alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITE STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff )

)

)

v. ) CASE NO. 12 CR 00087

) 

RONALD WATTS, ) Honorable

Defendant ) Sharon Johnson Coleman 

) Judge Presiding

MOTION IN LIMINE FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT TO 

GIVE IMMEDIATE NOTICE OF ITS INTENTION TO USE CERTAIN OTHER 

CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS EVIDENCE

NOW COMES THE DEFENDANT, Ronald Watts, through his attorneys, The 

Law Offices of Thomas Glasgow LTD, pursuant to Rule 12(d)(2), F.R.Cr.P. and Rule 

104(a) and (c) F.R.E., and moves this Honorable Court for an entry of an Order requiring 

the Government to give immediate notice of it’s intention to use at trial in the instant 

matter, either in its case in chief, during cross-examination of the defendant, or in its 

rebuttal case, the following: 

1. Evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” of the defendant, as that phrase is 

used in section 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

(a) In regard to the notice, the Government should identify and describe:

 (i) The dates, times, places, and person involved in the crimes, wrongs or 

 acts; 

(ii) The statements of each participant in the other crimes, wrongs, or acts;

(iii) The documents which contain evidence of the other crimes, wrongs or 

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/01/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:222
 acts, including when the documents were prepared, who prepared the 

 documents, and who has possession of the documents; and 

(iv) The issue or issues to which the Government believes such other 

 crimes, wrongs or acts evidence is relevant with Federal Rule of 

 evidence 404(b).

2. Evidence of “specific instances of conduct” of the defendant as that phrase is 

used in Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). 

(a) In regard to the notice, the Government should identify and describe:

(i) The dates, times, places, and person involved in the specific act of 

 misconduct. 

(ii) The statements of each participant in the specific acts of misconduct; 

and

(iii) The documents which contain evidence of the specific acts of 

misconduct, including when the documents were prepared, who 

prepared the documents, and who has possession of the documents; 

and 

(iv) The issue or issues to which the Government believes such other 

 crimes, wrongs or acts evidence is relevant with Federal Rule of 

 evidence 608(b) 

WHEREFORE, defendant Ronald Watts respectfully requests this Honorable Court for 

an order requiring the Government to give immediate notice of its intention to use certain 

other crimes, wrongs, and acts evidence in the manner stated above. 

 

 Respectfully submitted

 s/Thomas Glasgow 

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/01/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:223
The Law Offices of Thomas Glasgow, Ltd.

Attorney for Ronald Watts

1834 Walden Office Square, Suite #500

Schaumburg, IL 60173

(847) 577-8700

Attorney No: 6220641

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/01/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:224
#### 1503.000 Scope of part.

This part implements FAR part 3, cites EPA regulations on employee responsibilities and conduct, establishes responsibility for reporting violations and related actions, and provides for authorization of exceptions to policy.
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 Annual Report of FieldPoint Petroleum Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ray Reaves, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Ray Reaves________ Ray Reaves Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer April 4, 2007
**EXHIBIT
      31.2**





SECTION
      906 SARBANES OXLEY CERTIFICATION





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SS.1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of New Century Companies, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Duquette,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.





*May
                15, 2008*
            */s/
                David Duquette***
            *Name:    David
                Duquette***
            *Title:      Chief
                Executive Officer and***
            *Chief
                Financial Officer*




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906 has been provided to Company and will be retained by Company
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Revised Toxics Rule preamble 

 Bill Maxwell 

 to: Cortney_Higgins 

 03/10/2011 05:45 PM 

 

Cortney -- 

Attached is the revised version of the Toxics Rule along with a redline 

vs. the 02/18/2011 version. 

Thanks. 

E.O.12866TheToxicsRule2060-AP-52Proposal031011.doc Redline 0218 vs. 0310.docx 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450
Order filed August 12, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00320-CV

___________

DARYL GREEN, Appellant

V.

GROCERS SUPPLY CO. INC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 & Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 530200003

O R D E R

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter 

for the County Court at Law No. 3 & Probate Court informed this court that 

appellant had not made arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On

April 30, 2014, the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider 

and decide those issues that do not require a reporter=s record unless appellant, 

within 15 days of notice, provided this court with proof of payment for the record. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no reply. 
Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within thirty 

days of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court 

will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Jose Garcia. (B) The People of the State of New York v. Hilton Marrero. (C) The People of the State of New York v. Curlean Kelly. (D) The People of the State of New York v. Juan Roche. (E) The People of the State of New York v. Arthur Benjamin. (E) The People of the State of New York v. Nick Theofilos. (G) The People of the State of New York v. Elmo Lazzarini.

