alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pan American World Airways, Inc., Appellant, v Chemical Bank, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 3, 1980, unanimousy reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter remanded for hearing. A judgment in favor of the petitioner was entered in a very substantial sum against Overseas Raleigh Manufacturing, Ltd. The petitioner then served a restraining notice to garnishee upon the respondent bank. The bank acknowledged that it was holding some $5,000 in an account in the name of the judgment debtor. However, several weeks later it notified the petitioner that a further examination indicated that there were no accounts in that name. A telephone conversation explained the conflicting contents of the two letters to the effect that the bank had an account in the name of Overseas Raleigh Manufacturers, Ltd., and that therefore the bank considered the restraining notice ineffective. Immediately thereafter, the bank honored a check for the benefit of Overseas Raleigh Manufacturers, Ltd. At the time that it did so, there was crossing in the mail a letter from the petitioner’s counsel demanding that the bank adhere to the restraining notice, and shortly thereafter the petitioner instituted the turnover proceeding which is the subject of this appeal. The only issue on this appeal is whether the bank may adhere to its position that the extremely slight variation of name is a proper basis for it to ignore the restraining notice. CPLR 5222 (subd [b]) provides that a restraining notice “served upon a person other than the judgment debtor is effective only if * * * he is in the possession or custody of property in which he knows or *has reason to believe*the judgment debtor has an interest” (emphasis supplied). On this record a factual issue is presented as to whether defendant bank knew, or had reason to believe, that its depositor and the judgment debtor were of the same equity. In the circumstances, we think the question sufficiently close to warrant a hearing *(Matter of Sumitomo Shoji N. Y. v Chemical Bank N. Y. Trust Co.,*47 Misc 2d 741, affd25 AD2d 499). In passing, it ought be noted that if respondent felt that impounding the funds of Overseas Raleigh Maufacturers, Ltd., on the basis of a garnishee directed against Overseas Raleigh Manufacturing, Ltd., might impose liability upon it, it could have applied for a protective order under CPLR 5240 (see *Plaza Hotel Assoc. v Wellington Assoc.,*84 Misc 2d 777). Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Markewich, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2006 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand access to Coverdell 

education savings accounts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2013 

Mr. WALBERG (for himself and Mr. KILDEE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

access to Coverdell education savings accounts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Helping Families Save 

5 for Education Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) College costs have increased tremendously 

9 over the past decade. Between academic year 2002– 

10 2003 and academic year 2012–2013— 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2006 IH

1 (A) published tuition and fees for students 

2 at public 4-year institutions of higher education 

3 increased from $5,213 to $8,655 or by 66 per4 cent beyond the rate of inflation, 

5 (B) published tuition and fees for students 

6 at public 2-year institutions of higher education 

7 increased from $2,129 to $3,131 or by 47 per8 cent beyond the rate of inflation, and 

9 (C) published tuition and fees for students 

10 at private 4-year institutions of higher edu11 cation increased from $22,974 to $29,056 or by 

12 26 percent beyond the rate of inflation. 

13 (2) Federal financial aid for students has also 

14 increased rapidly but failed to mitigate the issues of 

15 rising college costs. Between academic year 2001– 

16 2002 and academic year 2011–2012— 

17 (A) the amount of Federal financial aid in 

18 the form of Federal Pell Grants, Federal stu19 dent loans, campus-based aid, veterans edu20 cational benefits, and tax credits increased from 

21 $72.3 billion to $173.8 billion or by 140 percent 

22 beyond the rate of inflation, and 

23 (B) the Federal Government’s share of 

24 total student aid administered increased from 

25 67 percent to 73 percent. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2006 IH

1 SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS 

2 ACCOUNTS. 

3 (a) INCREASE IN AGE LIMITATION OF BENEFICIARY

4 AFTER WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS TO ACCOUNT CANNOT

5 BE MADE.—Clause (ii) of section 530(b)(1)(A) of the In6 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘age 

7 18’’ and inserting ‘‘age 22’’. 

8 (b) INCREASE IN ANNUAL DOLLAR LIMITATION ON

9 CONTRIBUTIONS TO ACCOUNT.—Clause (iii) of section 

10 530(b)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking 

11 ‘‘$2,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

13 (1) INCREASE IN AGE LIMITATION.—The 

14 amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to 

15 contributions made after the date of the enactment 

16 of this Act. 

