alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 248.24 Other provisions. ( a ) *No aid reduction.* The value of benefits or assistance available under the FMNP shall not be considered as income or resources of recipients or their families for any purpose under Federal, State, or local laws, including, but not limited to, laws relating to taxation, welfare and public assistance programs. Section 17(m)(7)(B) of the CNA provides that any programs for which a grant is received under this subsection shall be supplementary to the food stamp program carried out under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 as amended (7 U.S.C. 2011 *et seq.*) and to any other Federal or State program under which foods are distributed to needy families in lieu of food stamps.
( b ) *Statistical information.* FNS reserves the right to use information obtained under the FMNP in a summary, statistical or other form which does not identify particular individuals.
( c ) *Confidentiality.* The State agency shall restrict the use or disclosure of information obtained from FMNP applicants and recipients to persons directly connected with the administration or enforcement of the WIC Program or the FMNP, including persons investigating or prosecuting violations in the WIC Program or FMNP under Federal, State or local authority.
( d ) *Program evaluations.* State and local FMNP agencies and contractors must cooperate in studies and evaluations conducted by or on behalf of the Department, related to programs authorized under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786).
[59 FR 11517, Mar. 11, 1994, as amended at 76 FR 37983, June 29, 2011]
#### § 29.1066 Symbol (S).

As applied to Flue-cured tobacco the symbol (S) when used (a) as the third factor of a grademark, denotes slick, unripe tobacco in lemon or orange color, and (b) when used preceding a grademark, denotes tobacco in strip form. (See Rules 17 and 28.)

[49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984. Redesignated at 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
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-MCR-GRJ

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE

In accordance with the Court’s April 9, 2019 Order, Pretrial Order No. 3, and the Northern 

District of Florida Local Rule 11.1, Michael J. Mestitz respectfully moves for admission to practice 

pro hac vice for purposes of appearance in the above-captioned case only, and in support thereof 

states as follows:

1. Movant resides in the District of Columbia and is not a resident of the State of 

Florida.

2. Movant is not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Florida and is a 

member in good standing of the bar of the District of Columbia. A copy of a Certificate of Good 

Standing from the District of Columbia dated within 30 days of this motion is attached hereto as 

Exhibit “A.”

3. Movant has reviewed the AttorneyAdmission Memo, reviewed the Local Rules of 

the Northern District of Florida, completed the online Attorney Admission Tutorial, confirmation 

number FLND1675030660131 and completed the CM/ECF Online Tutorials.

4. Michael J. Mestitz has submitted to the Clerk the required $208.00 pro hac vice

admission fee.

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3666 Filed 02/14/23 Page 1 of 3
5. Michael J. Mestitz has upgraded his PACER account to “NextGen.”

6. Movant represents third-party Elliot Berger.

WHEREFORE, Michael J. Mestitz respectfully requests this Court enter an Order granting 

Michael J. Mestitz of Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice in this case.

Respectfully submitted on this 14th day of February, 2023.

/s/ Michael J. Mestitz

MICHAEL J. MESTITZ

D.C. Bar. No. 1047260

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 

680 Maine Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20024

(202) 434-5000

mmestitz@wc.com

Counsel for Elliott Berger

2

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3666 Filed 02/14/23 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed electronically through

the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notice of filing to all CM/ECF participants.

/s/ Michael J. Mestitz

MICHAEL J. MESTITZ

3

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3666 Filed 02/14/23 Page 3 of 3
#### § 210.32 Program information.

Persons seeking information about this Program should contact their State administering agency or the appropriate FNSRO. The FNS website has contact information for State agencies at *https://www.fns.usda.gov/contacts* and FNSROs at *https://www.fns.usda.gov/fns-regional-offices.*

[88 FR 57848, Aug. 23, 2023]
§ 205.308 Agricultural products in other than packaged form at the point of retail sale that are sold, labeled, or represented as “100 percent organic” or “organic.” ( a ) Agricultural products in other than packaged form may use the term, “100 percent organic” or “organic,” as applicable, to modify the name of the product in retail display, labeling, and display containers: *Provided,* That, the term, “organic,” is used to identify the organic ingredients listed in the ingredient statement.
( b ) If the product is prepared in a certified facility, the retail display, labeling, and display containers may use: ( 1 ) The USDA seal; and
( 2 ) The seal, logo, or other identifying mark of the certifying agent that certified the production or handling operation producing the finished product and any other certifying agent which certified operations producing raw organic product or organic ingredients used in the finished product: *Provided,* That, such seals or marks are not individually displayed more prominently than the USDA seal.
#### UNITED STATES v. BULLARD. HARRISON v. UNITED STATES.

Nos. 6716, 6725.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 13, 1954.

Decided Jan. 30, 1954.

*256Cornelius J. Peck, Washington, D. C., Atty., Department of Justice (Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., L. S. Parsons, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Samuel D. Slade, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.

