alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2rder Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Robert W. Gettleman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 5844 DATE 4/19/2013

CASE

TITLE

Flava Works, Inc. v FF Magnat Ltd., et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Memorandum opinion and order entered. Accordingly, the court grants defendant FF Magnate’s motion to

quash, treated as a motion dismiss for insufficient service of process and denies plaintiff’s request for

alternative service without prejudice. The Court extends the deadline for service on defendant by six months

from the date of this order, consistent with Article 15 of the Hague Convention.

[For further detail see separate order]

[Docketing to mail notice]

00:00

 Courtroom Deputy GDS

Page 1 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 69 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2270
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000406

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.; HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES,

INC.; ELIZABETH DEER; SHANA M. BUCO, Defendants-Appellees, and

JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10;

DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and

DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CCV-21-0000216)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.)

Upon consideration of self-represented PlaintiffAppellant Jeffrey Scott Goold's (Goold) May 15, 2023 Motion for

Reconsideration, the papers in support, and the record, it

appears that Goold seeks reconsideration of the May 10, 2023

Order, but Goold fails to demonstrate that the court overlooked

or misapprehended any point of law or fact. Hawai i Rules of

Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40(b). Further, Goold states

that if the court declines his request for reconsideration, then

he requests the court to approve his proposed stipulation to

dismiss the appeal with prejudice, attached to the motion for

reconsideration, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees

and costs, under HRAP Rule 42(b). Neither Goold nor counsel for

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-22-0000406

24-MAY-2023

08:26 AM

Dkt. 162 OGMD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

any other party in the appeal signed or dated Goold's proposed

stipulation. Nonetheless, the court will construe the proposed

stipulation as a motion to dismiss the appeal, under HRAP

Rule 42(b), and grant the requested relief.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration is denied, and the motion to dismiss the appeal

is granted. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The parties

shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs on appeal.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, May 24, 2023.

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Presiding Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Associate Judge 

2
NDIL (02/12) Notice of Correction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Date: Case No.:

Case Title: Judge: 

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

One of the following errors/deficiencies has been identified in document # :

The document is on the incorrect case.

Note: If this is a motion, the docket clerk has termed the motion from the incorrect case.

The document is on the correct case but the case number and title do not match. 

The incorrect document [pdf] was linked to the entry

The incorrect file date was entered.

The incorrect event was used. The title of the document does not match the text of the entry.

The entry is a duplicate of entry [ ] . 

Other: 

Corrective action taken by the Clerk:

The text of the entry has been edited and the pdf replaced with a pdf that states “Entered in

Error”. 

The following notation has been added to the text of the entry (Linked document has the

incorrect case title or Linked document has the incorrect case number.) 

The correct document [pdf] has been linked to the entry.

The file date has been corrected.

The text of the entry has been edited. 

The text of the entry has been edited to read “Duplicate filing of document number [ ].

Other: 

Corrective action required by the filer:

Counsel must re-file the document

Other: Provide brief explanation.

Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

By: ______________________________

Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 729 Filed: 11/04/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:24079
Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------

     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (Nos. 33-15150) and S-8 (Nos.  333-57121,  333-37232 and
333-37236)  of  Community  Banks,  Inc.  of our report  dated  January  24, 2003
relating to the  financial  statements,  which  appears in the Annual  Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
March 26, 2003
# C_2019131EN.01000101.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2019/C 131/01)

Last publication

OJ C 122, 1.4.2019

Past publications

OJ C 112, 25.3.2019

OJ C 103, 18.3.2019

OJ C 93, 11.3.2019

OJ C 82, 4.3.2019

OJ C 72, 25.2.2019

OJ C 65, 18.2.2019

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
85 So.2d 246

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert MONIX.

No. 42675.

Jan. 16, 1956.

L. G. Campbell, Benton, for appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard Kilbourne, Dist. Atty., Clinton, for appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

*151For the reasons assigned in State of Louisiana v. Monix, La., 85 So.2d 243,1 on the docket of this court and this day decided by us, the herein issued writ of certiorari is vacated and the rule to show cause is discharged.

1

. 229 La. 142.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cr−00540

Honorable Ruben Castillo

Byron Wilson, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, May 13, 2015:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ruben Castillo:as to Byron Wilson and

Darnell Wright: Jury trial held on 5/13/2015 and continued to 5/14/2015 at 9:45 a.m.

Mailed notice (rao, )

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: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 205 Filed: 05/13/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1680
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 154 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 154

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land 
  Management relating to ``Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2024

 Ms. Boebert (for herself, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. 
Nehls, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Newhouse, 
 Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Rosendale) submitted the following joint 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land 
  Management relating to ``Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Fluid 
Mineral Leases and Leasing Process'' (89 Fed. Reg. 30916 (April 23, 
2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000016104
<NAME> CAGLE'S, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                    <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                             114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    18906
<ALLOWANCES>                                       918
<INVENTORY>                                      35150
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 55666
<PP&E>                                          120804
<DEPRECIATION>                                   53614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  153289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            28802
<BONDS>                                          35478
<COMMON>                                          4747
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       73895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    153289
<SALES>                                         169404
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                169404
<CGS>                                           150017
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   159907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2026)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1030
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10493
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3869
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6624
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6624
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39


</TABLE>
Jun. 

