alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE: 

Virtual meeting. Note: Because of the covid-19 pandemic, we will conduct the open meeting virtually. If you would like to access the meeting, see the instructions below.

# STATUS: 

                        This meeting will be open to the public. to access the virtual meeting, go to the commission's website                         *www.fec.gov*                         and click on the banner to be taken to the meeting page.                    

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Draft Advisory Opinion 2020-06: Escobar

Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Mississippi Republican Party (A17-15)

Management and Administrative Matters

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer; Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Laura E. Sinram,

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2021-01594 Filed 1-21-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
No. 8003.

#### Henry *v.*Franks et al.

(Decided October 20, 1903.)

'.Error to Circuit Court of Wood county.

*Messrs. Baldwin & Harrington*and *Mr. 8. P. Harrison,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr.-James ®. Troup,*for defendant in error.

Judgment ¡affirmed.

jBurket, »'C. *-3..,*Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:723
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:724
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:725
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-630

_____________________________

CHARLES SANMANN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Karen Gievers, Judge.

November 16, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Charles Sanmann, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Frank X. Moehrle Jr., 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2017.204 Contracts ( a ) The contracting officer may approve non-competitive extensions, within the limits of his/her delegation, to five-year contracts up to a total of an additional 6 months for the purpose of completing the competitive process for a follow-on contract if the request for procurement action for a follow-on or replacement contract was received in the Division of Contracts and Property Management not less than 6 months before the end of the fifth year.
( b ) Other extensions beyond five years must be approved by the Competition Advocate.
### §8001. Producer retention of erroneously paid loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary and the Commodity Credit Corporation shall not require producers in Erie County, Pennsylvania, to repay loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains erroneously paid or determined to have been earned by the Commodity Credit Corporation for certain 1998 and 1999 crops under subtitle C of title I of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7231 et seq.). In the case of a producer who has already made the repayment on or before May 13, 2002, the Commodity Credit Corporation shall reimburse the producer for the full amount of the repayment.

(Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1618, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 223.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 104–127, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 888. Subtitle C of title I of the Act is classified generally to subchapter III (§7231 et seq.) of chapter 100 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7201 of this title and Tables.
Exhibit 32.0

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cal-Maine
Foods Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended November 27, 2004 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|                                                                     | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/  Fred R. Adams, Jr.                                              | 
|Fred R. Adams, Jr.
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer | 

|                                                                                 | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/  Bobby J. Raines                                                             | 
|Bobby J. Raines
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary | 

Date:   January 7, 2005
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:608
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:609
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:610
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:611
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:612
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:613
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:614
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:615
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:616
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:617
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:618
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:619
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:620
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:621
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:622
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:623
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:624
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:625
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:626
Case: 1:11-cv-07807 Document #: 28 Filed: 09/10/12 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:627
#### Baby Togs, Inc., Appellant, v Harold Trimming Company, Inc., Respondent.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 17, 1977, unanimously modified, on the law, to reverse so much thereof as granted judgment dismissing the complaint; defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing said complaint denied; and the judgment otherwise affirmed; and judgment on the counterclaim severed. Appellant shall recover of respondent $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The appeal from the order of said court entered on September 23, 1977 is dismissed as subsumed in the judgment, without costs and without disburse-*882merits. The order of this court entered on February 15, 1979 [67 AD2d 868] is vacated. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Silverman, JJ.
Slip Op. 10 - 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 

:

SAHA THAI STEEL PIPE (PUBLIC) :

COMPANY LTD., :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

 v. : Before: R. Kenton Musgrave, Senior Judge

: 

UNITED STATES, : Consol. Court No. 08-00380

:

Defendant, :

:

 and :

:

ALLIED TUBE AND CONDUIT CORP., :

and WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY, :

:

 Defendant-Intervenors. :

 :

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs having filed challenges to certain findings of the defendant International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“ITA”) sub nom. Circular Welded Carbon

Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,

73 Fed. Reg. 61019 (Oct. 15, 2008), and having consolidated those actions and interposed motions

for judgment upon the record pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2, resulting in remand of the matter to the

ITA for further consideration; and the ITA having filed herein on December 14, 2009 its Final

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, dated December 11, 2009, pursuant to Slip Op.

09-116 (Oct. 15, 2009); and the court having reviewed the Redetermination and finding it in

accordance with the order of remand and not having received any comment thereon or opposition

thereto from any party to this case by December 29, 2009; after due deliberation, it is therefore

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the ITA’s Results of

Redetermination Pursuant to Remand dated December 11, 2009 be, and they hereby are, sustained.

