alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1944.423 Loan packaging and 502 RH application submittal.

A grantee is required to assist 502 RH applicants in submitting their application for a RH loan. Loan packaging will be performed in accordance with 7 CFR part 3550; therefore, it is important that the grantee be trained at an early date in the packaging of RH loans. Typically, this training should take place before the first applications are submitted to the County Office and before the grant is closed. A grantee should become very knowledgeable of Rural Development's eligibility requirements but must understand that only Rural Development can approve or deny an applicant assistance. Grantee must work cooperatively with Rural Development in the 502 loan approval process and must work within the regulations for the 502 program and recognize Rural Development's ultimate decision making authority to approve or deny loans. However, the grantee may ask for clarification that may be helpful in working with future applicants. Grant funds may not be used to pay any expense in connection with an appeal that the applicant may file or pursue.

[55 FR 41833, Oct. 16, 1990, as amended at 67 FR 78328, Dec. 24, 2002]
#### In the Matter of 216 Restaurant, Inc., Petitioner, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

This proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR was brought to review and annul two determinations of the New York State Liquor Authority, dated April 10, 1968 and April 11, 1968, which respectively (1) canceled petitioner’s license and (2) disapproved petitioner’s application for approval of a corporate change. On June 10, 1968 this court annulled the latter determination, remitted the application as to a corporate change to the Authority for a new hearing, and directed that the proceeding be held in abeyance as to the cancellation of the license, pending the Authority’s new determination as to the corporate change application *(Matter of 216 Rest.*v. *New York State Liq. Auth.,*30 A D 2d 678). The Authority has held such new hearing and has made such new determination, which is dated December 11, 1968. Determinations dated April 10, 1968 and December 11, 1968 confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. In our opinion,, there was substantial evidence to support the Authority’s *565disapproval of the corporate change application because of unsatisfactory financing (cf. *Matter of Mar-Jear Rest. Corp.*v. *New York State Liq. Auth.,*31 A D 2d 741; *Matter of Farone*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*30 A D 2d 752, 753). Cancellation of petitioner’s license based upon the criminal conviction of one of its officers was not arbitrary (cf. *Matter of Barton Trucking Corp.*v. *O’Connell,*7 N Y 2d 299, 313). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

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

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

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

Case No. 3:19-md-2885

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

This Document Relates to: 

Michelle Blum

Case No. 7:20-cv-00122-MCR/GRJ

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

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Michelle Blum, by and through her undersigned attorneys, and 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), moves this Court to dismiss the abovestyled action against all Defendants without prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’

fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter an order dismissing this action 

without prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Respectfully submitted,

MOSTYN LAW

/s/ Michael A. Burns

Michael A. Burns

FL Bar No. 0973130

Caroline L. Maida

TX Bar No. 24078906

Email: epefile@mostynlaw.com

3810 W. Alabama St.

Houston, TX 77027

Telephone: (713) 714-0000

Facsimile: (713) 714-1111

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 7:20-cv-00122-MCR-GRJ Document 18 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on this 2nd day of July, 2021, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court and served using the CM/ECF system.

/s/ Michael A. Burns

Case 7:20-cv-00122-MCR-GRJ Document 18 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 2
Appeal From Oconee County 

J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge 

 

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Debi Baker Brookshire, Petitioner, 

v. 

Community First Bank and Benjamin Hiott, Defendants, 

Of Which Community First Bank is the Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2022-000756 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2024-MO-009 

Heard March 27, 2024 – Filed April 24, 2024 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

Warren Blair Giese and Kelly Lloyd Giese, both of The 

Giese Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia; and Jonathan D. 
 

 

Waller, of Angell Molony, LLC, of Aiken, all for 

Petitioner. 

