alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1685

ROBBIN LEGGETTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRYSTAL MOORE, Corporal; JOY CUTLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-1635-4) Submitted: October 1, 2003 Decided: October 22, 2003 Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robbin Leggette, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Charles Baxter, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II, David Leon Morrison, Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robbin Leggette appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Leggette v. Moore , No. CA-02-1635-4 (D.S.C. filed May 6, 2003 & entered May 7, 2003). 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
EX-10.15



 Exhibit 10.15 
 ADDENDUM NO. 1 
 to the 

AUTOMOBILE QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE CONTRACT 
 Effective: September 1, 2011 
 (the “Contract”) 

issued to 

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY 
 Burr Ridge, Illinois 
 (the “Company”) 

by 
 THE
SUBSCRIBING REINSURER(S) IDENTIFIED 
 IN THE INTERESTS AND LIABILITIES AGREEMENT(S) 

ATTACHED TO AND FORMING PART OF THE CONTRACT 
 (the “Reinsurer”) 
 Effective September 1, 2011, paragraph D of Article 2 –
Term – of the Contract is deleted. 
 All other terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain unchanged. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Addendum to be executed by its duly authorized representative(s) 

this 7th day of February, in the year 2012. 
 AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY 
  

	
	/s/ Michael J. McClure

 AUTOMOBILE QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE CONTRACT 







 ENDORSEMENT NO. 1 

to the 

INTERESTS AND LIABILITIES AGREEMENT 
 Effective: September 1, 2011 
 (the “Agreement”) 

of 
 AUTOMOBILE
QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE CONTRACT 
 Effective: September 1, 2011 

(the “Contract”) 
 issued to 
 AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY 

Burr Ridge, Illinois 
 (the “Company”) 
 Addendum No. 1 to the Contract, as executed by the Company, shall
form part of the Contract, effective September 1, 2011. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Subscribing Reinsurer has caused this Endorsement to be
executed by its duly authorized representative(s) 
 this 14th day of February, in the year 2012. 
 GREENLIGHT REINSURANCE LTD. 
  

	
	/s/ Jim Ehman

 AUTOMOBILE QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE CONTRACT
#### MICHELE BISHOP *v.*MICHAEL FREITAS

(AC 23583)

Schaller, Dranginis and DiPentima, Js.

Submitted on briefs November 21, 2003

officially released January 6, 2004

*791
      *Steven H. St. Clair*filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

In this paternity action, the plaintiff mother, Michele Bishop, appeals from the trial court’s findings and order concerning her motion to modify child support. We dismiss the appeal sua sponte for lack of a final judgment.

The following facts are relevant to the plaintiffs appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant, Michael Freitas, are the parents of a child bom on May 4, 1994. In early 1997, the plaintiff commenced an action to adjudicate paternity, custody and child support. The court rendered judgment shortly thereafter pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. On January 30, 2001, the plaintiff filed a motion to open the judgment to modify child support. Although we can find no order in the record that the court granted the plaintiffs motion to open the judgment, the court ordered discovery and held a hearing with respect to the modification of child support. The court rendered its findings in that regard and ordered the parties to submit calculations for child support for the calendar years 2000 and 2001 on the basis of its finding. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly calculated the defendant’s gross income pursuant to his subchapter S tax return for the puiposes of determining child support.

Appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals from judgments that are final. *Solomon*v. *Keiser,*212 Conn. 741, 745, 562 A.2d 524 (1989). Although the court made findings with respect to child support, it has not opened *792the judgment and rendered an order concerning the amount of support the defendant shall pay. The plaintiffs appeal therefore is from an interlocutory order determining the defendant’s income to be used to calculate child support. “An otherwise interlocutory order is appealable in two circumstances: (1) where the order or action terminates a separate and distinct proceeding, or (2) where the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.” *State*v. *Curcio,*191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983). The court’s order determining the defendant’s income does not meet either prong of *Curcio,*in fact, the court anticipated further proceedings by ordering the parties to submit to it child support calculations for the years 2000 and 2001. The appeal has not been taken from a final judgment.

