alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BERTHA MAGALLI YOHO

, Appellant,

v.

JAMES BILLYS and MELISSA BILLYS
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 22

- 1540

[ April 13, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Indian River County ; Janet C. Croom , Judge; L.T. Case No.

312021CA000629

.

Jonathan Mann and Robin Bresky of Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, Boca Raton, for appellant

.

Eric L. Hostetler and Tiffany Ann Jones of Widerman Malek P.L., Melbourne, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., D AMOORGIAN and L EVINE
, JJ., concur

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### §3333. Rangeland research grants

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may make grants to—

(1) land-grant colleges and universities, State agricultural experiment stations, and colleges, universities, and Federal laboratories having a demonstrable capacity in rangeland research, as determined by the Secretary, to carry out rangeland research; and

(2) the Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Restoration for the purposes of facilitating and expanding ongoing State-Federal range management, animal husbandry, and agricultural research, education, and extension programs to meet the targeted, emerging, and future needs of western United States rangelands and associated natural resources.

#### (b) Matching requirements

#### (1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), this grant program shall be based on a matching formula of 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal funding (including funding from an agricultural commodity promotion, research, and information program).

#### (2) Exception

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a grant to a Federal laboratory or a grant under subsection (a)(2).

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1480, as added Pub. L. 97–98, title XIV, §1440(a), Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1319; amended Pub. L. 107–171, title VII, §7209(d), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 445; Pub. L. 113–79, title VII, §7128(b)(1)(C), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 878; Pub. L. 115–334, title VII, §7614(b)(1)(C), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–334 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

2014—Pub. L. 113–79 struck out subsec. (a) designation and heading and subsec. (b). Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) related to matching requirements.

2002—Pub. L. 107–171 inserted section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The Secretary may make grants to land-grant colleges and universities, State agricultural experiment stations, and to colleges, universities, and Federal laboratories having a demonstrable capacity in rangeland research, as determined by the Secretary, to carry out rangeland research. Except in the case of Federal laboratories, this grant program shall be based on a matching formula of 50 per centum Federal and 50 per centum non-Federal funding."

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–334 applicable to grants, cooperative agreements, or other awards made after Dec. 20, 2018, with matching funds requirement in effect on Dec. 20, 2018, to continue to apply to such grant, cooperative agreement, or other award, see section 7614(c) of Pub. L. 115–334, set out as a note under section 3151 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 22, 1981, see section 1801 of Pub. L. 97–98, set out as a note under section 4301 of this title.
### §204. Venue

An action or proceeding over which the district courts have jurisdiction pursuant to section 203 of this title may be brought in any such court in which save for the arbitration agreement an action or proceeding with respect to the controversy between the parties could be brought, or in such court for the district and division which embraces the place designated in the agreement as the place of arbitration if such place is within the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 91–368, §1, July 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 692.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the entry into force of the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards with respect to the United States (Dec. 29, 1970), see section 4 of Pub. L. 91–368, set out as a note under section 201 of this title.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 533

) (04 CR 531)

RANDY GRIFFIN, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

After this Court had ruled on February 28 on the issue of a

certificate of appealability in connection with the current

notice of appeal filed by Randy Griffin (“Griffin”), it was

informed that Griffin had also filed a motion for leave to

proceed with that appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”). This Court

then obtained from the Clerk’s Office copies of Griffin’s motion

and its attached printout that reflected transactions in his

trust fund account at Lewisburg USP (where he is in custody) for

the period of 3 months and 7 days from October 18, 2011 through

January 25, 2012. That printout enabled this Court to make the

calculation called for by 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1)(“Section

1915(b)(1)”)--a calculation that showed the average monthly

deposits to Griffin’s account for that period came to $154.80.