Robert Yates Knowlton, Sr., and Elizabeth Halligan 

Black, both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of 

Columbia, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision 

in Brookshire v. Community First Bank, 2022-UP-163 (S.C. Ct. App. filed April 6, 

2022). After careful consideration of the Appendix and briefs, the writ of 

certiorari is 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Morris L. Markel et al., Respondents, v Markel Electric Products, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: On the eve of trial in a stock appraisal proceeding, petitioners, as dissenting shareholders of Markel Electric Products, Inc., obtained an order in Supreme Court, Erie County, directing respondent to produce documents and submit to examinations relative to the acquisition of certain assets of Markel Electric Products, Inc. The demand in the subpoena and various notices of discovery are extremely broad and include discovery directed to nonparties, among others. Extensive discovery has already been had in this case and respondent has produced and had deposed various officers and employees prior to the demands presently sought. It should be noted that there is an action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, in which extensive discovery proceedings have been had. The parties have previously agreed that materials furnished in the Federal court proceedings may be used in the State action without the necessity of duplicating discovery for the State action. Respondent appeals from the order directing further discovery. In view of the extensive discovery already had and the failure of petitioners to show facts from which it could be determined that further discovery is material and necessary to enable them to proceed with the trial of the appraisal action in the State court, the order should be reversed. The scope of the examination sought is so broad that this or any other court should not be put to the task of divining the minutia of that which may possibly remain to be disclosed. A trial of the action is the appropriate method now to dispose of the issues in dispute. A review of the record in this case compels the conclusion that "the examination ordered herein would not disclose material and necessary evidence. Furthermore, the order is unnecessarily broad and inclusive, to the extent that it amounts to judicial harrassment. This should not be permitted under the guise or semblance of liberality.” *(Matter of Katz Buffalo Realty v Anderson,*25 AD2d 809, 810). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—discovery, etc.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons,. Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
Order filed November 6, 2012 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00892-CV

____________

HARSADBHAI AND DHARMISHTHA PATEL, Appellants

V.

HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THE APPRAISAL REVIEW 

BOARD OF HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-68741

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed September 24, 2012. To date, the filing 

fee of $175.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellants have established indigence 

has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellants are ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the Clerk 

of this court on or before November 21, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellants fail to 

timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
H. R. 2319 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

An Act 

To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans’ Memorial Establishment Act of 1994. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Native American Veterans’ Memorial Amendments Act of 2013’’. 

SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS’ MEMORIAL. 

(a) AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.—Section 3 of the 

Native American Veterans’ Memorial Establishment Act of 1994 

(20 U.S.C. 80q–5 note; 108 Stat. 4067) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘within the interior structure of the facility provided for by’’ and inserting ‘‘on property 

under the jurisdiction of the Museum on the site described 

in’’; and 

(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ‘‘, in consultation with 

the Museum, is’’ and inserting ‘‘and the National Museum 

of the American Indian are’’. 

(b) PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.—Section 4(a) of the Native American Veterans’ Memorial Establishment Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 

80q–5 note; 108 Stat. 4067) is amended— 

(1) in the heading, by inserting ‘‘AND NATIONAL MUSEUM

OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN’’ after ‘‘AMERICAN INDIANS’’; and 

(2) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘shall be solely’’ and 

inserting ‘‘and the National Museum of the American Indian 

shall be’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2197 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 

segments of the York River and associated tributaries 

for study for potential inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2197 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘York River Wild and 

3 Scenic River Study Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY. 

5 Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(l) YORK RIVER, MAINE.—(A) The York 

9 River that flows 11.25 miles from its headwaters at 

10 York Pond to the mouth of the river at York Har11 bor, and all associated tributaries. 

12 ‘‘(B) The study conducted under this paragraph 

13 shall— 

14 ‘‘(i) determine the effect of the designation 

15 on— 

16 ‘‘(I) existing commercial and rec17 reational activities, such as hunting, fish18 ing, trapping, recreational shooting, motor 

19 boat use, bridge construction; 

20 ‘‘(II) the authorization, construction, 

21 operation, maintenance, or improvement of 

22 energy production and transmission infra23 structure; and 

24 ‘‘(III) the authority of State and local 

25 governments to manage those activities; 

26 and 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2197 RFS

1 ‘‘(ii) identify— 

2 ‘‘(I) all authorities that will authorize 

3 or require the Secretary to influence local 

4 land use decisions (such as zoning) or 

5 place restrictions on non-Federal land if 

6 designated under this Act; 

7 ‘‘(II) all authorities that the Secretary 

8 may use to condemn property; and 

9 ‘‘(III) all private property located in 

10 the area studied under this paragraph.’’. 

11 SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORT. 

12 Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

13 U.S.C. 1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(l) YORK RIVER, MAINE.—The study of the 

16 York River, Maine, named in paragraph (l) of sub17 section (a) shall be completed by the Secretary of 

18 the Interior and the report thereon submitted to 

19 Congress not later than 3 years after the date on 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 2197 RFS

1 which funds are made available to carry out this 

2 paragraph.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 4, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR DECEMBER 31, 1996 AS FILED ON FORM 10-KSB WITH THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         217,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  194,103
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,298
<INVENTORY>                                    474,892
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               888,387
<PP&E>                                         560,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                 172,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,407,425
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          375,318
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,913,693
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,861,586)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,407,425
<SALES>                                      1,002,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,093,048
<CGS>                                          840,593
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,672,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,579,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,579,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,579,049)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2332 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to recognize Indian tribal 

governments for purposes of determining under the adoption credit 

whether a child has special needs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2013 

Mr. KILMER (for himself, Mr. KIND, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. MOORE, Mr. HECK

of Washington, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. 

