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

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.1.1.2

Eastern Division

Henry Espejo, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−08987

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, May 9, 2017:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras: Status hearing held and

continued to 8/8/2017 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice(vcf, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 221 Filed: 05/09/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3388
#### 1001.106 OMB Approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

OMB has assigned the following control numbers that must appear on the upper right corner of the face page of each solicitation, contract, modification, and order: OMB Control No. 1505-0081 (Offeror submissions), OMB Control No. 1505-0080 (Contractor submissions), OMB Control No. 1505-0107 (Protests). OMB regulations and OMB's approval and assignment of control numbers are conditioned upon Treasury bureaus not requiring more than three copies (including the original) of any document of information. OMB has granted a waiver to permit the Department to require up to eight copies of proposal packages, including proprietary data, for solicitations, provided that contractors who submit only an original and two copies will not be placed at a disadvantage.
### §5405. Agricultural air quality research oversight

#### (a) Findings

Congress finds that—

(1) various studies have alleged that agriculture is a source of PM–10 emissions;

(2) many of these studies have often been based on erroneous data;

(3) Federal research activities are currently being conducted by the Department of Agriculture to determine the true extent to which agricultural activities contribute to air pollution and to determine cost-effective ways in which the agricultural industry can reduce any pollution that exists; and

(4) any Federal policy recommendations that may be issued by any Federal agency to address air pollution problems related to agriculture or any other industrial activity should be based on sound scientific findings that are subject to adequate peer review and should take into account economic feasibility.

#### (b) Purpose

The purpose of this section is to encourage the Secretary of Agriculture to continue to strengthen vital research efforts related to agricultural air quality.

#### (c) Oversight coordination

#### (1) Intergovernmental cooperation

The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable with respect to the Department of Agriculture and other Federal departments and agencies, ensure intergovernmental cooperation in research activities related to agricultural air quality and avoid duplication of the activities.

#### (2) Correct data

The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that the results of any research related to agricultural air quality conducted by Federal agencies not report erroneous data with respect to agricultural air quality.

#### (d) Task force

#### (1) Establishment

The Chief of the National Resources Conservation Service shall establish a task force to address agricultural air quality issues.

#### (2) Composition

The task force shall be comprised of employees of the Department of Agriculture, industry representatives, and other experts in the fields of agriculture and air quality.

#### (3) Duties

The task force shall advise the Secretary with respect to the role of the Secretary for providing oversight and coordination related to agricultural air quality.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title III, §391, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1025.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, and not as part of subtitle F (§1471 et seq.) of title XIV of Pub. L. 101–624 which comprises this chapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the 2nd quarter ending February 28, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  571,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    828,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,491,812
<PP&E>                                       1,555,891
<DEPRECIATION>                                 815,007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,650,942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,172,567
<BONDS>                                        633,260
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,262
<COMMON>                                       468,113
<OTHER-SE>                                     316,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,650,942
<SALES>                                      4,468,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,523,002
<CGS>                                        4,281,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,309,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,615
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,912
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,434
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,434
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.1
 R.H. Donnelley Corporation
Non-Management Director Compensation Program
Effective as of April 1, 2009
(Approved by by the Board of Directors on April 21, 2009)
 n
    
    Annual board service cash retainer: $75,000
 n
    
    Annual lead director cash retainer: $75,000 (not eligible for committee member
retainers, eligible for committee chair retainers, if applicable).
 n
    
    Annual committee member cash retainer:
 4
    
    Audit & Finance: $20,0004
    
    Compensation & Benefits and Corporate Governance: $15,000
 n
    
    Annual committee chair cash retainer:
 4
    
    Audit & Finance: $25,0004
    
    Compensation & Benefits or Corporate Governance: $15,000
 n
    
    All cash retainers payable quarterly.
 n
    
    Special committee compensation: In the event a special committee is formed, the
Compensation & Benefits Committee will have the authority to determine the appropriate
retainer for that committee (either in advance or at the conclusion of the special
committees work).
 n
    
    Additional compensation of $90,000 payable at the end of the calendar year (in stock or
cash, at the election of the board).
 n
    
    No meeting fees.
#### Robert St. John et al. *v.*A. Earl Wood, Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Connecticut

*Jules Lang,*for the plaintiffs.

*Paige J. Everin,*assistant attorney general, for the defendant.

