alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 250.1 Purpose and use of donated foods. ( a ) *Purpose.* The Department purchases foods and donates them to State distributing agencies for further distribution and use in food assistance programs, or to provide assistance to eligible persons, in accordance with legislation: ( 1 ) Authorizing donated food assistance in specific programs (*e.g.,* the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)); or
( 2 ) Authorizing the removal of surplus foods from the market or the support of food prices (*i.e.,* in accordance with Section 32, Section 416, and Section 709, as defined in § 250.2).
( b ) *Use of donated foods.* Donated foods must be used in accordance with the requirements of this part and with other Federal regulations applicable to specific food assistance programs (*e.g.,* 7 CFR part 251 includes requirements for the use of donated foods in The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)). Such use may include activities designed to demonstrate or test the effective use of donated foods (*e.g.,* in nutrition classes or cooking demonstrations) in any programs. However, donated foods may not be: ( 1 ) Sold or exchanged, or otherwise disposed of, unless approved by FNS, or specifically permitted elsewhere in this part or in other Federal regulations (*e.g.,* donated foods may be used in meals sold in NSLP);
( 2 ) Used to require recipients to make any payments or perform any services in exchange for their receipt, unless approved by FNS, or specifically permitted elsewhere in this part or in other Federal regulations; or
( 3 ) Used to solicit voluntary contributions in connection with their receipt, except for donated foods provided in the Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP).
( c ) *Legislative sanctions.* In accordance with the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760) and the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), any person who embezzles, willfully misapplies, steals, or obtains by fraud any donated foods (or funds, assets, or property deriving from such donated foods) will be subject to Federal criminal prosecution and other penalties. Any person who receives, conceals, or retains such donated foods or funds, assets, or property deriving from such foods, with the knowledge that they were embezzled, willfully misapplied, stolen, or obtained by fraud, will also be subject to Federal criminal prosecution and other penalties. The distributing agency, or other parties, as applicable, must immediately notify FNS of any such violations.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

This Document Relates to All Cases

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:19-md-02885

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL

OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 11.1(H)(1)(B)

AND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM SERVICE LIST

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that attorney Charles Luther McCloud, of the law firm Williams 

& Connolly LLP, is withdrawing as counsel for Elliott Berger in the above-referenced multi-district 

litigation, and should be removed from the docket and electronic service list accordingly. As 

required by Local Rule 11.1(H)(1)(b), Mr. Berger consents to this withdrawal, and the withdrawal 

will leave Mr. Berger with counsel of record who will continue in the case.

DATED: March 19, 2023 By: /s/ Michael J. Mestitz

Michael J. Mestitz

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP

680 Maine Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20024

Telephone: (202) 434-5000

Facsimile: (202) 434-5029

Email: mmestitz@wc.com

Attorney for Elliott Berger

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3701 Filed 03/19/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

This Document Relates to All Cases

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:19-md-02885

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 19, 2023, I caused a copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF 

WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 11.1(H)(1)(B) AND 

REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM SERVICE LIST to be filed through the Court’s CM/ECF 

system, which will serve all counsel of record.

DATED: March 19, 2023 /s/ Michael J. Mestitz

Michael J. Mestitz

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3701 Filed 03/19/23 Page 2 of 2
NUMBER 13-09-00266-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

TROY MEADORS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela 

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Troy Meadors, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to withdraw

his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to withdraw the appeal and

dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). Having
2

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this 1st day of October, 2009.
2006-0587.

#### State ex rel. DeLany v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 05AP-281, 2006-Ohio-427.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 
  As of June 30, 1996, Index Futures Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Index Securities, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Jack Carl Management and
Trading, Inc., an Illinois corporation and Index FX Ltd., a British
Corporation, are the Registrant's wholly-owned subsidiaries. Stark Research,
Inc., an Illinois corporation, is a majority-owned subsidiary of the
Registrant. As of June 30, 1996, Index Management Services, Inc., an Illinois
corporation, is the only subsidiary of Index Futures Group, Inc. Index
Management Services, Inc. is wholly-owned by Index Futures Group, Inc.
 
                                      71
#### The Commonwealth *vs.*Greathouse.

Error to the Shelby Circuit; Todd, Judge.

*Slaves, importation of into this state. Indictment.*

Indictment. Caso 170.

October 20.

Ail indictment for importing slaves into (his state, contrary to act of ÍS ¡5, need not charge a *sale*of them. *Importation*is one specific off'nee, and a subsequent sale is another and different infraction of the law. Chame of illeca) *importation*may be sustained without proof of a *sale.*

*Morehead, Mtorney General,*for Commonwealth y *Richardson,*for defendant.

Chief Justice Robertbon

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The only question presented in thiscaséis, whether an indictment,found against the defendant for *importing*slaves into this state, in violation of the statute of 1815, charges, with sufficient precision, an indictable offence.

An illegal importation is sufficiently charged in the indictment. If the charge as made, and reasonably construed, be admitted, there was an illegal importation of slaves by the defendant. The. indictment not only charges an illegal act of importation, but shows, *prima facie,*that it was not excused by any of the exceptions of tire statute.

