alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §§7211, 7212. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–106, div. D, title XLIII, §4304(b)(6), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 664

Section 7211, Pub. L. 95–91, title VI, §601, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 591; Pub. L. 103–160, div. C, title XXXI, §3161(c)(1)(A), (B), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1958, related to definitions of supervisory employees and energy concern.

Section 7212, Pub. L. 95–91, title VI, §602, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 592; 1978 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §102, eff. Jan. 1, 1979, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3784; Pub. L. 103–160, div. C, title XXXI, §3161(b), (c)(1)(C), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1958, related to divestiture of energy holdings by supervisory employees.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

For effective date and applicability of repeal, see section 4401 of Pub. L. 104–106, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 2220 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
#### § 1000.436 How will HUD monitor the use of funds guaranteed under this subpart?

HUD will monitor the use of funds guaranteed under this subpart as set forth in section 403 of NAHASDA, and the lender is responsible for monitoring performance with the documents.
#### Sam Cohen, Doing Business as Eagle Muslin Undergarment Co. v. Amboc Corp.

Application denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 25, 2020.                    

      ( print page 75384)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 13, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add First-Class Package Service Contract 114 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-27, CP2021-27.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2020-26131 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00196-CV

In re John Bird, Individually, and as de facto trustee of the Carl C. Anderson, Sr. and 

Marie Jo Anderson Charitable remainder trust and as former de facto trustee of the Carl 

C. Anderson, Sr. and Marie Jo Anderson Family Trust F/B/O Jennifer Jo Bird

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith

Filed: September 10, 2021
#### § 146.23 Notice of subrecipients.

Whenever a recipient passes Federal financial assistance from HUD to subrecipients, the recipient shall provide the subrecipient with written notice of its obligations under this part and the recipient will remain responsible for the subrecipient's compliance with respect to programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from HUD.
*

 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

August 7, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60897

Summary Calendar

 

CHARLES L. STRINGER,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE HERBERT,

 DefendantAppellee.

---------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 01-CV-513

---------------------------------------------------------

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles L. Stringer’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against appellee Wayne Herbert, a judge,

was dismissed with prejudice by the district court. The district court’s dismissal was based on its

entry ofsummary judgment against Stringer and in favor of Herbert. On appeal, Stringer challenges
 

-2-

only the district court’s denial of his own summary judgment motion, the grant of Herbert’ssummary

judgment motion, and an order entered declaring one of Stringer’s evidentiary motions moot.

The district court granted Herbert’s summary judgment motion, and denied Stringer’s

summary judgment motion as moot, on the basis that Herbert was entitled to absolute judicial

immunity from the claims brought in Stringer’s complaint. After a de novo review of the record, we

conclude that the summary judgment evidence supports the district court’s actions and that Stringer

has not shown on appeal that summary judgment was not properly entered against him. See FED. R.

CIV. P. 56(c); Guillory v. Domtar Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996); Little v. Liquid

Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); Brinkmann v. Johnston, 793 F.2d 111, 112

(5th Cir. 1986).

The district court’s denial as moot of Stringer’s motion for de novo review of the magistrate

judge’s evidentiary ruling wasfiled on the same day that the district court issued its opinion and order

disposing of Stringer’s complaint on summary judgment. We thus conclude that the district court’s

dismissal of Stringer’s motion as moot was not an abuse of discretion. See HC Gun & Knife Shows,

Inc. v. City of Houston, 201 F.3d 544, 549 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.
J-S25037-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

DANIEL L. SPUCK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

PROGRESS NEWSPAPER, INC. 

JANE/JOHN DOES, PARTIES/EMPLOYEES 

OF, AND LELAND B. MATHER, JR., CHIEF 

EDITOR, ET AL 

Appellees No. 1495 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order August 13, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County

Civil Division at No(s): 2015-1219-CD

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED MARCH 28, 2016

Daniel Spuck appeals from an order dismissing his in forma pauperis

civil complaint against Progress Newspaper, Inc. and Leland Mather. We 

affirm. 