That calculation calls into play two considerations that

appear to look in opposite directions. First, because Seventh

Circuit precedent requires a litigant seeking in forma pauperis

status to establish not only his or her inability to pay but also

Case: 1:12-cv-00533 Document #: 13 Filed: 03/01/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:52
the assertion of a nonfrivolous claim, this Court’s alreadystated denial of a certificate of appealability would call for

the rejection of Griffin’s IFP request. But at the same time a

literal reading of Section 1915(b)(1) would appear to trigger

Griffin’s obligation to pay the entire $455 in appellate filing

fees (although on an installment basis) by reason of the mere

filing of an appeal, in which event the initial payment toward

the filing fees would have to be $30.96 (20% of $154.80), after

which the remaining provisions of the statute would be applicable

to require the payment of future installments.

This Court’s law clerk’s research looking for an insight

into the resolution of that dilemma has revealed no Seventh

Circuit precedent addressing the subject. About the closest 

approach by our Court of Appeals appears to be the

nonprecedential decision in Dallas v. Gamble, No. 00-1580, 2

F.App’x 563, 2001 WL 238071 (7th Cir. Mar. 6), which points

toward the outcome referred to at the end of the preceding

paragraph. But because the factual scenario in Dallas is

significantly different from the situation here, this Court will

simply deny Griffin’s IFP motion without attaching a financial

obligation to pay the appellate filing fees, leaving it to the

Court of Appeals to decide differently if it rules otherwise on

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00533 Document #: 13 Filed: 03/01/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:53
that score.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 1, 2012

3

Case: 1:12-cv-00533 Document #: 13 Filed: 03/01/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:54
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

________________

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY and ) 

GFA BRANDS, INC., ) 

) Nos. 1:12-cv-01508 

Plaintiffs, ) 1:12-cv-01509 

 v. ) 1:12-cv-01511 

) 1:12-cv-01513 

KEEBLER CO.; ) 

FAMOUS AMOS CHOCOLATE CHIP ) 

COOKIE COMPANY, LLC; ) 

MURRAY BISCUIT CO. LLC; ) Judge Richard A. Posner. 

VOORTMAN COOKIES LTD.; ) 

BREMNER FOOD GROUP, INC.; ) 

COOKIE SPECIALTIES INC.; ) 

TOPCO ASSOCIATES LLC; ) 

and NESTLÉ USA, INC., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. )

 

 ORDER OF JANUARY 23, 2013 

The plaintiffs have requested leave to file a supplemental expert report from Dr. 

Peter Jones to update his analysis of the fatty acid levels in the accused products in 

response to my January 18, 2013 Markman order. Although that order explains how to 

measure the weight of fatty acids under the ‘192 patent, it simply adopts the 

measurement method used in the patent itself. The plaintiffs could have solicited this 

method from Dr. Jones at the time of his opening report. They could have sought 

clarification of my earlier Markman order at that time or asked Dr. Jones to discuss 

alternative methods in his reports. Furthermore, Keebler’s Daubert motion, filed 

December 31, 2012, notified the plaintiffs that they disputed Dr. Jones’s method of 

measuring fatty acid levels. In their January 7, 2013 response, the plaintiffs could have 

asked to supplement Dr. Jones’s testimony. 

They waited instead until just before the deadline for summary judgment 

motions. Because they have not shown cause for this delay, Dr. Jones may not offer new 

Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 471 Filed: 01/23/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:27367
opinions that may prejudice the defendants, including any discussion of the doctrine of 

equivalents. 

The plaintiffs argue that updating Dr. Jones’s calculations to comport with my 

January 18, 2013 Markman order will not prejudice the defendants because they have 

already performed the same calculations themselves. By close of business on Thursday, 

January 24, 2013, Keebler shall respond to Plaintiff’s motion as pertains to such 

calculations. 

 

 United States Circuit Judge 

January 23, 2013 

Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 471 Filed: 01/23/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:27368
# Michael Baker INTERNATIONAL August 17. 2015
U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standards Services 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 RE : Exemption No . 11711. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-om Mr. JohnS. Duncan : 