CA ́RDENAS, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. HONDA, Ms. 

HANABUSA, Mr. POCAN, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. COLE, Mr. KEATING, Mr. 

HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. MORAN, and Mr. 

YOUNG of Alaska) 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 recognize 

Indian tribal governments for purposes of determining 

under the adoption credit whether a child has special 

needs. 

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 ‘‘Adoption Tax Credit 

5 Tribal Parity Act of 2013’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2332 IH

1 SEC. 2. RECOGNIZING INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS FOR 

2 PURPOSES OF DETERMINING UNDER THE 

3 ADOPTION CREDIT WHETHER A CHILD HAS 

4 SPECIAL NEEDS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 23(d) of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining child with 

7 special needs) is amended— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘or In9 dian tribe (as defined in section 7871(c)(3)(E))’’ 

10 after the words ‘‘a State’’; and 

11 (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘or In12 dian tribe’’ after the words ‘‘such State’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

15 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Cadogan, Appellant.

Pour orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, one dated October 22, 1965, two dated December 6, 1965, and one dated August 12, 1964, respectively, affirmed. No opinion. Appeal from a fifth order of said court, dated October 22, 1965, dismissed. That order was superseded by an order dated November 24, 1965, granting appellant’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhering to the original decision. We have, however, considered the merits of appellant’s contentions, and were this appeal properly before us, we would affirm. (The order .of the court dated August 12, 1964, *571
      *supra,*was previously affirmed on March 8, 1965 [see 23 A D 2d 722], but on June 17, 1965, upon defendant’s motion, the order of affirmance was vacated and reargument of the appeal granted.) Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
§ 25.403 Ongoing 2-year work plan requirement. ( a ) Each Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community shall prepare and submit annually, work plans for the subsequent 2-year interval of the designation period.
( b ) The 2-year work plan shall be submitted to USDA 45 days prior to the start of the applicable 2-year period.
( c ) The 2-year work plan must include the following sections and content: ( 1 ) *Section 1—Work Plan.* Identify the benchmark goals to be achieved in the applicable 2 years of the strategic plan, together with the benchmark activities to be undertaken during the applicable 2 years of implementation. Include references to the applicable baseline conditions and performance indicators to be used in assessing performance.
( 2 ) *Section 2—Operational Budget.* For each benchmark activity to be undertaken in the applicable 2 years of the strategic plan, set forth the following information: ( i ) Expected implementation costs;
( ii ) Proposed sources of funding and whether actual commitments have been obtained;
( iii ) Technical assistance resources and other forms of support pledged by Federal, State and local governments, non-profit organizations, foundations, private businesses, and any other entity to assist in implementation of the community's strategic plan, and whether this support is conditional upon the designation of the community as an Empowerment Zone; and
( iv ) Documentation of applications for assistance and commitments identified as proposed funding and other resources.
#### § 2900.4 Natural gas requirements.

For purposes of Section 401(c), NGPA, the natural gas requirements for each Essential Agricultural Use Establishment, whether such Essential Agricultural Use Establishment is in existence on the effective date of this rule or comes into existence thereafter, are certified to be 100 percent of Current Natural Gas Requirements.
#### § 28.24 Surrender of license certificate.

In the event of suspension or revocation of a license, the licensee shall promptly surrender the license to the Division.
June 5, 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JJJJ WALKER, LLC; DY NAFAB USA, LLC; RENA ISSANCE PROPERTIES OF TEXAS, LLC; PRIYA PROPERTIES, LL C; BD TEXAS, LLC; AN D KW

HOSPITAL ACQUISITION , LLC , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 13

- 00161

- CV V.

ERIC YOLLICK , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed November 26, 2012 in favor of appellee Eric Yollick, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedin gs in accordance with the jury’s verdict and this court’ s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee Eric Yollick.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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


In connection with the Annual Report of Nordson Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sundaram Nagarajan, president and chief executive officer 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:


(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: December 18, 2020/s/ Sundaram NagarajanSundaram NagarajanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
2006-0662.

#### Hood v. Jeffreys.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Robert Hood. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
### State of California

Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Notice of Decision and

Response to Significant Environmental Issues

Item: California Consumer Products Regulations and

Test Method 310

Approved By: Resolution 09-51

Adopted by: Executive Order R-10-013

Agenda Item: 09-8-4

Public Hearing Date: September 24, 2009

Issuing Authority: Air Resources Board

Comment: The Air Resources Board received a few co mments

asserting that adverse environmental impacts may re sult

from this item. These comments are summarized and

responded to in the Final Statement of Reasons for this

regulatory item, which is incorporated by reference herein.

Response: N/A

Certified: ___________/s/__________

Amy J. Whiting, Regulations Coordinator

Date: August 6, 2010