It was not necessary to charge a *sale*of the imported slaves. Importation is one specific offence, anti subsequent sale is another and different infraction of* the law. The sale of an imported slave is made, by the statute, evidence that the importation was unlawful. But, in an indictment for illegal importation only,, it is not necessary to charge a sale, because that fact would only be *evidence*of the principal fact charged, and because the charge of illegal importation *may*be sustained without any proof of a sale.

We cannot perceive any substantial defect in the indictment. Wherefore, the circuit court erred in quashing it.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.
#### J. William Feldmann, appellee, v. Yetta Silver Andalman et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 37,117.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 15, 1934.

Philip A. Lozowiek, for appellants. Lewis J. Victor, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.,
Order entered August 16 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00725 - CV IN RE JEROME JOHNSON , Relator On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F01 - 53637 - JH



### O RDER Before Justices Whitehill, Partida

- Kipness, and Pedersen, III Bas e d on t he Cou r t’s opinion of this dat e , we DENY relator’s June 19, 2019 petition for writ of mandamus
. /s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA

- KIPNESS JUST ICE
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

BECKMAN COULTER, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SIRIGEN II LIMITED,

Appellee

______________________

2024

- 1512

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022

- 01207

.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App.

P. 42 (b)

. Case: 24-1512 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2024B ECKMAN C OULTER

, I NC

. V

. S IRIGEN II L IMITED 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

July 15, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 15, 2024 Case: 24-1512 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 07/15/2024
#### § 28.433 Strict Low Middling Tinged Color.

Strict Low Middling Tinged Color is color which is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the United States Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Upland, Strict Low Middling Tinged, effective July 1, 1987.”
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00029-MP-AK 

 1:06-cr-00041-MP-AK

RAYMOND REED, JR.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on an in-court hearing held on Wednesday, May 16,

2007, for determination of counsel as to Defendant Raymond Reed. At the hearing, Defendant

Reed stated that he still had not hired a lawyer, and that he was not ready to proceed to trial or to

represent himself. Although Defendant stated that his entire family was attempting to raise

money to hire an attorney for him, Defendant named only one family member that he has spoken

with about this issue–his godsister Adama Harding. In order for the Court to determine the

status and likelihood of Defendant retaining counsel, Defendant is ordered to file with the Court,

no later than Monday, May 21, 2007, the full name, address, and telephone number of Adama

Harding. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant shall file the full name, address, and telephone number of Adama Harding no

later than Monday, May 21, 2007.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00029-MP-GRJ Document 104 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000793631
<NAME> AEI REAL ESTATE FUND XV LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         108,619
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,698
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,317
<PP&E>                                       6,480,450
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,246,791)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,371,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          161,317
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,184,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,470,576
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               682,468
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  443,478
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                238,990
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            238,990
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   238,990
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    32.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    32.25
        


</TABLE>
*Thursday, October 15, 1998*

MOTION DOCKET

98-1940.

#### SuperAmerica Group, Div. of Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections.

Licking App. No. 97CA00131. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right from the Court of Appeals for Licking County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for stay be, and hereby is, denied.

F.E. Sweeney, J., concurs.

Douglas, Acting C.J., Resnick and Cook, JJ., would deny the motion as moot.

Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., would grant the motion.

Moyer, C. J., not participating.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.63 Authorized use of grant funds.

Grant funds may only be used to reimburse a packager for delivered packages. Payment will be made for each complete package received and accepted in accordance with exhibit C of this subpart.
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 .*

§ 1437.17 Matters of general applicability. ( a ) The regulations in this part and FSA's interpretation of the regulations in this part, the basic provisions, and internal agency directives issued to FSA State and county offices are matters of general applicability and are not individually appealable in administrative appeals according to §§ 11.3 and 780.5 of this title. Additionally, the regulations in this part and any FSA decisions that are not based on specific facts derived from an individual participant's application, contract, or file are not appealable under parts 11 or 780 of this title. Examples of such decisions include how NAP is generally administered, signup deadlines, payment rates, or any other generally applicable matter or determination that is made by FSA for use in all similarly situated applications. The only extent to which the matters referenced in this section are reviewable administratively in an appeal forum is whether FSA's determination of facts incidental to the case and decision to apply the generally applicable matter is in conformance with the regulations in this part.
( b ) The relief provisions of 7 CFR part 718 are applicable only to participant ineligibility and noncompliance decisions. The relief provisions cannot be used to extend a benefit or assistance not otherwise available under law or not otherwise available to others who have satisfied or complied with all the eligibility and compliance requirements of this part. Equitable relief provisions of part 718 of this title cannot be used to obtain a review of either these regulations, the requirements of this part, the agency's interpretations of this part, or compliance provisions of this part.
[79 FR 74579, Dec. 15, 2014]
#### Samuel Goodman, complainant, v. Sol K. Graff et al., defendants. Bessie Solomon, executrix of the estate of Joseph Solomon, deceased, appellant, v. Samuel Goodman et al., appellees.

Gen. No. 37,332.

Opinion filed October 16, 1934.

Louis I. Shapiro, for appellant. Sonnensehein, Berkson, Lautmann, Levinson & Morse, for certain appellee; Henry L. Kohn, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 15, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 06-10545

_______________

JONES PARTNERS CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

APOPKA PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

m 3:04-CV-1294

______________________________

Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and DEMOSS, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Jones Partners Construction, LLC (“Jones

Partners”), sued U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) for fraud, alleging that U.S.

Bank had created a false impression about

funds from a loan U.S. Bank had made to

Apopka Plaza Associates, LLC (“Apopka”)SSa company that hired Jones Partners to

serve as managers on a construction project.

Jones Partners asserts that one of U.S. Bank’s

loan officers told a Jones Partners executive

about U.S. Bank’s loan to Apopka and solicited Jones Partners to work on the project.

Meanwhile, this same loan officer knew that

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2

the loan proceeds had been exhausted almost

completely to cover up an illicit transaction

between the loan officer and an Apopka executive, leaving insufficient funds to pay Jones

Partners for its work.

The district court granted summary judgment for U.S. Bank. It found that no reasonable juror could conclude that U.S. Bank’s

conduct created a false impression that funds

would be available to pay for construction

costs because, if anything, U.S. Bank’s statements conveyed the impression that this project and loan were both in trouble. U.S.

Bank’sloan officer told Jones Partnersthat the

interest on the loan was “eating [Apopka]

alive” and that Apopka and U.S. Bank really

needed Jones Partners to help. These statements indicate troubleSSnot a guarantee of a

loan sufficient to fund paymentsto Jones Partners. Because the court found that U.S. Bank

did not create a false impression, it concluded

Jones Partners could not make out a case for

fraud or for fraudulent concealment.1

“This Court reviews grants of summary

judgment de novo, applying the same standard

as the district court, viewing the evidence in a

light most favorable to the non-movant.”

Fruge ex rel. Fruge v. Parker Drilling Co.,

337 F.3d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 2003). We have

carefully examined the briefs and relevant portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. Essentially for the reasons

stated in the district court’s Memorandum

Opinion and Order, we AFFIRM.

1

Jones Partners’ fraudulent concealment claim

relied on Jones Partners’ establishing that U.S.

Bank had created a false impression.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr03136-03/RV

MARIO EUGENE PRIDE

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on December 1, 2008

Motion/Pleadings: Corrected Motion to Reduce Sentence pursuant to 18 USC 3582 

 

Filed by Defendant on 11/21/2008 Doc.# 383 

RESPONSES:

 None on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 18th day of 

 June , 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b)See separate order. (AO247)

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:94-cr-03136-RV-CJK Document 390 Filed 06/18/09 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.6(c)


                   Written description of objectives for the
                   -----------------------------------------
              2004-2006 plan period under the Hecla Mining Company
              ----------------------------------------------------
       Executive and Senior Management Long-Term Performance Payment Plan
       ------------------------------------------------------------------

         The following is a description of certain terms of the Hecla Mining
Company Executive and Senior Management Long-Term Performance Payment Plan (the
"Plan") provided pursuant to paragraph (b)(10)(iii) of Item 601 of Regulation
S-K, which requires a written description of material terms and conditions of a
compensatory plan not contained in a formal document.

                              2004-2006 PLAN PERIOD
                              ---------------------

Performance Targets
-------------------

         In general, there should be a continued focus on resource growth and
cash contribution generation for the 2004-2006 plan period. More emphasis will
be placed on resource growth for the plan period by weighting resource growth
75% and cash contribution 25% in determining the value of the incentive award at
the conclusion of the 2004-2006 period.


         Performance targets have been established for resource growth (i.e.
gold, silver and gold equivalent resources) and cash contribution generation
from the Company's resources. The goal is to incentivize management to focus on
production and cost reduction. In addition, the cash contribution component
encourages management to focus on high quality resource additions that can be
converted to production.

Performance Unit Awards
-----------------------

         The Board assigns performance units at the beginning of each three-year
plan period. Assuming a nominal value of $100 per performance unit, the
following people are awarded performance units for the 2004-2006 plan period:







                                      -11-
<PAGE>

                POSITION                      INCUMBENT

                CEO                           Baker
                CFO                           Walde
                VP - Ops                      Fudge
                VP - Explor/Strategy          Atkinson
                VP - Bus Dev                  Callahan
                VP - N.A. Ops                 Clayton
                VP - IR                       Veltkamp

Performance Award Value
-----------------------

         Performance unit value is based upon performance as determined by the
Board of Directors. The two primary objectives are related to resource and cash
contribution growth.

         Assuming 100% of the target resource level is reached and 100% of the
         cash contribution target is reached, the value of each unit would be
         $100.00. However, the value of performance units can range between $0
         and $200, depending upon performance as determined by the Board of
         Directors.





                                      -12-