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

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

October 30, 2023

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Clerk - Southern District of Florida 

U.S. District Court 

400 N MIAMI AVE

MIAMI, FL 33128-1810 

Appeal Number: 23-12330-A 

Case Style: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Lisa McElhone, et al

District Court Docket No: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR

The enclosed copy of the Clerk's Order of Dismissal for failure to prosecute in the abovereferenced appeal is issued as the mandate of this court. See 11th Cir. R. 41-4. Pursuant to 11th 

Cir. R. 42-2(c) and 42-3(c), when an appellant fails to timely file or correct a brief or appendix, 

the appeal shall be treated as dismissed on the first business day following the due date. This 

appeal was treated as dismissed on 10/30/2023. 

Eleventh Circuit Rules 42-2(e) and 42-3(e) govern motions to set aside dismissal and remedy 

the default. Such motions must be filed within 14 days of the date the clerk issues the Order of 

Dismissal. Except as otherwise provided by FRAP 25(a) for inmate filings, a motion to set aside 

dismissal and remedy the default is not timely unless the clerk receives the motion within the 

time fixed for filing. See FRAP 25(a)(2)(A)(i). 

Any pending motions are now rendered moot in light of the attached order. 

Clerk's Office Phone Numbers 

General Information: 404-335-6100 Attorney Admissions: 404-335-6122 

Case Administration: 404-335-6135 Capital Cases: 404-335-6200 

CM/ECF Help Desk: 404-335-6125 Cases Set for Oral Argument: 404-335-6141 

Enclosure(s) 

DIS-2CIV Letter and Entry of Dismissal

 

USCA11 Case: 23-12330 Document: 19 Date Filed: 10/30/2023 Page: 1 of 2 

JG Oct 30, 2023 MIAMI

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1737 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2023 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

______________

No. 23-12330-A

______________ 

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

GROUP, INC., et al.,

 Defendants,

LISA MCELHONE, 

JOSEPH W. LAFORTE, 

a.k.a. Joe Mack, 

a.k.a. Joe Macki, 

a.k.a. Joe McElhone, 

 Defendants - Appellants.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

__________________________________________

ORDER: Pursuant to the 11th Cir. R. 42-2(c), this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for want of 

prosecution because the appellant Joseph W. LaForte and Lisa McElhone has failed to file an 

appellant's brief within the time fixed by the rules, effective October 30, 2023. 

DAVID J. SMITH

Clerk of Court of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

FOR THE COURT - BY DIRECTION 

USCA11 Case: 23-12330 Document: 19 Date Filed: 10/30/2023 Page: 2 of 2

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1737 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 133.35 Change of ownership of recorded copyright. ( a ) *Application.* If the ownership of a recorded copyright is transferred and the owner wishes to continue the recordation with the CBP, he shall make written application to the IPR & Restricted Merchandise Branch as follows: ( 1 ) Comply, as appropriate, with § 133.32; and
( 2 ) Describe any time limit on the rights of ownership transferred.
( b ) *Document and fee.* The application shall be accompanied by: ( 1 ) A certified copy of any assignment, exclusive license, or other document recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office showing the applicant has acquired an ownership interest in the copyright; and
( 2 ) A fee of $80, which covers all copyrights included in the application which have been previously recorded with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. A check or money order shall be made payable to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
[T.D. 72-266, 37 FR 20678, Oct. 3, 1972, as amended by T.D. 75-160, 40 FR 28791, July 9, 1975; T.D. 91-77, 56 FR 46115, Sept. 10, 1991]
Editorial Note on Part 181
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 181 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93026, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 181.112 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart, the following words and phrases have the meanings indicated: ( a ) *Adverse marking decision* means a decision made by the port director or Center director before January 19, 2017, or the Center director on or after January 19, 2017, which an exporter or producer of merchandise believes to be contrary to the provisions of Annex 311 of the NAFTA and which may be protested by the importer pursuant to § 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514), and part 174 of this chapter. Notification of an adverse marking decision is given to an importer in the form of a CBP Form 4647, or its electronic equivalent, (Notice to Mark and/or Notice to Redeliver) and/or by assessing marking duties on improperly marked merchandise. Examples of adverse marking decisions include determinations by the port director or Center director before December 20, 2016, or the Center director on or after January 19, 2017: That an imported article is not a good of a NAFTA country, as determined under the Marking Rules, and that it therefore cannot be marked “Canada” or “Mexico”; that a good of a NAFTA country is not marked in a manner which is sufficiently permanent; and that a good of a NAFTA country does not qualify for an exception from marking specified in Annex 311 of the NAFTA. Adverse marking decisions do not include: Decisions issued in response to requests for advance rulings under subpart I of this part or for internal advice under part 177 of this chapter; decisions on protests under part 174 of this chapter; and determinations that an article does not qualify as an originating good under General Note 12, HTSUS, and the appendix to this part.
( b ) An *exporter* of merchandise is an exporter located in Canada or Mexico who must maintain records in that country relating to the transaction to which the adverse marking decision relates. The records must be sufficient to enable Customs to evaluate the merits of the exporter's claim(s) regarding the adverse marking decision.
( c ) A *producer* of merchandise is a person who grows, mines, harvests, fishes, traps, hunts, manufactures, processes or assembles such merchandise in Canada or Mexico.
[T.D. 95-68, 60 FR 46364, Sept. 6, 1995, as amended by CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61292, Oct. 13, 2015; CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93026, Dec. 20, 2016]
EXHIBIT 99(c)