 /s/ R. Kenton Musgrave 

Dated: January 4, 2010 R. KENTON MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge

New York, New York
EXHIBIT
32.1




STATMON
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


19 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 Statmon Technologies Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey Talbot, Chief Executive 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 the best of my knowledge:




(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/ Geoffrey P. TalbotGeoffrey
      P. TalbotChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      27, 2009




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 Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be retained by Statmon
Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### Michael E. Rader, Appellant, v Barbara G. Rader, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 289]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 14, 1998, the plaintiff former husband appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated July 7, 2006, which granted the defendant former wife’s motion for a money judgment for maintenance arrears allegedly due pursuant to the parties’ judgment of divorce in the sum of $1,350 per week from January 9, 2006, through July 10, 2006, and counsel fees in the sum of $1,500, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated July 26, 2006, which is in favor of the defendant former wife and against him in the sum of $39,680.42.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the order is vacated, the defendant former wife’s motion is denied, and the order is modified accordingly; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff former husband is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order dated July 7, 2006 must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment thereon *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CELR 5501 [a] [1]).

In a decision after trial dated July 25, 1997, the Supreme Court awarded the defendant former wife maintenance in the sum of $1,350 “for a period of 10 years from the date hereof, commencing immediately, retroactive to the commencement *735date of this action.” The judgment of divorce, which was signed on August 14, 1998, reiterated the language of the decision that maintenance was awarded “for a period of ten (10) years from the date hereof, commencing immediately, retroactive to the commencement of the action.”

Although the decision and the judgment of divorce both indisputably awarded maintenance for “a period of 10 years,” at issue here is the date of commencement of the 10-year period. Since the decision and the judgment of divorce both state that maintenance was to be retroactive to the commencement of the action, the relevant 10-year period began with the commencement of the action on January 9, 1996 and terminated 10 years later on January 9, 2006. Accordingly, the defendant former wife’s motion for a money judgment awarding her maintenance arrears from January 9, 2006 through July 10, 2006 should have been denied. Spolzino, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
#### 1316.406 Contract clauses.

Insert a clause substantially the same as 1352.216-73, *Distribution of Award Fee,* in all cost-plus-award-fee solicitations and contracts, as determined by the contracting officer.
#### Moody *v.*Georgia Railway & Power Company *et al.*

December 11, 1912.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Jones. Habersham superior court. May 17, 1912.

*T. L. Bynum*and *J. C. Edwards,*for plaintiff.

*H. H. Dean*and *McMillan & Envin,*for defendant.

Beck, J.

It appearing from the petition in this case1 and the bill of exceptions filed by the plaintiff in error to the refusal of an interlocutory injunction that a judgment refusing injunctive relief alone is complained of, and it further appearing that no supersedeas was granted' upon the refusal of injunction in the court below, and that the acts against which an injunction was sought have been performed and completed, which facts have been made duly to appear to this court, the writ of error will be dismissed. *Henderson*v. *Hoppe,*103 *Ga.*686 (30 S. E. 653); *Bond*v. *Long,*133 *Ga.*639 (66 S. E. 778); *Southern Cement Stone Co.*v. *Logan Coal & Supply Co.,*136 *Ga.*473 (71 S. E. 915).

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation, Appellant, v. Amadeo H. Barletta et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Order, entered on March 16, 1964, granting defendants’ motion for a protective order and vacating plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial of defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. Defendants are directed to submit to an oral examination by plaintiff in New York City within six months from the date of the order to be entered hereon. Defendants shall serve upon plaintiff five days’ notice of the date and time of their availability for examination at the place therefor designated in said order. The expenses are to be borne initially by defendants and to be taxable as costs in the event defendants prevail in the action. Defendants have failed to sustain their burden of showing hardship. *(United Refrigerator Co.*v. *Rose,*19 A D 2d 809; *Schoen*v. *Morgan Trucking Co.,*13 A D 2d 622.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of IndependentAuditors**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statements Nos. 33-42214, 33-98160, 333-80857 and 333-80843on Form S-8 of AXCESS Inc. of our report dated March 6, 2003, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements of AXCESS Inc. as December 31, 2002 andfor the year then ended included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for theyear ended December 31, 2002.

 

 
|           | /s/ Hein + Associates LLP |   |
|----------------|---------------------------|--------|
| April 15, 2003 |
| Dallas, Texas  |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. BRAULIO GONZALEZ-TEJEDA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-50435 D.C. No. 3:12-cr-02967-WQH-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 8, 2015 ** Pasadena California Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges and DONATO, *** District Judge. 