The appeal is dismissed.
§ 1728.70 Procurement of materials. ( a ) *By Owner.* When purchasing the type of materials included in the List of Materials, RUS borrowers shall purchase only materials listed in the List of Materials, or materials which have a current technical acceptance by RUS and meet the “Buy American” requirement.
( b ) *By Contractor.* When performing work for an RUS borrower, contractors shall supply only items from the general acceptance pages of the List of Materials, or obtain the borrower's concurrence prior to purchase and use of a technically nondomestic item or any item listed on a conditional basis.
( c ) *Procurement of Unlisted Items.* ( 1 ) The borrower shall request prior approval from RUS for use of an item that does not fall in categories established by RUS in the List of Materials for which acceptability has been established by the Technical Standards Committees.
( 2 ) RUS will also determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to allow use of an unlisted item in emergency situations and for experimental use or to meet a specific need. For purposes of this part 1728, an emergency shall mean a situation wherein the supply of listed material and equipment from the industry is not readily available, or the standard designs are not applicable to the borrower's specific problem under consideration.
( 3 ) RUS will make arrangements for test or experimental use of newly developed items requiring limited trial use. RUS, working with the borrower and the manufacturer, will establish test locations for the items to facilitate installation and observation.
[50 FR 47712, Nov. 20, 1985. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990]
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1437.107 Maple sap. ( a ) NAP assistance for maple sap is limited to maple sap produced on private property for sale as sap or syrup. Eligible maple sap must be produced from trees that: ( 1 ) Are located on land the producer controls by ownership or lease;
( 2 ) Are managed for production of maple sap;
( 3 ) Are at least 30 years old and 12 inches in diameter; and
( 4 ) Have a maximum of 4 taps per tree according to the tree's diameter.
( b ) The crop year for maple sap production is the calendar year, January 1 through December 31.
( c ) If producers file an application for coverage in accordance with § 1437.7, tree acreage containing trees from which maple sap is produced or is to be produced must be reported to FSA no later than the beginning of the crop year.
( d ) In addition to the applicable records required under § 1437.8, producers must report the: ( 1 ) Total number of eligible trees on the unit;
( 2 ) Average size and age of producing trees; and
( 3 ) Total number of taps placed or anticipated for the tapping season.
( e ) A maximum county-expected-yield for maple sap is 10 gallons of sap per tap per crop year unless acceptable documentary evidence, as determined by FSA, is available to FSA to support a higher county-expected-yield.
( f ) The average market price for maple sap must be established for the value of the sap before processing into syrup. If price data is available only for maple syrup, this data must be converted to a maple sap basis. The wholesale price for a gallon of maple syrup is multiplied by 0.00936 to arrive at the average market price of a gallon of maple sap.
( g ) The actual production history for maple sap will be recorded on the basis of gallons of sap per tap.
( h ) The unit's expected production is determined by: ( 1 ) Multiplying the number of taps placed in eligible trees; by
( 2 ) The approved per tap yield as determined in accordance with § 1437.102.
( i ) Payments will be based on the amount of losses for this community based on the applicable guarantee at a rate determined in accord with this part and the authorizing legislation.
( j ) Premiums for coverage levels specified in § 1437.5(c) will be calculated based on the number of taps reported by the producer.
[67 FR 12448, Mar. 19, 2002. Redesignated at 71 FR 13745, Mar. 17, 2006; 79 FR 74581, Dec. 15, 2014]
#### Jack R. Ferber, Respondent, v Sterndent Corporation et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

an action to recover damages for the alleged illegal use by defendants of "confidentially disclosed ideas and invention”, defendants Sterndent Corporation and Milton Solomon appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 8, 1979, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment *591dismissing plaintiffs complaint to the extent that it seeks damages in excess of $5,000. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, the branch of appellants’ motion which seeks summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety is granted, and the action is severed and the complaint is dismissed as to them. Although there is an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff made the alleged January, 1968 disclosure, the evidence establishes as a matter of law: (1) that plaintiffs idea and device were not novel; (2) that in any case they became part of the public domain by virtue of the subsequent Gibson and Alessi patents and the Ishikawa article (see *Platzman v American Totalisator Co.,*45 NY2d 910); (3) that Sterndent’s device is demonstrably different from plaintiffs; and (4) that Sterndent (Weber) did not appropriate plaintiffs idea or device. We find that close examination of the Park French, Kenneth Roll and Warren A. Sklar affidavits—and the documentation annexed thereto—clearly demonstrates that plaintiffs contentions herein as to the novelty, public domain and appropriation issues have no evidentiary support and that summary judgment must be granted. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

STATEMENT OF VICE PRESIDENT - FINANCE OF 

NOLAND COMPANY

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 Noland Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Arthur P. Henderson, Jr., Vice President - Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Noland Company and will be retained by Noland Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchanged Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Arthur P. Henderson, Jr. 

Arthur P. Henderson, Jr. 

