A Subsidiary of THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 9:20-cv-80897-WPD

Judge William P. Dimitrouleas

/

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT FIRST MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Folger Coffee Company’s Motion to 

Dismiss Class Action Complaint (“Motion”) [DE 17], filed on July 29, 2020. The Court has 

considered the Motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. 

On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which Defendant has 

subsequently moved to dismiss; as such, it appears Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

first Complaint is moot. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [DE 17] is hereby 

DENIED as moot. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 31st day of December, 2020. 

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2020 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Argosy Gaming Company (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Richard J. Glasier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/  Richard J. Glasier          |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |
| Richard J. Glasier                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| May 7, 2004                           |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BYSECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THECOMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFFUPON REQUEST.

 

----
### §5851. Special (occupational) tax exemption

#### (a) Business with United States

Any person required to pay special (occupational) tax under section 5801 shall be relieved from payment of that tax if he establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that his business is conducted exclusively with, or on behalf of, the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof. The Secretary may relieve any person manufacturing firearms for, or on behalf of, the United States from compliance with any provision of this chapter in the conduct of such business.

#### (b) Application

The exemption provided for in subsection (a) of this section may be obtained by filing with the Secretary an application on such form and containing such information as may by regulations be prescribed. The exemptions must thereafter be renewed on or before July 1 of each year. Approval of the application by the Secretary shall entitle the applicant to the exemptions stated on the approved application.

(Added Pub. L. 90–618, title II, §201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1233; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5851, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 728, as amended by act Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §203(h)(1), (2), 72 Stat. 1428, related to possessing firearms illegally, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 90–618. See section 5861(b) of this title.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5812, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 722, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 90–618.

#### Amendments

1976—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on first day of first month following October 1968, see section 207 of Pub. L. 90–618, set out as a note under section 5801 of this title.
118 STAT. 3900 PUBLIC LAW 108–475—DEC. 21, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5364:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Nov. 17, considered and passed House.

Dec. 7, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–475

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 5505 Stevens

Way in San Diego, California, as the ‘‘Earl B. Gilliam/Imperial Avenue Post

Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

5505 Stevens Way in San Diego, California, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Earl B. Gilliam/Imperial Avenue Post Office

Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Earl B.

Gilliam/Imperial Avenue Post Office Building’’.

Approved December 21, 2004.

Dec. 21, 2004

[H.R. 5364]