The record reveals that on August 12, 2015, Spuck filed a civil 

complaint alleging that he had “newly discovered evidence” that appellees 

were liable for defamation, negligence and fraud based on newspaper 

articles that they published on December 30, 1995 and April 20, 1996. On 

the date of his civil complaint, he was serving a sentence of 11-22 years’ 

imprisonment for third degree murder and reckless endangerment. He has 

been serving this sentence since 1995. 
J-S25037-16

- 2 -

On August 13, 2015, the trial court dismissed Spuck’s action as 

frivolous pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j). Spuck filed a timely notice of 

appeal and timely statement of matters complained of on appeal. The trial 

court advised this Court that it will not file any Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion.

Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1) provides: “If, simultaneous with the 

commencement of an action or proceeding or the taking of an appeal, a 

party has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court 

prior to acting upon the petition may dismiss the action, proceeding or 

appeal if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if it is satisfied that the action, 

proceeding or appeal is frivolous.” We review a trial court’s decision to 

dismiss an action under Rule 240(j)(1) for abuse of discretion. Lichtman v. 

Glazer, 111 A.3d 1225, 1227 & n. 3 (Pa.Cmwlth.2015). 

The trial court observed in its order of dismissal that (1) the statute of 

limitations for defamation, negligence and fraud expired many years ago; 

(2) while the concept of “newly discovered evidence” is cognizable under the 

Post Conviction Relief Act, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), this concept is 

foreign to civil tort law; and (3) Spuck failed to allege any grounds that 

appellees defamed his character or “caused him to suffer [financial harm] 

while he has been in prison since 1995.” Based on the trial court’s 

reasoning, we conclude that Spuck’s civil complaint is frivolous. The trial 

court acted within its discretion by dismissing the complaint under Rule 

240(j)(1).

Order affirmed.
J-S25037-16

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/28/2016
§ 2003.5 Initial denial of access to records. ( a ) Access by an individual to a record about that individual which is contained in an OIG system of records will be denied only upon a determination by the Privacy Act Officer that: ( 1 ) The record was compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding; or the record is subject to a Privacy Act exemption under § 2003.8 or § 2003.9 of this part; and
( 2 ) The record is also subject to a FOIA exemption under § 2002.21(b) of this chapter.
( b ) If a request is partially denied, any portions of the responsive record that can be reasonably segregated will be provided to the individual after deletion of those portions determined to be exempt.
( c ) The provisions of 24 CFR 16.6(b) and 16.7, concerning notification of an initial denial of access and administrative review of the initial denial, apply to the OIG, except that: ( 1 ) The final determination of the Inspector General, as Privacy Appeals Officer for the OIG, will be in writing and will constitute final action of the Department on a request for access to a record in an OIG system of records; and
( 2 ) If the denial of the request is in whole or in part upheld, the final determination of the Inspector General will include notice of the right to judicial review.
Case 3:09-cv-01344-CRB Document 39 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 3Case 3:09-cv-01344-CRB Document 39 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 3Case 3:09-cv-01344-CRB Document 39 Filed 04/08/10 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000

<CASH>                                          1,724,563
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,164,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                      163,000
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,876,994
<PP&E>                                         83,108,301
<DEPRECIATION>                                (37,789,257)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 55,071,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,729,593
<BONDS>                                         1,800,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           91,920
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,449,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   55,071,059
<SALES>                                         3,810,921
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                3,810,921
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,420,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (44,079)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   359,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               359,272
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      359,271
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.04





</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER XI—WISCONSIN RIVER AND LAKE LAND TITLES
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Metris Companies Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
D. Wesselink, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ David D. Wesselink
                                            ----------------------------
                                            David D. Wesselink
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                            April 9, 2004
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUGLAS R. CARAWAY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-04371-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION TO AMEND

JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF SALE

Re: Dkt. No. 166

Before the Court is the United States’ “Application to Amend Judgment and 

Decree of Sale,” filed April 13, 2016, by which the United States requests the Court 

modify certain provisions in the “Amended Judgment and Decree of Sale,” filed 

November 18, 2011, pertaining to the manner in which the Decree of Sale is to be 

executed. Defendants were required to file their opposition, if any, no later than April 27, 

2016. To date, no opposition has been filed. 

The Court having read and considered the Application, the relief requested therein

is hereby GRANTED, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a); Mootry v. Grayson, 104 F. 613 (9th Cir. 