### We Make 

## o Difference

Thank you for granting Michael Baker International. LLC its request for exemption .Although our approved petition dated March 19 and April30 . 20151ists Michael Baker International. LLC as the petitioner, we intend to operate unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial photography for aerial mapping (photogrammetry) and video documentations as Michael Baker International. Inc. Listing Michael Baker International. LLC was a clerical error. Michael Baker International Inc. is awholly owned subsidiary of Michael Baker International Holdco Corporation. Michael Baker International Holdco Corporation is awholly owned subsidiary of Michael Baker International LLC. We only wish reflect the proper entity, Michael Baker International, Inc., as the entity holding the exemption. We do not wish to change our intended operations of the UAS as set forth in our le. tters dated March 19 and April30. 2015 . By this letter we request amending said granted exemptioh . to reflect approval to operate as Michael Baker International. Inc. Respectfully, Robert Hanson Senior Vice President

MBAKERINTL.COM 443 1 N. F ront Street. 2 "" F loor 

### IHarrisburg. PA 17110 Office :717.221.2000 I Fax:717.234.7611
1532.006-1 General. ( a ) - ( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) Agency responsibilities and determinations under FAR 32.006 are, consistent with FAR 32.006-1(c), delegated to the Head of the Contracting Activity, if that individual is not below Level IV of the Executive Schedule. If the Head of the Contracting Activity is below Level IV of the Executive Schedule, then Agency responsibilities and determinations under FAR 32.006 are delegated to the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management.
[65 FR 37292, June 14, 2000]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Felix Erazo, Respondent, v. Brandlers Bakery et al., Appellants, and Royal Bakery et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Gibson, P. J.

The board apportioned an award for occupational disease incurred by claimant, a baker, among three successive employers, finding that “as a result of exposure to the employments, claimant suffered flare-ups and increased sensitivity, precipitating disability from asthmatic attacks ”. Apportionment in such cases of “increased or aggravated sensitization” is proper. *(Matter of Bahry*v. *Nu-Glamore Beauty Salon,*4 A D 2d 351, 353, mot. for lv. to app. den. 3 N Y 2d 707.) The employers and carriers involved in the second and third employments appeal, in each case denying causal relationship. As to each employment, the medical evidence was substantial and affirmance is required. Thus, Dr. Siegal, after correctly noting all three employments, reported, on the basis of an examination made some six months after the termination of the third employment, “a clear causal relationship between the occupational exposure and [claimant’s] asthma” and later testified that the “ chief cause ” of claimant’s asthma was “ allergy to cereal and cereal flour, especially rye and wheat”. Further, Dr. Adams, testifying a year after the third employment, said that claimant’s repeated contacts with the offending agents caused additional aggravation of the underlying condition and that the repeated insults tended to cause a greater sensitivity. He testified further that in the majority of cases, succeeding contacts with the allergants cause increasingly quicker reactions — “ they will trigger the mechanism and have an attack quicker each time ”. Additionally, Dr. Griffith, who saw claimant after the third employment and subsequently testified, found an increase in sensitivity due to “more exposure”. Not all of appellants’ additional contentions are properly before us, but we note, nevertheless, that they also relate to factual determinations supported by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### § 746.12 Litigation.

The property interest in a patent is the right to exclude. It is not the intent of the Government to transfer the property right in a patent when a license is issued pursuant to this part. Accordingly, the right to sue for infringement shall be retained with respect to all licenses so issued by the Government.
### §164. Abolishment of Office of Science and Technology of National Institute of Justice; transfer of functions

#### (a) Authority to transfer functions

The Attorney General may transfer to the Office any other program or activity of the Department of Justice that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, determines to be consistent with the mission of the Office.

#### (b) Transfer of personnel and assets

With respect to any function, power, or duty, or any program or activity, that is established in the Office, those employees and assets of the element of the Department of Justice from which the transfer is made that the Attorney General determines are needed to perform that function, power, or duty, or for that program or activity, as the case may be, shall be transferred to the Office: Provided, That any such transfer shall be carried out in accordance with section 605 of Public Law 107–77.

#### (c) Report on implementation

Not later than 1 year after November 25, 2002, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the implementation of this subchapter. The report shall—

(1) provide an accounting of the amounts and sources of funding available to the Office to carry out its mission under existing authorizations and appropriations, and set forth the future funding needs of the Office; and

(2) include such other information and recommendations as the Attorney General considers appropriate.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title II, §234, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2161; Pub. L. 108–7, div. L, §103(2), Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 529.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 605 of Public Law 107–77, referred to in subsec. (b), is section 605 of Pub. L. 107–77, title VI, Nov. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 798, which is not classified to the Code.