Argued October 1

decided October 9, 1974

The plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the defendant’s “appeal” from the “Memorandum on Determination of Taking Date” is granted.
EXHIBIT 32(b)

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Enzo  Biochem,  Inc.,  and
Subsidiaries  ("the  Company")  on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended July 31,
2004 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I, Barry  Weiner.,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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




Date:  October 14, 2004                          By: /s/ Barry Weiner
                                                     ----------------
                                                         Barry Weiner
                                                         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 the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Act
Commission or its staff upon request.
### §7801. Findings and declaration of policy

#### (a) Findings

Congress finds the following:

(1) Hass avocados are an integral food source in the United States that are a valuable and healthy part of the human diet and are enjoyed by millions of persons every year for a multitude of everyday and special occasions.

(2) Hass avocados are a significant tree fruit crop grown by many individual producers, but virtually all domestically produced Hass avocados for the commercial market are grown in the State of California.

(3) Hass avocados move in interstate and foreign commerce, and Hass avocados that do not move in interstate or foreign channels of commerce but only in intrastate commerce directly affect interstate commerce in Hass avocados.

(4) In recent years, large quantities of Hass avocados have been imported into the United States from other countries.

(5) The maintenance and expansion of markets in existence on October 28, 2000, and the development of new or improved markets or uses for Hass avocados are needed to preserve and strengthen the economic viability of the domestic Hass avocado industry for the benefit of producers and other persons associated with the producing, marketing, processing, and consuming of Hass avocados.

(6) An effective and coordinated program of promotion, research, industry information, and consumer information regarding Hass avocados is necessary for the maintenance, expansion, and development of domestic markets for Hass avocados.

#### (b) Purpose

It is the purpose of this chapter to authorize the establishment, through the exercise of the powers provided in this chapter, of an orderly procedure for the development and financing (through an adequate assessment on Hass avocados sold by producers and importers in the United States) of an effective and coordinated program of promotion, research, industry information, and consumer information, including funds for marketing and market research activities, that is designed to—

(1) strengthen the position of the Hass avocado industry in the domestic marketplace; and

(2) maintain, develop, and expand markets and uses for Hass avocados in the domestic marketplace.

#### (c) Limitation

Nothing in this chapter may be construed to provide for the control of production or otherwise limit the right of any person to produce, handle, or import Hass avocados.

(Pub. L. 106–387, §1(a) [title XII, §1202], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–79.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 106–387, §1(a) [title XII, §1201], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–79, provided that: "This title [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 2000'."
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

AMY COOK, derivatively on behalf of 

CAREER EDUCATION 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

GARY E. MCCULLOUGH, STEVEN H. 

LESNIK, LESLIE T. THORNTON, 

DENNIS H. CHOOKASZIAN, DAVID W. 

DEVONSHIRE, PATRICK W. GROSS, 

GREGORY L. JACKSON, MICHAEL J. 

GRAHAM, THOMAS B. LALLY, BRIAN 

R. WILLIAMS, THOMAS G. BUDLONG, 

and THOMAS A. MCNAMARA, 

Defendants,

- and - 

CAREER EDUCATION 

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 

Nominal Defendant.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 11 C 9119 

The Honorable John W. Darrah 

Plaintiff’s Agreed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement 

Under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Amy Cook 

respectfully moves this Court for entry of the [Proposed] Preliminary Approval and 

Scheduling Order (submitted as Exhibit B to the Stipulation of Settlement dated October 

25, 2013 (the “Stipulation”)): 

 granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement memorialized in the 

Stipulation; 

Case: 1:11-cv-09119 Document #: 73 Filed: 10/25/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:619
2 

 approving the form and manner of the proposed notice (submitted as Exhibit 

C to the Stipulation); 

 setting a schedule for, among other things, a hearing for final approval of the 

proposed settlement; and 

 granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Defendants consent to the relief sought in this motion. 

In support of this agreed motion, Plaintiff Cook submits the accompanying 

memorandum of law and the Stipulation with Exhibits A through E. 