1900), and the proposed Second Amended Judgment and Decree of Sale will be entered 

concurrently herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04371-MMC Document 168 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:09-cv-01370-EDL Document 63 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-01370-EDL Document62 Filed06/01/10 Page1 of 2
Case3:09-cv-01370-EDL Document62 Filed06/01/10 Page2 of 2

June 2, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-01370-EDL Document 63 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT KEY, JR., 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2105

[March 22, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Krista Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015CF006454AMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, TAYLOR and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2896

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to remove 

the 100 percent tariff imposed on roasted chicory and other roasted 

coffee substitutes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2005

Mr. MCCRERY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to remove the 100 percent tariff imposed on roasted chicory and other roasted coffee substitutes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF 100 PERCENT TARIFF ON ROAST4 ED CHICORY AND OTHER ROASTED COFFEE 

5 SUBSTITUTES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter III of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by striking heading 9903.02.37. 
2

•HR 2896 IH 

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Chapter 21 of 

2 such Schedule is amended by striking footnote 1 to sub3 heading 2101.30.00.

Æ
Exhibit 32(ii)



Certification



STATEMENT OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

OF TICE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tice
Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Sharon Draper, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 14, 2003



/s/     Sharon DraperSharon Draper, Chief Accounting Officer
§ 201.42 Bankruptcy, insolvency or death of borrower. ( a ) *Bankruptcy or insolvency.* The lender shall file a proof of claim with the court having jurisdiction when the lender has timely information that a borrower is involved in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, except that a proof of claim need not be filed if the court notifies the lender that the borrower has no assets and a proof of claim should not be filed. The notice of bankruptcy and a copy of the proof of claim (or the notice from the court that a proof of claim is not required) shall be retained in the loan file.
( b ) *Death of a borrower.* The lender shall file a proof of claim with the court having jurisdiction when the lender has timely information that a borrower is deceased, unless the lender determines that there will not be a probate proceeding. A copy of the proof of claim (or documentation as to why a proof of claim was not filed) shall be retained in the loan file.
( c ) *Responsibility of the lender after insurance claim is filed.* After the Secretary pays an insurance claim, the Secretary will notify the bankruptcy or probate court, as appropriate, that the loan has been assigned to the United States and will request substitution as the party to whom the claim is owed. Until the insurance claim is paid, the lender shall take all steps necessary to protect the interests of the holder of the note in any bankruptcy or probate proceeding.
[54 FR 36266, Aug. 31, 1989]
#### Perin Gobhai, Respondent, v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 15, 1977, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Tierney, J., at Special Term. The respondent shall recover of the appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Silverman, J. P., Evans, Fein, Lynch and Sullivan, JJ.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

REQUEST

FOR CALCULATIONS 

FOR TRIAL

Both sides are invited to run calculations to ascertain how the fund would have done if the

25-percent non-guaranteed mortgaged-back securities limitation had been honored with the

excess over the 25 percent being: (a) kept in cash (Calculation One), and (b) distributed pro rata

among the other non-guaranteed mortgage-back securities investments (up to the limit of any

other industry limitation) (Calculation Two). These should then be pared down to those who

were shareholders as of the date of the mortgage-back securities industry limitation deletion. 

This should then be compared to the way it did turn out. This should be done in time for each

side to depose the experts on these calculations reasonably before trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02058-WHA Document 56 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Mary Barcellos et al., Respondents, v. Triboro Coach Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries the defendant Triboro Coach Corp. appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, enteréd February 17, 1959, after a jury trial, in favor of plaintiffs against it. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Ughetta, J., dis*1046sents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: Plaintiff was injured when she fell while alighting, in broad daylight, from a bus stopped to discharge and take on passengers. As is usually necessary in New York City, the bus stopped at an angle and plaintiff was alighting from the rear door which was, at most, four feet from the curb. There was a slight depression measuring an inch or an inch and a half deep in the roadway. In getting off the bus plaintiff stepped into this depression and injured her knee. There is no evidence, however, that defendant Triboro had notice, actual or constructive of such depression. Nor is there evidence that plaintiff was in any way infirm or incapacitated, and no claim is made that there was any jerk or other motion of the bus after the doors had been opened and while plaintiff was alighting. I discern no violation of the general rule that a carrier is bound simply to exercise ordinary care.