17 (2) INCREASE IN ANNUAL DOLLAR LIMITATION

18 ON CONTRIBUTIONS.—The amendments made by 

19 subsection (b) shall apply to contributions made in 

20 taxable years ending after the date of the enactment 

21 of this Act. 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1980.1021-1980.1024 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

FLORIDA FARM BUREAU EQUITIES INC,

BILL R WINCHESTER,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:84-cv-00148-MP

BADGER PLAINTIFFS,

FLORIDA FARM BUREAU EQUITIES INC,

FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

Respondents.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 264, Fourth Agreed Motion for Extension of

Time to File Response. The motion is granted, and Respondents shall have until and including

July 18, 2005, to file a response and any accompanying exhibits to Movants’ Renewed Motion

for Injunction and to Florida Holding’s Joinder. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:84-cv-00148-MP Document 265 Filed 06/08/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32




CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, James F. Cleary, Jr. and Mary Patricia B. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, 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 our 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.







July 20, 2011









/s/ James F. Cleary, Jr.James F. Cleary, Jr.Chief Executive Officer/s/ Mary Patricia B. ThompsonMary Patricia B. ThompsonChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2112 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2112

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New York, as the ``National 
  Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer 
               Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL CLANDESTINE SERVICE OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE 
              AGENCY NCS OFFICER GREGG DAVID WENZEL MEMORIAL POST 
              OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``National Clandestine Service of the Central 
Intelligence Agency NCS Officer Gregg David Wenzel Memorial 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 ``National 
Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer 
Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2112

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New York, as the ``National 
  Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer 
               Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office''.
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 16, 2017

No. 04-17-00524-CR

Lloyd Ray MCKINNEY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL-16-1094

Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief is due on November 17, 2017. Before the due date, Appellant filed a 

first motion for a forty-five day extension of time to file the brief. In the motion, counsel states 

the extension will be “adequate to allow the completion of the brief.”

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on January 2, 2018. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of November, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Republic Insurance Company, Respondent, v Amin Construction Corp. et al., Defendants, and Abraham Friedman et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover under an indemnity agreement, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 4, 1979 in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $14,730 (we deem the notice of appeal to be a premature notice from the judgment [CPLR 5520, subd (c)]). Judgment and order dated August 8, 1979 (upon which said judgment was entered), reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, summary judgment is granted to plaintiff only as to liability and matter remanded to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. Defendants obtained a performance bond from plaintiff, whereby plaintiff guaranteed to the New York City Department of Water Resources the completion of sewer facilities for a residential development on Staten Island. In a separate agreement defendants agreed to indemnify plaintiff for any liability which it might incur as a result of the bond. After defendants failed to complete the sewer facilities, plaintiff did so upon demand by the city agency. The reasonableness of the cost of completion, the premiums due on the insurance *887contract, and the attorney’s fees incurred to prosecute this action, represent issues of fact that cannot be resolved solely on the basis of the proof submitted. Thus, the matter is remanded for an assessment of damages. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Hargett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
98-1914.

#### State ex rel. Ascani v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Prohibition and Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus regarding an expedited election matter. Upon consideration of the motion for leave to intervene by city of Canton,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for leave to intervene be, and hereby is, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that intervenor shall file a brief in support of its complaint within two days of the date of this entry; respondents shall file a brief in response within two days of the filing of intervenor’s brief; and intervenor may file a reply brief within two days of the filing of respondents’ brief. This briefing schedule does not alter the briefing schedule for the filing of relator’s and respondents’ briefs under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9); no extensions of this briefing schedule shall be permitted.
#### § 28.514 Leaf Grade No. 4.

Leaf grade No. 4 shall be American Pima cotton which in leaf is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Pima, Leaf Grade No. 4, effective July 1, 2001.”