This subchapter, referred to in subsec. (c), was in the original "this title", meaning title II of Pub. L. 107–296, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2145, which enacted this subchapter, amended sections 1030, 2511, 2512, 2520, 2701 to 2703, and 3125 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, sections 10102 and 10122 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement, and section 401a of Title 50, War and National Defense, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 101 of this title and listed in a Provisions for Review, Promulgation, or Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines Relating to Specific Offenses table set out under section 994 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see Tables.

#### Amendments

2003—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–7 inserted before period at end ": Provided, That any such transfer shall be carried out in accordance with section 605 of Public Law 107–77".
#### Elizabeth Alden, Appellant, v St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center, Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 422]

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Centra and Lunn, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Franklin Stainless Corp., Appellant, v. Bond Metal Products, Inc., Judgment Debtor. Irving Hochberg, Respondent.

In a proceeding supplementary to judgment by a judgment creditor to punish a witness, the respondent Hochberg, for contempt of court by reason of his alleged false testimony under oath during his examination as to the business affairs of the judgment debtor corporation, the judgment creditor appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made December 27, 1963 on reargument, insofar as it adhered to the court’s original decision and denied the creditor’s application. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of: (1) holding a hearing at which the respondent shall account for the balance of the debtor’s funds withdrawn by respondent from his personal bank account; and (2) making a determination *de novo*of the proceeding upon the basis of the facts disclosed on such hearing. Findings of fact implicit in the Special Term’s decision, insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith, are reversed. In our opinion, respondent’s failure to account for over $10,000 of the debtor’s money under respondent’s sole control requires that a hearing be had. If the judgment debtor was entitled to the possession of such money, then the respondent’s false testimony or suppression of the true facts relating thereto may well have prejudiced in a material manner the judgment creditor’s rights to resort to the money in satisfaction of its judgment. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §584. Exemptions

#### (a) In general

Apples in less than carload lots as defined by the Secretary may, in his discretion, be shipped to any foreign country without complying with the provisions of this chapter.

#### (b) Bulk containers

Apples may be shipped to Canada in bulk containers without complying with the provisions of this chapter.

(June 10, 1933, ch. 59, §4, 48 Stat. 124; Pub. L. 106–96, §1(c)(2), Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1321; Pub. L. 113–79, title X, §10009(a), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 949.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–79 inserted section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

1999—Pub. L. 106–96 struck out "or pears" after "Apples".

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

#### Regulations

Pub. L. 113–79, title X, §10009(c), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 949, provided that: "Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Feb. 7, 2014], the Secretary [of Agriculture] shall issue regulations to carry out the amendments made by this section [amending this section and section 589 of this title]."
1422.302 Liquidated damages and overtime pay. ( a ) HCAs are authorized to take the action in FAR 22.302(c)
( b ) Funds withheld or collected for liquidated damages shall be disposed of in accordance with procedures under 1422.406-9.
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
2-86070 on Form S-8 dated August 23,1983; Registration Statement No. 33-30364 on
Form S-8 dated August 7, 1989; Registration Statement No. 33-58750 on Form S-8
dated February 24, 1993; Registration Statement No. 33-58752 on Form S-8 dated
February 24, 1993; Registration Statement No. 33-52487 on Form S-8 dated March
2, 1994 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No.
33-52487 on Form S-8 dated March 3, 1994; Registration Statement No. 333-12743
on Form S-4 dated September 26, 1996; Registration Statement No. 333-52575 on
Form S-8 dated May 13, 1998; and Registration Statement No. 333-57273 on Form 
S-8 dated June 19, 1998, all pertaining to Andrew Corporation, of our report
dated October 23, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Andrew Corporation incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)for
the year ended September 30, 1998.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Chicago, Illinois
December 21, 1998
# October 2022 FOIA Log
| 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2012 of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc.; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Anthony L. Havens   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Anthony L. Havens       |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |