alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2

     WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
                          ss.1350 DATED APRIL 22, 2003

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer
of Edison Control Corporation (the "Company") that the Annual Report on Form
10-K of the Company for the year ended January 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such
period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.


                                        EDISON CONTROL CORPORATION
                                        --------------------------
                                               (Registrant)

 Date: April 22, 2003                   /s/  Gregory l. Skaar
                                        ---------------------
                                        Gregory L. Skaar
                                        (Chief Financial Officer)
#### Richard C. Zahn et al., Appellants, v Francis H. Neverett, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered November 15, 1979 in Clinton County, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to restore their action to the Trial Calendar. This action was on the Standard and Goals Calendar of the Supreme Court, Clinton County, for the Trial Term commencing in January, 1978. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, maintaining an office in Monroe County, were so advised by the court early in December of 1977. The action was commenced on March 21, 1975 and, pursuant to a demand (CPLR 3216), a note of issue was served and filed in May, 1977. Defendant has stated he was ready to defend the action at each and every Trial Term thereafter, including the term commencing on January 3, 1978. The court advised plaintiffs’ trial counsel to keep in daily contact since the matter would have to be disposed of when reached. Twice thereafter counsel was informed of the rapid progress of this case to the top of the Day Calendar. He was further notified on January 17, 1978 that the matter would be ready for trial at 9:30 a.m. on January 18, 1978. When there was no appearance by or on behalf of plaintiff on that date, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. The instant motion to have the action restored to the Calendar was made in January of 1979. In our view the trial court was correct both in dismissing the complaint and in denying the motion to restore. The conduct of plaintiffs’ attorney was sufficient to support the exercise of its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss, and the subsequent application to restore failed to set forth a sufficient excuse for the past delay or to present an adequate affidavit of merits (cf. *Hickey v Shumacher,*54 AD2d 790; *Adriance v County of Rensselaer,*52 AD2d 1002). Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Casey, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr37/MCR

GARRY A. CARR

 a/k/a “Gary A. Carr”

_____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of the 

Defendant, Garry A. Carr a/k/a “Gary A. Carr”, to Count One of the indictment is 

hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as 

directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00037-MCR Document 22 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 1
§ 400.98 Reconsideration process. ( a ) This reconsideration process only applies to determinations of good farming practices under § 400.91(a)(2).
( b ) A determination or reconsideration decision regarding good farming practices is not an adverse action and cannot be appealed to NAD.
( c ) Only reconsideration is available for determinations of good farming practices. Mediation is not available for determinations of good farming practices.
( d ) If the insured seeks reconsideration, the insured must file a written request for reconsideration to the following: USDA RMA Deputy Administrator for Insurance Services, Stop 0801, Room 2004-South ATTN: GFP RECONSIDERATION 1400 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20250-0801, by email to *rma.rmsd@usda.gov ,* or to a successor site or email. ( 1 ) A request for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days of receipt of written notice of the determination regarding good farming practices. A request for reconsideration will be considered to have been “filed” when personally delivered in writing to FCIC or when the properly addressed request, postage paid, is postmarked.
( 2 ) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) of this section, an untimely request for reconsideration may be accepted and acted upon if the insured can demonstrate a physical inability to timely file the request for reconsideration.
( 3 ) Reconsideration of a good farming practice (GFP) determination will be limited to a closed review of the existing administrative record. The written request must state the basis upon which the insured relies to show that: ( i ) The decision was not proper and not made in accordance with applicable program regulations and procedures; or
( ii ) The previously provided material facts were not properly considered in such decision.
( e ) With respect to determinations of good farming practices, the insured is not required to exhaust the administrative remedies in 7 CFR part 11 before bringing suit against FCIC in a United States district court. However, regardless of whether the Agency or the reinsured company makes the determination, the insured must seek reconsideration under § 400.98 before bringing suit against FCIC in a United States District Court. The insured cannot file suit against the reinsured company for determinations of good farming practices.
( f ) Any reconsideration decision by the Agency regarding good farming practices shall not be reversed or modified as a result of judicial review unless the reconsideration decision is found to be arbitrary or capricious.
[68 FR 37720, June 25, 2003, as amended at 89 FR 53828, June 27, 2024]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RODERICK J MOELLER, DONALD E

DARDEN

VS CASE NO. 4:03-mc-00007-SPM

D E FREY & CO INC,

CORRESPONDENT SERVICES

CORPORATION, MARSHALL R

CASSEDY, JR

JUDGMENT

This action came before the Court with the Honorable Stephan P. Mickle

presiding. The issues have been heard and a decision has been rendered.

Judgment is entered directing Respondent Cassedy to pay to Petitioners the amount of

$82,833.13 as the Petitioners’ prevailing parties’ attorneys’ fees pursuant to Florida

Statutes, Section 517.211(6). Interest on the judgment shall run from March 15, 2005

 February 8, 2006

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/ Debi Boone

DATE Deputy Clerk: Debi Boone

Case 4:03-mc-00007-SPM Document 58 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOSE ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:03cv63-RH/WCS

JOHN D. RYALS, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

The parties have filed a notice of settlement. (Document 50.) Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The parties shall abide by their settlement agreement.

2. All claims other than for enforcement of the settlement agreement are

hereby voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41.

3. Jurisdiction is retained for enforcement of the order requiring compliance

with the settlement agreement. 