John B. Browder, Richmond, Va. (W. V. Rennie, Washington, D. C., and Benjamin L. Campbell, Petersburg, Va., on the brief), for Lillian Adams Bullard.

Richard L. Williams, Richmond, Va. (Robert G. Butcher and Parrish, Butcher *&*Parrish, Richmond, Va., on the brief), for Fred L. Harrison.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

These are appeals in an action instituted under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq. Judgment for damages on account of personal injuries was rendered in favor of the plaintiff Lillian Adams Bullard, who was struck by an automobile driven by a United States Deputy Marshal, Fred L. Harrison, as she was running across a highway at a street intersection in the town of Colonial Heights, Va., to catch a bus which was waiting for her on the other side. In No. 6716, the United States appeals from this judgment contending that plaintiff was injured as the result of her own negligence and that there is no liability on the part of the United States for her injury. Fred L. Harrison, the driver of the car, was brought in by the United States as a third party defendant; and judgment .over against him was rendered in favor of the United States for the amount of the judgment in favor of plaintiff. In No. 6725 he appeals from the rendition of such judgment.

On the appeal by the United States in No. 6716, we think it clear that the judgment in favor of plaintiff should be affirmed. The questions as to the negligence of the driver of the car, the contributory negligence of plaintiff and the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury in proper application of the last clear chance doctrine were pure questions of fact; and we see no reason for disturbing the findings of the District Judge with regard thereto. See Danner v. Cunningham, 194 Va. 142, 72 S.E.2d 354; Peck v. United States, 4 Cir., 195 F.2d 686.

As to the appeal in No. 6725, it appears that the precise question there involved, i.e. the right of the United States to recover over against an employee for whose negligence it is held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is pending before the Supreme Court of the United States on certiorari granted to review the decision of the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in Gilman v. United States, 9 Cir., 206 F.2d 846.

The judgment appealed from will accordingly be affirmed in so far as it grants recovery in favor of plaintiff and against the United States and decision *257will be reserved, pending the decision of the Supreme Court in the Gilman case, as to the portion of the judgment giving judgment over in favor of the United States and against Harrison, the third party defendant.

No. 6716, Affirmed.

No. 6725, Decision Reserved
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 7, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127273 & (72) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JAMES W. ZERRENNER, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices Cross-Appellee, 

v SC: 127273 

 COA: 246321 
 Kent CC: 97-010967-DO 

BONNIE S. ZERRENNER, 

Defendant-Appellee,

Cross-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of July 14, 2005, the application for leave to appeal the August 10, 2004 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant were held in abeyance pending the decision in Deyo v Deyo (Docket 

No. 126795). On order of the Court, the decision having been issued on December 15, 

2005, 474 Mich 952 (2005), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 

7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the 

Court of Appeals. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals that defendant has an 

equitable claim of restitution based on uncompensated services performed for plaintiff’s 

law firm. Plaintiff’s law firm was a separate asset, not a marital asset, which did not 

appreciate in value during the time of the parties’ marriage as required by MCL 552.401. 

Because plaintiff’s law firm was not a marital asset, Postema v Postema, 189 Mich App 

89 (1991), and similar cases on which the Court of Appeals relied cannot justify 

defendant’s claim to equitable restitution. In all other respects, the application for leave 

to appeal is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is also 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. 

WEAVER, J., states as follows: 

I would deny leave to appeal as I would not peremptorily reverse this case. 

t0404 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 7, 2006 

Clerk
#### §§ 1775.38-1775.60 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1944.62 Authorized representative of the applicant.

RHS or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 will deal only with authorized representatives designated by the applicant. The authorized representatives must have no pecuniary interest in the award of the architectural or construction contracts, the purchase of equipment, or the purchase of the land for the housing site.

[58 FR 58643, Nov. 3, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 39851, July 31, 1996]
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ClaytonHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), we, Frank P. Filipps, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and Frederick C. Herbst, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge, that:

(1)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13a or 15d of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)            Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   | Dated: November 10, 2006                                |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                    |
|   | /s/ Frank P. Filipps                                    |   |
|   |       Frank P.  Filipps        |
|   |       Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                                                    |
|   | /s/ Frederick C. Herbst                                 |   |
|   |       Frederick  C. Herbst     |
|   |       Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
|          |                                                                                                      |
|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.  | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-K of Level 3 Communications, Inc.; and |

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

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |
| /s/ Sunit S. Patel      |   |
| Sunit S. Patel          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
Exhibit 10.1
 Williams Partners GP LLC
Director Compensation Policy
Adopted November 29, 2005
Revised August 20, 2008
Revised January 26, 2009
Revised May 28, 2009
 Compensation of Directors
  I. Bi-Annual Compensation Package
 nd st st st
 1.
    
    $37,500 cash, subject to the provisions of Section IV below, such cash compensation
to be paid on August 22ndand February 1stfor an annual sum of
$75,000; and2.
    
    $2,500 cash each for service on the conflicts and audit committees of the Board,
subject to the provisions of Section IV below, such cash compensation to be paid on August
22nd and February 1stfor an annual sum of $5,000.
 II. Conflicts Committee Fees
  nd st th th
 III. Other Compensation




---



##### 



1.
    
    for a person first elected as a Non-Employee Director after September 16, 2005, a
one-time payment of $25,000 cash on the date of election to the Board; and2.
    
    reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with
attending Board and committee meetings and attending education programs relevant to their
duties as members of the Board.
 IV. Interim Payment and Grant Dates and Proration
 1.
    
    Interim Payment and Grant Dates.
 nd st nd st th
 st st nd st st
 st nd st st nd
 2.
    
    Proration.
 st st
 V. Other Provisions
2005-2437.

#### Charles v. Mabe.

Franklin App. No. 05AP-410, 2005-Ohio-6106. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. I; cause held for the decision in 2005-0272, *Fowee v. Wesley Hall, Inc.,*Hamilton App. No. C-040188, 2004-Ohio-7002; and briefing schedule stayed.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
#### § 2620.5 Appeals.

The denial of a requested record may be appealed in accordance with subpart A of part 1 of this title. Appeals shall be addressed to the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Whitten Building, Suite 441-E, Washington, DC 20250-2308. The Inspector General will give notice of the determination concerning an appeal in accordance with subpart A of part 1 of this title.
#### § 29.2502 Air-dried.

The condition of unfermented tobacco as customarily prepared for storage under natural atmospheric conditions.
#### Philip S. Capano, Doing Business as Rite-On Realty Co., Respondent, v Lena Sostilio et al., Appellants.

Order, Appellate Term, First Department, affirming judgment of Civil Court, Bronx County, entered December 12, 1978, reversed, on the law, and judgment directed in favor of defendants-appellants, dismissing the complaint, with costs. Plaintiff-respondent, a real estate broker, has sued defendant owner and prospective seller of realty, and the latter’s lawyer; there is also a cause for tortious interference with a contract, that alleged between plaintiff and the owner. The proposed contract was conditioned on the buyer’s ability to secure a $46,000 mortgage by June 30, 1973. The sales price was to be $59,000, 10% payable at contract, the balance at closing on August 31. There was an oral agreement for a $4,000 commission, more than standard, because plaintiff undertook to procure the mortgage for the buyer, ordinarily the latter’s obligation. Plaintiff drew up a commission contract accordingly but, on the advice of his lawyer, the owner refused to sign it. Though plaintiff threatened not to move until the agreement was signed, he attempted without success to get an expected mortgage from a bank, and, after being rebuffed, from others. Apparently, plaintiff’s suit is based on an accusation that the *760seller thwarted his performance. However, having undertaken to deliver a mortgage, he cannot charge the seller with his own failure. Nor can he accuse the lawyer or the seller of tortious interference with a contract that was not viable (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd a, par 10), nor, because of no showing of intent to injure, of so-called prima facie tort. In sum, though the prospective buyer may have been ready and willing to close the deal, he was not able, a prime ingredient of successful brokerage. The complaint should have been dismissed. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
§ 210.22 Audits. ( a ) *General.* Unless otherwise exempt, audits at the State and school food authority levels shall be conducted in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart F and Appendix XI (Compliance Supplement) and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415.
( b ) *Audit procedure.* These requirements call for organization-wide financial and compliance audits to ascertain whether financial operations are conducted properly; financial statements are presented fairly; recipients and subrecipients comply with the laws and regulations that affect the expenditures of Federal funds; recipients and subrecipients have established procedures to meet the objectives of federally assisted programs; and recipients and subrecipients are providing accurate and reliable information concerning grant funds. States and school food authorities shall use their own procedures to arrange for and prescribe the scope of independent audits, provided that such audits comply with the requirements set forth in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F and Appendix XI, and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415.
[53 FR 29147, Aug. 2, 1988, as amended at 71 FR 39516, July 13, 2006; 81 FR 66488, Sept. 28, 2016]
EX-31
  RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF GARY BORGLUND

RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Gary Borglund, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of City
Capital Corporation (formerly known as Synthetic Turf Corporation of
America);

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

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;

4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period] for
the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)  [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter
(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small
business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.


Dated: April 25, 2005                  /s/ Gary Borglund
                                       Gary Borglund
                                       President/Secretary/Treasurer
#### § 201.36 The words “free” and “none.”

The words “free” and “none” shall be construed to mean that none were found in a test complying with the methods set forth in §§ 201.45-201.52.

[5 FR 32, Jan. 4, 1940]