[65 FR 36601, June 9, 2000]
§ 28.185 Issuance of cotton classification memoranda. Upon request, there shall be issued a cotton classification memorandum which shall embody within its written or printed terms: ( a ) The results of the classification or comparison.
( b ) The name of the country in which the cotton was produced.
( c ) The source from which the samples were received for classification.
( d ) A statement that any classification made has been on the basis of the Universal Cotton Standards (the official cotton standards of the United States) at the time of such classification.
( e ) A statement that any classification made applies only to the samples as submitted by the owner or the owner's agent and does not purport to represent any particular cotton bales.
( f ) The signature of the Director of the facility providing the classification service and the date of issuance of the memorandum.
[22 FR 10930, Dec. 28, 1957, as amended at 52 FR 30884, Aug. 18, 1987. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 7030, 7031, Feb. 10, 2016]
#### Great American Insurance Company, Appellant, v Hartford Insurance Group, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs, on the opinion at Special Term, Johnson, J. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ. [97 Misc 2d 949.]
#### Joseph P. Jankiewicz, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 55205.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, upon the decision of the Court of Claims, De lorio, J. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims — appropriation.) Present — Moule, J. P., Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29075]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on November 19, 2010 
at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
    1. The Commission will consider whether to propose new rules and 
rule amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to implement 
provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act. These rules and rule amendments are designed to give effect to 
provisions of Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Act that, among other things, 
increase the statutory threshold for registration by investment 
advisers with the Commission, require advisers to hedge funds and other 
private funds to register with the Commission, and address reporting by 
certain investment advisers that are exempt from registration.
    2. The Commission will consider whether to propose rules that would 
implement new exemptions from the registration requirements of the 
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 for advisers to venture capital funds 
and advisers with less than $150 million in private fund assets under 
management in the United States. These exemptions were enacted as part 
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The 
proposed rules also would clarify the meaning of certain terms included 
in a new exemption for foreign private advisers.
    3. The Commission will consider whether to propose new rules under 
Section 763(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act governing the security-based swap data repository 
registration process, the duties of such repositories, and the core 
principles applicable to such repositories.
    4. The Commission will consider whether to propose Regulation SBSR 
under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act to provide for the reporting of security-based swap 
information to registered security-based swap data repositories or the 
Commission and the public dissemination of security-based swap 
transaction, volume, and pricing information.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: November 12, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29075 Filed 11-15-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****FY ... annual performance planand revised plan for fy ... [electronic resource].**
 
SuDoc Number:A 1.1/8:

Item Number:0006-J-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000587948
 
2002 | 2003| 2004
 
March 23, 2020
#### Theresa Koziol *v.*Walter Wawrzynowicz

*Jackson T. King, Jr.,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Richard C. Post,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued November 2

decided November 2, 1971

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New London County is granted unless on or before December 1, 1971, the defendant-appellant complies with the provisions of § 608A of the rules of practice, which provide that a party ordering a transcript from a court stenographer makes a satisfactory arrangement with him for payment of it.
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 4:20cv57-RH-MAF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RONALD DAVID JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:20cv57-RH-MAF

HEART TO HEART ACADEMY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 5, and the objections, ECF No. 7. I have reviewed de 

novo the issues raised by the objections.

As the report and recommendation correctly concludes, the complaint in this 

case asserts the very same claim the plaintiff already lost on the merits in an earlier 

case. In his objections, the plaintiff does not assert the contrary, nor could he 

reasonably do so. 

For ease of reference, copies of the amended complaint, judgment, and 

mandate dismissing the appeal in the earlier case are attached to this order. Judicial 
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:20cv57-RH-MAF

notice is taken of these materials. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). The plaintiff had an 

opportunity, in response to the report and recommendation, to be heard on the 

propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. See Fed. 

R. Evid. 201(e). And he may be heard further on this subject if he moves to alter or 

amend the judgment that will be entered based on this order. 

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court’s 

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The plaintiff’s claims are 

dismissed with prejudice.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on April 10, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      2,572,500
<SECURITIES>                                1,717,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                 213,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            4,552,500
<PP&E>                                     43,828,600
<DEPRECIATION>                             10,382,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             38,008,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,725,600
<BONDS>                                     4,246,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 31,945,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               38,008,300
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            5,467,800
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2,381,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              174,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            364,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,255,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         1,255,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                1,255,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.86


</TABLE>
#### The State ex rel. Haywood, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Haywood v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 129.]

(No. 96-2256

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Butler, Cincione, Dicuccio, Dritz & Barnhart*and *David B. Barnhart,*for appellee.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Craigg E. Gould,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

*130The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and Cook, JJ., dissent.