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ. [In each action] Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
### §4803. Pork and pork product orders

(a) To carry out this chapter, the Secretary shall, in accordance with this chapter, issue and, from time to time, amend orders applicable to persons engaged in—

(1) the production and sale of porcine animals, pork, and pork products in the United States; and

(2) the importation of porcine animals, pork, or pork products into the United States.

(b) The Secretary may issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1614, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1609.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1986, see section 1631 of Pub. L. 99–198, set out as a note under section 4801 of this title.
PO Box 4023 

184 South Main Street 

Washington, PA 15301 

CENTER FOR COALFIELD 

JUSTtCE 

■tiranittn:1 educating empowenng 

P) 724.229.3550 

F) 724.229.3551 

www.coalfieldjustice.org 

info@coalfieldjustice.org 

Hello, my name is Jaclyn Clifford and I am a student at the University Pittsburgh school of law 

and I am a legal intern for the Center for Coalfield Justice. Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment on the US EPA's Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants and the Carbon 

Pollution Standard for Modified Sources. The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan 

implementation is vital for both the environment and the economy of Pennsylvania. 

The Center for Coalfield Justice supports the Clean Power Plan to increase the use of 

renewable energy sources. Our nation prides itself on being innovators and trailblazers, so why 

have we become so complacent with our energy standards? Even though coal extraction has 

proven time and time again to be an environmentally and economically destructive industry we 

continue to rely on the status quo. We now have the chance to start investing in more reliable and 

safer renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydro. 

Washington and Greene County are of the top producers of coal in the country, but are 

among some of the poorest communities in Pennsylvania. Most citizens are dependent upon jobs 

in the coal industry to provide for their families. These jobs are dangerous and not sustainable. 

These areas lack job diversity that would allow for economic growth. The responsible 

development of renewable energy resources supports local economies, creates jobs, and niox 

America and Pennsylvania toward a cleaner. more reliable energy future. 

Residents of both Greene and Washington County have been paying the economic and 

environmental costs of the coal industry far too long. This Rule will finally allow Pennsylvania 

to loosen the grip of the coal industry and allow for communities in Washington and Greene 

County to diversify their economy and start working towards a coal free generation. 

Thanks 

!acivn Liirtoro 

184 S Main Street 

PO BOX 4023 

Washington, PA 15301 

Justice for Coalfield Citizens
M. P. No. 74-329.

#### Clinton W. Keach, *Executor of the Will of*Maria E. Keach *v.*Robertshaw Controls Company *et al.*

*Joseph T. Trainor,*for plaintiff-respondent. *Roberts & Willey Incorporated, David W. Carroll,*for defendant-petitioner Robertshaw Controls Company.

Petition for a writ of certiorari is denied without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise the issues presented on appeal.

Roberts, C. J. not participating.
#### 1552.209-70 Organizational conflict of interest notification.

As prescribed in 1509.507-1(b) insert the following solicitation provision in all solicitations.

# Organizational Conflict of Interest Notification (APR 1984)

(a) The prospective Contractor certifies, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it is not aware of any information bearing on the existence of any potential organizational conflict of interest. If the prospective Contractor cannot so certify, it shall provide a disclosure statement in its proposal which describes all relevant information concerning any past, present, or planned interests bearing on whether it (including its chief executives and directors, or any proposed consultant or subcontractor) may have a potential organizational conflict of interest.

(b) Prospective Contractors should refer to FAR subpart 9.5 and EPAAR part 1509 for policies and procedures for avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating organizational conflicts of interest.

(c) If the Contracting Officer determines that a potential conflict exists, the prospective Contractor shall not receive an award unless the conflict can be avoided or otherwise resolved through the inclusion of a special contract clause or other appropriate means. The terms of any special clause are subject to negotiation.

(End of provision)

[49 FR 8867, Mar. 8, 1994, as amended at 59 FR 18620, Apr. 19, 1994; 62 FR 33573, June 20, 1997]
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60058

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

TONY MARASCALCO,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WESTON BIRDSONG ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 3:93-CV-96-B-D

- - - - - - - - - -

August 24, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant, Tony Marascalco, a Mississippi state prisoner,

appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

There is no federal statute of limitations for § 1983

actions, and the federal courts borrow the forum state's general

personal injury limitations period. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235

(1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 52 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 501 U.S. 1235 (1991). 
No. 95-60058