### 8. 2012 3 :56PM

LUIS G. FORTUAO GoVERNOR June 11. 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood Secretary GOVERNMENTOF PUERTO RfCO

U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE · Washington. D.C. 20590 DearSecretary LaHood: No. 1691 P. 1

.• .

On behalf of the 3.7 million U.S. citizens 

### residing in Puerto Rico, Iwrite to 

### express my full support for 

### the application 

### s
. ubmlt1ed by the consortium be1ween the Puerto Rico Tourism Company (PRTC} and the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) (collactlvety, 

### the "Consortium"), under the FY 2012 SmaB 

### CommunHy Air Service**Developm~nt .**  Program. fo provide 

### scheduled air service between the munlclpatHies ofCulebra and San Juan in 

### Puerto Rico and be1ween Block Island and Providence In Rhode Island. Throughout 

### my odmlnlstrotton, we ·have Implemented creative initiatives and new 

### reforms to create a better 

### busfness environment In Puerto Rico and position 

### the Island for long-farm growth. Our

### tourism seCtoris avital part ofour economy and our focus and efforts In 1hls soctor continue to produce**results~** sustaining Puerto Rico's 

### position as the largestairservices market In the Caribbean. 

### ·This new direct service. between Culebra 

### and San Juan's Luis Munoz Marin 

### Airport (SJU) provides 

### a key addition to 

### our ongoing 

### efforts and creates new
· opportunities for Puerto Rico's reslden1s and visitors. Direct air access to rich and ·unique 

### tourist destinations 

### in Puerto Rico. such as Culebra Island, Is essenttal1o expanding our 

### tourism sector. This direct link to SJU increases accesslbt1ity to 

### culet;>ra Island and provides passengers with 

### greater ease of connection to 

### onward fflghts. This service would also provide economic beneflfs to 

### the residents 

### and. local businesses of Culebra by 

### providing greater access to government andcommercial services as weU as business andJob opportunities



### 510-120621-006 LAFOR1AI.IlA, 8NIJl.wt, PR00901 • PO Bolt9020082, 8MJwH, PROOIJ02.0002 Ta:(117} 121-7000•FNC (787)122..f308Jun. 

### 8. 2012 3:56PM

The Honorable Ray LaHood Page2 June 1L 2012 

### No. 1691 P. 2

In the larger metropolitan area as well as Increasing the customer base for local hotel, restaurant and retaU businesses. 

### I thank you for your conslderatfon of 

### this proposal and 

### look forward to 

### fhE} sucaessfullmptementaflon ofihis project underthe FY 2012 Small CommunityAir Service Development Program. The Consortium's proposed seasonal service to Culebra and Block Island Is vital for the continued economic and tourism developmentin both Puerto Rico and Rhode Island. Sincerely,



## s10-120621-006 ' .
#### Saratoga Hospital, Respondent, v Geraldine Hayes, Defendant, and Robert Hayes, Appellant.

— Appeal from an order of the County Court of Saratoga County, entered September 26, 1977, which denied defendant’s motion to reopen a default judgment. Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of Brown, J., at Special Term. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
South Coast 

t Air Quality Management District 

-' 21865 Copley Drive. Diamond Bar, CA 91 765-41 78 

(909) 396-2000 . www.aqmd.gov 

December 22, 2011 

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld, Region Administrator 

U.S. EPA REGION 9
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94105
 

Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: 

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for 

submitting National Air Monitoring Station (NAMS), State and Local Air Monitoring 

Station (SLAMS), Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS), National Air 

Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) and air quality data to the Air Quality System (AQS) 

for those AQS monitors under the control of SCAQMD. 

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, this letter certifies that the following ambient 

concentration data and the quality assurance data are completely submitted to AQS: 

• 2010 FRM 0 3, N02, CO and S02 

• 2010 Continuous FEM and Special Purpose PM25 and PMIO 

The above ambient data are accurate to the best of my knowledge, taking into 

consideration the quality assurance findings. 

This letter of certification fulfills in part the certification objectives of the Section 105 

Grant for Fiscal Year 2011. 

The required summary reports for 2010 have been sent electronically to Dr. Meredith 

Kurpius at U.S. EPA Region 9. 
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at (909) 

396-2105, or Dr. Jason Low, Quality Assurance Manager, Science and Technology 

Advancement, at (909) 396-2269. 