Vice President - Finance 

March 15, 2004
JEFF MERKLEY 

OREGON 

· •.;~ 

llnitcd ~tatcs eScnatc 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

June 28, 2012 

Aloha Ley 

Associate Director, Small Community Program 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

US Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Ave, SE W86-310 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Small Community Air Service Development Program Grant Application 

Docket DOT-OST-2012-0069 

City of Redmond, OR - Redmond Municipal Airport 

Dear Associate Director Ley: 

COMMITTEES: 

ENVIRONMENT AND 

PUBLIC WORKS 

HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

BANKING, HOUSING, 

AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

I am writing to express my support for the City of Redmond's application for the Small 

Community Air Service Development Program under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of2012 from the United States Department of Transportation. The Redmond Municipal Airport 

(RDM) is applying for the grant to reinstate air service to Southern California . 

. Sinc~J 940, RDM has been servicing•passengers in th'e Central Oregon area. Today, RDM is the 

fourth largest commercial airport in Oregon, serving all of Central Oregon and providing fortysix daily flights. From 2006 to 2010, Horizon Air offen~d a direct flight from RDM to Los 

Angeles International Airport (LAX). The previous service was extremely successful, offering a 

daily flight to LAX, with approximately 20,000 passenger enplanements annually, and up to 80% 

passenger load factors. This" grant would help reinstate direct service between RDM and LAX. 

The proposed Southern California service will benefit multiple remote Central Oregon 

communities and have far reaching benefits, as RDM provides extensive corporate and business 

travel. With these grant funds, significant improvem~ntsfor the traveling public will be. 

implemented. Given the City of Redmond's outstanding record of success with federal grants to 

improve air service, I encourage the Department of Transportation to consider and support this 

worthwhile project. 

Thank you for your full and fair review of the City of Redmond's grant application. Should you 

have any further questions, please contact Susanna Julber in my Bend office at 541-318-1298. 

313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINCiTON, DC 20510 

'202) 224-3753 

F.\X I 202) 228-3997 

Sincere!~ A- ~ 

Jeffrey A. Merkley 

United States Senator 

i/1 S.W. SALMON SH1EET 

:)uiTE 1400 

F)ORTLANO, OR 97204 

i '503) 32'6-3386 

['';\X ([)03) 326-2900
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Prevention with a Purpose: A Resource for Faculty Members      

# Resource: Prevention with a Purpose: A Resource for Faculty Members

This report (PDF, 8 pages) provides college and university faculty members with tips on what they can do to contribute to effective drug misuse prevention efforts and promote the health and safety of the campus community. **Learn more** (PDF, 8 pages).
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1865 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1865

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the ``Thaddeus Stevens Post 
                               Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. THADDEUS STEVENS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Thaddeus Stevens Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Thaddeus 
Stevens Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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:                August 14, 2008 |   | /s/                Yale Farar                                                                                       |
|--------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   | Yale                Farar, President(Principal                Executive Officer)                                    |
|                                 |   |                                                                                                                |
|                                 |   |                                                                                                                |
| Date:                August 14, 2008 |   | /s/                Mitchell W. Turk                                                                                 |
|                                 |   | Mitchell                W. Turk, Chief Financial Officer(Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                                 |   |                                                                                                                |

----
#### FULTON v. VARNEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by John Fulton against George A. Varney.

No opinion. Motion denied on conditions stated in order. Order filed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06581]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9925-07-OA]

National Environmental Education Advisory Council; Notice of 
Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a series of teleconference 
meetings of the National Environmental Education Advisory Council 
(NEEAC). The NEEAC was created by Congress to advise, consult with, and 
make recommendations to the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) on matters related to activities, functions and 
policies of EPA under the National Environmental Education Act (the 
Act). 20 U.S.C. 5508(b).The purpose of this teleconference(s) is to 
discuss specific topics of relevance for consideration by the council 
in order to provide advice and insights to the Agency on environmental 
education.

DATES: The National Environmental Education Advisory Council will hold 
a public teleconference on Friday, April 17, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. until 
3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Araujo, Designated Federal 
Officer, araujo.javier@epa.gov, 202-564-2642, U.S. EPA, Office of 
Environmental Education, William Jefferson Clinton North Room, 1426, 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the public wishing to gain access 
to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written 
statement to the NEEAC must contact Javier Araujo, Designated Federal 
Officer, at araujo.javier@epa.gov or 202-564-2642 by 10 business days 
prior to each regularly scheduled meeting. Meeting Access: For 
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities or 
to request accommodations, please contact Javier Araujo at 
araujo.javier@epa.gov or 202-564-2642, preferably at least 10 days 
prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process 
your request.

    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Sarah Sowell,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Environmental Education.
    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Javier Araujo,
(NEEAC) Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-06581 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```