 

 

 

	ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE
	Pursuant to Section 3.05 of the

	Pooling and Servicing Agreement

	HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION

	HOUSEHOLD CONSUMER LOAN CORPORATION

	HOUSEHOLD CONSUMER LOAN DEPOSIT TRUST I

            _________________________________________

 

	The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Household Finance Corporation, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), pursuant to a Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 1995 (the "Agreement"), among Household Consumer Loan Corporation, as Seller, the Servicer, and JP Morgan Trust-Company, N.A. (Successor in interest to The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.), as Trustee, does hereby certify that:

		1.  The Servicer is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.  Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

		2.  The undersigned is a servicing officer who is duly authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trustee.

		3.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ended December 31, 2003 and of its performance under the Agreement was conducted under my supervision.

		4.  Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in paragraph 5 below.

 

 

		5.  The following is a description of each default in 	the performance of the Servicer's obligations under the 	provisions of the Agreement known to me to have been made by 	the Servicer during the year ended December 31, 2003, which 	sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such default, 	(ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each 	such default and (iii) the current status of each such 	default: 
**	N O N E**
	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this 	Certificate this 25th day of March, 2004

 

 

						HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION

						  as Servicer

 

	/s/ Steven H. Smith __

							Steven H. Smith

							Assistant Treasurer

 

 

 

	HCLT.DOC
PUBLIC LAW 110–210—MAY 7, 2008 122 STAT. 723 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3196: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Mar. 10, considered and passed House. 

Apr. 22, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–210 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 20 Sussex 

Street in Port Jervis, New York, as the ‘‘E. Arthur Gray Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. E. ARTHUR GRAY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 20 Sussex Street in Port Jervis, New York, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘E. Arthur Gray Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘E. Arthur Gray Post Office Building’’. 

Approved May 7, 2008. 

May 7, 2008 

[H.R. 3196] 


jbridges on POFP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COMPASS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION
AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,952
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (725)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,844
<PP&E>                                          27,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,178)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 187,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,779
<BONDS>                                         58,404
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   187,481
<SALES>                                        127,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,919
<CGS>                                           28,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,869
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,876
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,869
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,007
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53
        

</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1346

To amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act to provide an additional function of the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy 

relating to encouraging Federal procurement policies that enhance energy 

efficiency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2003

Mr. TURNER of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 

to provide an additional function of the Administrator 

for Federal Procurement Policy relating to encouraging 

Federal procurement policies that enhance energy efficiency.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF OFFICE OF FEDERAL PRO4 CUREMENT POLICY ACT. 