Sincerely, 

c~ul--- Deputy Executive Officer 

Science and Technology Advancement 

CSL: JL 

cc: M. Leonard 

R. Eden 

P. Fine
MotorType Notes

PSC

ECM

Shaded-Pole

Other

PSC+
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018466EN.01001701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 466/17 |

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2018/C 466/08)

![Image](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/uriserv/OJ.C_.2018.466.01.0017.01.ENG.xhtml.C_2018466EN.01001702.tif.jpg)

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Germany

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018466EN.01001701-E0001). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018466EN.01001701-E0002), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country
: Germany

Subject of commemoration
: The 70th anniversary of the Bundesrat’s founding

Description of the design
: The design shows a highly detailed and finely sculpted rendering of the Bundesrat building. The upper half of the coin’s inner section includes the mint mark of the respective mint (‘A’, ‘D’, ‘F’, ‘G’ or ‘J’), the artist’s initials and the year ‘2019’. The lower half of the coin’s inner section contains the inscription ‘BUNDESRAT’ and Germany’s issuing country code ‘D’.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued
:

30 000 000

Date of issue
: January/February 2019

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018466EN.01001701-E0001)  See [OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2001_373_R_TOC) for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018466EN.01001701-E0002)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation ([OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2009_009_R_TOC)).

---
# Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Program - Competitive Grants 

# FY 2015 Awards

10/20/2015
31.205-17 Idle facilities and idle capacity costs. ( a ) *Definitions.* As used in this subsection— *Costs of idle facilities or idle capacity* means costs such as maintenance, repair, housing, rent, and other related costs; e.g., property taxes, insurance, and depreciation.
*Facilities* means plant or any portion thereof (including land integral to the operation), equipment, individually or collectively, or any other tangible capital asset, wherever located, and whether owned or leased by the contractor.
*Idle capacity* means the unused capacity of partially used facilities. It is the difference between that which a facility could achieve under 100 percent operating time on a one-shift basis, less operating interruptions resulting from time lost for repairs, setups, unsatisfactory materials, and other normal delays, and the extent to which the facility was actually used to meet demands during the accounting period. A multiple-shift basis may be used in the calculation instead of a one-shift basis if it can be shown that this amount of usage could normally be expected for the type of facility involved.
*Idle facilities* means completely unused facilities that are excess to the contractor's current needs.
( b ) The costs of idle facilities are unallowable unless the facilities— ( 1 ) Are necessary to meet fluctuations in workload; or
( 2 ) Were necessary when acquired and are now idle because of changes in requirements, production economies, reorganization, termination, or other causes which could not have been reasonably foreseen. (Costs of idle facilities are allowable for a reasonable period, ordinarily not to exceed 1 year, depending upon the initiative taken to use, lease, or dispose of the idle facilities (but see 31.205-42)).
( c ) Costs of idle capacity are costs of doing business and are a factor in the normal fluctuations of usage or overhead rates from period to period. Such costs are allowable provided the capacity is necessary or was originally reasonable and is not subject to reduction or elimination by subletting, renting, or sale, in accordance with sound business, economics, or security practices. Widespread idle capacity throughout an entire plant or among a group of assets having substantially the same function may be idle facilities.
( d ) Any costs to be paid directly by the Government for idle facilities or idle capacity reserved for defense mobilization production shall be the subject of a separate agreement.
[48 FR 42301, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 66 FR 2131, Jan. 10, 2001; 67 FR 6120, Feb. 8, 2002]
Page 1 of 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Attachment to License
                                                           series MG # 249 (oil)
                                                             dated June 28, 1995

                                                               "A p p r o v e d"
                                                        by the Prime-Minister of
                                                           Republic of Kazakstan
                                                        __________ A. S. Yesimov
                                                       September "_______", 1997



                          R E S O L U T I O N #R 97 - U
                            dated September 11, 1997,
                       on amendment of license conditions

LICENSE:   License series MG #249 (oil) dated 6/28/95.

LICENSEE:  Karakudukmunay Inc.

MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF REPUBLIC OF
KAZAKSTAN,  according  to the letter of the  Department  of oil and gas #4 3/219
dated 9/9/97.

Inserts the following amendments to the license conditions:

I.    Clause 8.2 of the License shall be amended as follows:
8.2.  Minimum work program
8.2.1 Evaluation stage

1. Before  12/31/99 8 new wells with the depth of  3250-3500 m. shall be drilled
and 4  exploration  wells  worked over.  As the  protocol of the State  Reserves
Committee  does not  recommend to carry out 3D seismic,  it is proposed to solve
this  question  later,  depending  on  geological  results of drilling the first
production wells.

8.2.2  Development stage during the first three years: The development stage for
the  period  till  12/31/99  shall  include  the work on  developing  the  field
infrastructure and installing equipment necessary for processing and transfer of
crude oil produced from the 4 worked-over and 8 drilled wells.

The total of financial  commitments  stipulated in Clauses 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 shall
be:

 Before  12/31/1997  -  $10,000,000 
 Before  12/31/1998  -  $34,500,000
 Before  12/31/1999  -  $12,000,000

         Minister                            D. T. Duisenov
                                             (signed and stamped)

The amendments to the license conditions are accepted:

                                             Licensee - Karakudukmunay Inc.
                                             General Director - N. D. Klinchev

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