-2-

Although Marascalco alleged that he was arrested and

incarcerated in January and June 1989, he did not allege that he

suffered a specific injury or damage during either of those

incarcerations. The first date that he alleged that he suffered

an actual injury or damage, and the date on which Marascalco's

action accrued, was November 1989. As a result, the three-year

statute of limitations in Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (Supp. 1994),

which applies to actions accruing after July 1, 1989, is

applicable to Marascalco's action. See James v. Sadler, 909 F.2d

834, 836 (5th Cir. 1990). Marascalco's action was not filed

within three years of the date that it accrued. Therefore, the

district court did not err in dismissing Marascalco's action as

barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's audited financial statements for the year ended September 30, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                    973
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          973
<PP&E>                                  5,253
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,491
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      62
<BONDS>                                 1,278
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4,767
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        4,547
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         3,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     3,838
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            3,838
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             176.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                             176.32
        

</TABLE>
Aviation Fuel Tax Action Plans

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) posts the following Action Plans 

submitted by state and local governments in response to the FAA’s Policy and 

Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue; Proceeds From Taxes on Aviation 

Fuel, 79 Federal Register 66,282, November 7, 2014). The Action Plans are posted as 

they are received. Subsequent Action Plans will be posted as they are received by the 

FAA. The status of FAA reviews will be posted on the FAA Airports Compliance and 

Management Analysis web site at www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance.
CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT




OF




CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION




OF




DCAP
GROUP, INC.




(Pursuant
to Section 242 of the


General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware)





DCAP GROUP, INC., a
corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the provisions of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY:




FIRST:  The name of
the Company is DCAP Group, Inc.  The Company was originally
incorporated pursuant to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware on
the 25th day of
August, 1961 under the name Executive House, Inc.




SECOND:  The
Certificate of Incorporation of the Company is hereby amended to change the
corporate name of the Company.




THIRD:  Article
FIRST of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company is hereby amended to
read in its entirety as follows:




“FIRST: 
The name of the Corporation is Kingstone Companies, Inc.”




FOURTH:  The
amendment was duly adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 242 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation has been executed by
the President of the Company on this 1st day of
July, 2009.




DCAP GROUP, INC.By:
              /s/ Barry
      B. GoldsteinBarry
      B. GoldsteinPresident
#### 1331.205-70 Duplication of effort.

The Department will not pay any costs for work that is duplicative of costs charged against any other contract, subcontract or Government source. Insert clause 1352.231-71, *Duplication of Effort,* in all cost-reimbursement, time and materials, and labor hour solicitations and contracts when applicable.
No. 95-3072

 

James Spann; *

 *

Appellant; *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri.

Michael Groose; Gerald Brommel; *

Dwayne Kempker; Joseph Staten; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Melvyn Douglas Smith, COI; *

 *

Appellees. *

 

Submitted: February 13, 1996

 Filed: March 11, 1996

 

Before MAGILL, HEANEY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

 

PER CURIAM.

James Spann, an inmate at the Jefferson City Correctional Center,

initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendant

prison officials violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, he

asserted that they failed to protect him from an assault by other inmates

at the correctional facility. The district court adopted the magistrate's

report and recommendation and granted the defendants summary judgment in

this matter. Spann appeals.

The Eighth Amendment imposes upon prison officials the duty to

provide inmates with "humane conditions of confinement," which includes

taking reasonable measures to "'protect prisoners from violence at the

hands of other prisoners.'" Farmer v. Brennan, 114
2

S. Ct. 1970, 1976 (1994) (quoting Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship,

842 F.2d 556, 558 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 823 (1988)). For a

failure-to-protect claim, inmates must show both that they are

"incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm"

and that a prison official "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

inmate health or safety." Id. at 1977, 1979. 

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record in this case and

agree with the district court that the named defendants were without

knowledge of a serious risk to Spann's safety. Thus, they could not have

been deliberately indifferent. We therefore affirm the district court's

grant of summary judgment for the defendants and the dismissal of Spann's

claim.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Upstate Tel-Hotel Corporation, Appellant, v. Prospect House Corp., Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party and motion denied, without costs, and without prejudice to renewing the motion in the proper county. Memorandum: Special Term, Niagara County, lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to change the place of trial from New York County, which is the place of plaintiff’s residence and a proper county in which to bring the action, to Niagara County, the motion having been made on the grounds that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by such change. *(Nevelson*v. *Piesner,*272 App. Div. 555.) The application should have been denied and the defendant-respondent relegated to his remedy of making a motion for a change of venue on such grounds in the First Judicial District. (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 63; 1 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 633.) (Appeal from order of Niagara Special Term changing the place of trial from New York County to Niagara County.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.