5 Section 6 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

6 Act (41 U.S.C. 405) is amended—
2

•HR 1346 IH 

1 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

2 (12); 

3 (2) by striking the period at the end of para4 graph (13) and inserting ‘‘and’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(14) encouraging Federal procurement policies 

8 that enhance the energy efficiency of the Federal 

9 Government and decrease the Government’s depend10 ency on non-renewable energy resources.’’.

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 351
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 351 appear at 78 FR 62418, Oct. 22, 2013.

Editorial Note on Part 351
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 351 appear at 89 FR 20832, Mar. 25, 2024.

§ 351.311 Countervailable subsidy practice discovered during investigation or review. ( a ) *Introduction.* During the course of a countervailing duty investigation or review, Department officials may discover or receive notice of a practice that appears to provide a countervailable subsidy. This section explains when the Secretary will examine such a practice.
( b ) *Inclusion in proceeding.* If during a countervailing duty investigation or a countervailing duty administrative review the Secretary discovers a practice that appears to provide a countervailable subsidy with respect to the subject merchandise and the practice was not alleged or examined in the proceeding, or if, pursuant to section 775 of the Act, the Secretary receives notice from the United States Trade Representative that a subsidy or subsidy program is in violation of Article 8 of the Subsidies Agreement, the Secretary will examine the practice, subsidy, or subsidy program if the Secretary concludes that sufficient time remains before the scheduled date for the final determination or final results of review.
( c ) *Deferral of examination.* If the Secretary concludes that insufficient time remains before the scheduled date for the final determination or final results of review to examine the practice, subsidy, or subsidy program described in paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary will: ( 1 ) During an investigation, allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition without prejudice and resubmit it with an allegation with regard to the newly discovered practice, subsidy, or subsidy program; or
( 2 ) During an investigation or review, defer consideration of the newly discovered practice, subsidy, or subsidy program until a subsequent administrative review, if any.
( d ) *Notice.* The Secretary will notify the parties to the proceeding of any practice the Secretary discovers, or any subsidy or subsidy program with respect to which the Secretary receives notice from the United States Trade Representative, and whether or not it will be included in the then ongoing proceeding.
#### Geraldine Murphy, Respondent, v. St. Luke’s Roman Catholic Church, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
NO. 07-10-0066-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B MAY 27, 2010

__________________ ____________ ANTHONY LOCKETT, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee

__________________ _____________ FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT CO URT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2009-422947; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL, PRESIDING

__________________ _____________ Dismissal

__________________ _____________ Before QUINN, C.J., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Anthony Lockett, appeals his co nviction for possession of a controlled substance, a first degree felony. By lett er dated May 7, 2010, we informed appellant that it appeared his notice of appeal was untimely and he had until May 17, 2010, to provide us with any information that woul d be necessary to our determination of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a motion for this court to accept jurisdiction because even2 though the notice of appeal and moti on for new trial were not filed within thirty days after sentence was pronounced, they were filed time ly after the written judgment was signed. This, according to appellant, “vests the Cour t with jurisdiction to hear issues regarding orders contained in the written judgment but not orally pronounc ed at trial.” Appellant further relies on the case of Bailey v. State , 160 S.W.3d 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) to support his argument. In Bailey , the Court of Criminal Appeal s held that a restitution order entered about a month after sentenci ng was pronounced was a continuation of the sentencing hearing becaus e appellant’s punishment wa s not complete until the restitution was ordered. This is not the case here. Appellant admits that restitution was not ordered in this case nor has he pointed us to anywhere in the record to indicate punishment has not been completed. Nor does he suggest that anything is actually wrong with the judgment itself or that it encompasses punish ment different from that orally pronounced. Because appellant agrees that his mo tion for new trial and notice of appeal were not timely filed from the date sentence was pronounced, we find we lack jurisdiction over the matter. 1 Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

Per Curiam Do not publish.

1 The appropriate vehicle for seeking an out-of-time a ppeal from a final felony conviction is by writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2009-2010).
### R eg u l a tory Eva l u ation

D ocket No. 