# FILED
APR 10 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable James Donato, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.Defendant Braulio Gonzalez-Tejeda appeal s the district court’s denial of his 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) motion to dismiss the indictment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the conviction. The district court did not err when it considered judicially noticeable conviction documents not admitted at the removal hearing to decide whether the defendant had a plausible claim for relief from removal, i.e., whether the defendant was removable as charged for having committed a drug trafficking aggravated felony. United States v. Bustos-Ochoa , 704 F.3d 1053, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam), amended , 714 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). The defendant cannot prove prejudice because the convicti on documents confirm the defendant’s admission to the immigration judge that the conviction was a drug trafficking aggravated felony. Id. Because the defendant cannot prove prejudice, in any event, we do not reach his argument that his administrative a ppeal waiver was not considered and intelligent. AFFIRMED.
#### John H. Stanley, as Administrator of the Estate of Howard Stanley, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. Lena Lermsider et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 17, 1961 after trial upon a jury’s verdict of $32,500 in favor of plaintiff, as administrator, for damages for wrongful death. The cause of action for conscious pain and suffering was dismissed at the close of the entire ease; no appeal has been taken with respect to such dismissal. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted as to the cause of action for wrongful death, with costs to abide the event. Plaintiff’s intestate, a boy 16% years of age, was killed when a motor scooter operated by him came into contact with an automobile owned by defendant Lena Lermsider and operated by defendant Malcolm Lermsider. In our opinion, the verdict, insofar as it imports a finding that decedent was free from contributory negligence, is against the weight of the credible evidence. In any event, a new trial would be granted in the interests of justice, in view of the extended participation of the Trial Justice in the questioning of witnesses (cf. *Murray*v. *McLean Trucking Co.,*5 A D 2d 780) and in view of the inadequacy of the charge to the jury (cf. *Molnar*v. *Slattery Contr. Co.,*8 A D 2d 95, 100). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

)
)
BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. f/k/a HARRIS )
BANK N.A. AS SUCCESSOR IN ) Case No. 3:12-cv-50064
BUSINESS TO AMCORE BANK N.A., —)
f/k/a AMCORE TRUST COMPANY, )
SUCCESSOR TO DIXON NATIONAL _ )
BANK, AS TRUSTEE UNDER )
AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 19, 1977)
KNOWN AS TRUST NO. 1058, andnot —)
personally; UNKNOWN OWNERS; and)
NONRECORD CLAIMANTS; )
Defendants, )

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE

NOW COMES, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its attorneys,
Potestivo & Associates, P.C., and moves this Honorable Court, for the Entry of a
Judgment of Foreclosure.

Attached please find Plaintiffs Affidavit of Prove-Up. (See Exhibit “1”, Affidavit).

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
United States Attorney

By: 4s/ Kimberly J_ Goodell
KIMBERLY J. GOODELL
Attorney for the United States
223 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 610
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 263-0003

kgoodell@potestivolaw.com



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE |

I, Kimberly J. Goodell, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing f
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE was served upon

counsel of record through operation of the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case :

Files system on June 11, 2012, and on the following non-ECF filers: |

Colleen Hennessy, Registered Agent

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. f/k/a HARRIS
BANK N.A. AS SUCCESSOR IN
BUSINESS TO AMCORE BANK N.A.,
f/k/a AMCORE TRUST COMPANY,
SUCCESSOR TO DIXON NATIONAL
BANK, AS TRUSTEE UNDER
AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 19, 1977
KNOWN AS TRUST NO. 1058, and not personally;
111 West Monroe Street, 22TM Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60603

Louise F. Gotsch, Land Trust Administrator
BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. f/k/a HARRIS
BANK N.A. AS SUCCESSOR IN
BUSINESS TO AMCORE BANK N.A.,
f/k/a AMCORE TRUST COMPANY,
SUCCESSOR TO DIXON NATIONAL
BANK, AS TRUSTEE UNDER
AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 19, 1977
KNOWN AS TRUST NO. 1058, and not personally;
501 7" Street

Rockford, Illinois 61104-1242

Unknown Owners and NonRecord Claimants
601 Countryside Lane
Dixon, Illinois 61021

By: Kimberly J. Goodell
KIMBERLY J. GOODELL

Potestivo & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff

223 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 610
Chicago, Illinois 60606
kgoodell@potestivolaw.com