Dated: October 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 

Albert Y. Chang 

Yury A. Kolesnikov 

 s/ Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 

 Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 

7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 

La Jolla, California 92037 

Telephone: (858) 914-2001 

Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 

THE LAW OFFICES OF 

 EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, PC

Edward T. Joyce 

Rowena T. Parma 

135 South La Salle Street, Suite 2200 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: (312) 641-2600 

Facsimile: (312) 641-0360 

Counsel for Plaintiff Amy Cook

Case: 1:11-cv-09119 Document #: 73 Filed: 10/25/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:620
#### 1426.7100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart sets forth reporting requirements established by Executive Order 12432 entitled “Minority Business Enterprise Development” and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as “Superfund.”
#### 1322.604-2 Regulatory exemptions.

The designee authorized to request that the Secretary of Labor exempt a contract or class of contracts from Walsh-Healey Act stipulations is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
Writ of Mandamus Denied; Opinion Filed October 28, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01440-CV

IN RE ELIZABETH REBELES, HOLLINGSWORTH SAND & GRAVEL, LLC, 

AND KELLY DEAN HOLLINGSWORTH, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-10674

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

Relators contend the trial judge erred in granting a motion to disqualify counsel. The 

facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the 

record relators have provided us, we conclude they have not shown they are entitled to the relief 

requested. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) 

(orig. proceeding). Additionally, relators’ petition does not satisfy the requirements of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 

(Tex. App.BDallas 2008, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus and motion for temporary relief.

131440F.P05

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
#### 1427.201 Patent and copyright infringement liability.
Case: 1:12-cv-00244 Document #: 110 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:627
Case: 1:12-cv-00244 Document #: 110 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:628
Case: 1:12-cv-00244 Document #: 110 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:629
Case: 1:12-cv-00244 Document #: 110 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:630
Case: 1:12-cv-00244 Document #: 110 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:631
Case: 1:12-cv-00244 Document #: 110 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:632
Case: 1:12-cv-00244 Document #: 110 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:633
Case: 1:12-cv-00244 Document #: 110 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:634
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 3227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11314]

Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Facing America: Mario 
Schifano 1960-1965'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Facing America: Mario Schifano 
1960-1966'' at the Center for Italian Modern Art, New York, New York, 
and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, 
are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary 
exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000.

Marie Therese Porter Royce,
Assistant Secretary, Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2021-00658 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6540

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WALTER LEE SADLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief

District Judge. (CR-95-134-V)

Submitted: June 12, 1997 Decided: June 18, 1997

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Lee Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Lee Sadler appeals from the district court's denial of

his "Motion for Discovery of Grand Jury Minutes." Our review reveals that Sadler previously moved for production of this same

material, and that this court affirmed the district court's denial

of that prior motion. United States v. Sadler, Nos. 96-7126, 96-

7674 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 1997) (unpublished). We again find no error

in the district court's denial of relief. We therefore affirm the

district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 724
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

§ 724.221 Scheduling of discharge reviews. ( a ) If an applicant requests a personal appearance discharge review, or to be represented in absentia, the NDRB shall provide a hearing in the NCR or at another site within the forty-eight contiguous states.
( b ) The NDRB shall subsequently notify the applicant and representative (if any) in writing of the proposed personal appearance hearing time and place. This notice shall normally be mailed thirty to sixty days prior to the date of the hearing. If the applicant elects, this time limit may be waived and an earlier date set.
( c ) When an applicant requests a documentary review, the NDRB shall undertake the review as soon as practicable. Normally, documentary reviews shall be conducted in the order in which they are received.
Appendix I. Categories of Acute Toxicity 

In general, categories of acute toxicity ranging from "practically nontoxic" to "very 

highly toxic7' have been established for aquatic organisms (based on LCro values), for 

terrestrial mammals and avian species (based on LCso and/or LDsO values), and for nontarget insects (based on LDrO values for honey bees) (EPA 2001). 

Categories of acute toxicity for aquatic organisms can be classified according to the 

toxicity reference value (LC5o) given by a study: 

Categories of acute toxicity for mammalian and avian species can be classified according 

to the toxicity reference value (LC5o or LDro) given by a study: 

The following toxicity category descriptions were developed by Atkins (198 1) and have 

been used by EFED to characterize honey bee acute contact toxicity values (EPA, 2001): 

Works Cited: 

Atkins, EL; Kellum, D; and Atkins, KW. 1981. Reducing pesticide hazards to honey 

bees: mortality prediction techniques and integrated management strategies. University of 

California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Leaflet 2883,23 pp 

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Ecological Risk Assessor 

Orientation Package. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Fate and Effects 

Division. Draft Version, August 200 1. 

TEXT SEARCHABLE DOCUMENT