### FAA-20 1 5 -0900 Dir e cto r ate Iden tifi e r : 

### 2 0 1 5-NE

- 1 2 -AD ((yo u m ake c han ges to th e va lu es in th e ta hle be f01r , 

### yo u must e n s ur e th e to ta l s updat e

**cco rdin** 

**~\ ·.**  

## If they d o not. d ick (or T ab) i n to a nd then olll of the changed ce ll
. Estimated Co sts : Action Co s t s per Product (e
. g ., aircraft , eng in e, (e.g
. , Insp ec ti o n , prop e ller, appli ance ) W o rk

- ho urs Lab or Parts Cos t T o t a l Costs N umb e r of Total Cost re p laceme nt) (includ e co st (la bo r + 

# u.s . f o r U .S. F leet Do n o t includ e o nco nditio n c o s t s h e r e acces s , testin g, (@$85/h p arts) Re g iste r ed and clos e -up ) our) Pr o ducts I n s p e ction 

### 2.0 9 6 

### Pump
_

dri v er $ 1 ,094 96 

### Oil pump . $16,218 

### 96

'•



### , ,



# . '

The known numbe r of products in c o mpliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compl i ance f o r 

### U
. S. fleet : 

### $1 , 67 8,272 Costs c ov e red und e r w arranty 

### ( if kn own) 

### $ 0 O n -Co nd i t i o n Costs : Acti o n Work-hour s Lab or cost P arts C o s t Co st p e r Produ ct (e.g., In s p e c tio n , ( in cl ude access, ( @$ 8 5/h our) test ing, and closer ep lac e me nt) up) 

### 0

Specia l co n s ideratio n s for Eco n omic A n a l ys i s (Use th is field t o explain any thin g in th e Es tim a t ed Costs tab l e that was ass um ed o r mi g ht no t b e obv io u s . Thi s fie l d c an al so be u se d t o explai n warr a n ty cos t s):

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

- YES* 

# 0 NO 

### cgj *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the 

### AD significant?

- YES* 

# 0 NO 

### cgj *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 

### cgj 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 

### cgj *Explanation:
### §1294. Penalty

Any person who shall, except as permitted by law, willfully resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with the Secretary or any of his agents in the performance of duties pursuant to this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

(Pub. L. 95–87, title VII, §704, Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 520.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 704 of Pub. L. 95–87 also amended section 1114 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
EXHIBIT 10.2



December 23, 1998


Mr. Roger Peirce
U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.
2200 Powell Street, Suite 800
Emeryville, CA 94608-1876

Dear Roger:

     This  letter  will serve as  confirmation  that U.S.  Wireless  Data shares
issued and held in the name of Liviakis Financial Communications,  Inc., John M.
Liviakis, and Robert B. Prag will be under "lock up" until December 31, 1999

Sincerely,

/s/ John M. Liviakis                        /s/ Robert B. Prag
------------------------                    ------------------
John M. Liviakis                            Robert B. Prag
President                                   Sr. Vice President
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption
"Experts-Independent Auditors" and to the use of our report dated January 2,
2003 in the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (File No. 333-102056)
and related Prospectus of Claymore Securities Defined Portfolios, Series 142.

                                                      /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
                                                          GRANT THORNTON LLP

Chicago, Illinois
January 2, 2003
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-03-005 February 6, 2003

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC STAFF TO HOLD OPEN MEETING WITH VIRGINIA POWER AND FRAMATOME

ON FEBRUARY 10 IN RICHMOND TO DISCUSS REACTOR HEAD REPLACEMENT

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting in Richmond on February 10

with Virginia Electric and Power Company to discuss the results of the NRC’s inspection of the

company’s recently completed replacement of the reactor vessel head at North Anna Unit 2 with a head

manufactured in France. Representatives of the French manufacturer, Framatome ANP, will be

present.

 The meeting will be held from 1:00 until 2:00 p.m. at VEPCO’s offices at 5000 Dominion

Boulevard located in the Innsbrook office park in the Richmond suburb of Glen Allen. The public is

invited to attend to observe the meeting and will have an opportunity to communicate with the NRC

staff after the meeting’s business portion but before the meeting is adjourned. 

 The NRC staff has completed inspection of the head replacement and will issue a report within 45

days documenting the results. VEPCO plans to use this same kind of vessel head at North Anna Unit 1

and Surry Unit 1.

#