4. The clerk shall enter judgment stating, “The parties are ordered to abide

by their settlement agreement. The court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the order

Case 4:03-cv-00063-RH-WCS Document 51 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:03cv63-RH/WCS

to abide by the settlement agreement. All claims in this action are voluntarily

dismissed with prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.” 

The clerk shall close the file.

5. Any party that objects to the terms of this order or the judgment to be

entered pursuant hereto may file a timely motion to alter or amend in accordance

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

SO ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:03-cv-00063-RH-WCS Document 51 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2
*Friday, August*7, *1998*

MOTION DOCKET

97-239.

#### State v. Mason.

Marion App. No. 9-94-51. Upon consideration of the motion filed by counsel for appellant to stay the execution of sentence in the above-styled cause pending the timely filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States,

IT IS ORDERED that said motion be, and the same is hereby, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the compliance with the mandate and the execution of sentence be, and the same are hereby, stayed, pending the timely filing of the petition in the Supreme Court of the United States.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such petition is timely filed, this stay shall continue for an indefinite period pending final disposition of this cause by the Supreme Court of the United States.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6031
DONALD R. DEHANEY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM L. SMITH, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-325-DKC) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald R. Dehaney, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Richard M. Kastendieck, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dehaney v. Smith , No. CA-95-325-DKC (D. Md. Dec. 14, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. George Gary, appellee, v. William Hale Thompson et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 33,109.

Opinion filed May 31, 1929.

Samuel A. Ettelson, Corporation Counsel, for appellants; Michael L. Rosinia, E. Marshall Amberg and Roy S. Gaskill, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel. John M. Lowery, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2228 Reported in Senate (RS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 479
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2228

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2404 Race Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas, as the ``Hattie W. Caraway 
                             Post Office''.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 31, 2006

Mrs. Lincoln (for herself and Mr. Pryor) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             June 22, 2006

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2404 Race Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas, as the ``Hattie W. Caraway 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. HATTIE W. CARAWAY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2404 Race Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Hattie W. Caraway 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 ``Hattie W. 
Caraway Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 479

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2228

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2404 Race Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas, as the ``Hattie W. Caraway 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 22, 2006

                       Reported without amendment`
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2327 

To require the FCC to issue a final order regarding white spaces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2006 

Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the FCC to issue a final order regarding white 

spaces. 

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 ‘‘Wireless Innovation 

5 Act of 2006’’ or the ‘‘Winn Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WHITE SPACES. 

7 (a) COMPLETION OF ORDER.—Not later than 180 

8 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal 

9 Communications Commission shall complete its proceeding 

10 and issue a final order regarding white space in the matter 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•S 2327 IS

1 of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET 

2 Docket No. 04–186. 

3 (b) CONDITIONS.—In completing the requirement de4 scribed in subsection (a), the Federal Communications 

5 Commission shall in such final order— 

6 (1) permit unlicensed, non-exclusive use of un7 assigned, non-licensed television broadcast channels 

8 between 54 MHz and 698 MHz; 

9 (2) establish technical guidelines and require10 ments for the offering of unlicensed service in such 

11 band to protect incumbent licensed services and li12 censees from harmful interference; and 

13 (3) require unlicensed devices operating in such 

14 band to comply with existing certification processes. 

Æ 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
§ 1c.109 IRB review of research. ( a ) An IRB shall review and have authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research activities covered by this policy, including exempt research activities under § 1c.104 for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption (under § 1c.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7), and (8)).
( b ) An IRB shall require that information given to subjects (or legally authorized representatives, when appropriate) as part of informed consent is in accordance with § 1c.116. The IRB may require that information, in addition to that specifically mentioned in § 1c.116, be given to the subjects when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects.
( c ) An IRB shall require documentation of informed consent or may waive documentation in accordance with § 1c.117.
( d ) An IRB shall notify investigators and the institution in writing of its decision to approve or disapprove the proposed research activity, or of modifications required to secure IRB approval of the research activity. If the IRB decides to disapprove a research activity, it shall include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision and give the investigator an opportunity to respond in person or in writing.
( e ) An IRB shall conduct continuing review of research requiring review by the convened IRB at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, not less than once per year, except as described in § 1c.109(f).
( f ) ( 1 ) Unless an IRB determines otherwise, continuing review of research is not required in the following circumstances: ( i ) Research eligible for expedited review in accordance with § 1c.110;
( ii ) Research reviewed by the IRB in accordance with the limited IRB review described in § 1c.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8);
( iii ) Research that has progressed to the point that it involves only one or both of the following, which are part of the IRB-approved study: ( A ) Data analysis, including analysis of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, or
( B ) Accessing follow-up clinical data from procedures that subjects would undergo as part of clinical care.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( g ) An IRB shall have authority to observe or have a third party observe the consent process and the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
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-00022-MP

CHAD MICHELL HORNADAY,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter came before the Court on a petition from the probation office indicating that

Mr. Hornaday had violated the conditions of his supervised release by being arrested for driving

under the influence and careless driving. The probation officer recommended that the conditions

of supervised release be modified to require Mr. Hornaday to be referred to a Residential Reentry Center for 180 days. Mr. Hornaday consents to the referral. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The conditions of supervised release from Mr. Hornaday are modified to require Mr.

Hornaday to reside in a Residential Reentry Center for 180 days, to commence as soon as

space in such a center is available. All other terms and condition of supervised release

remain in full force and effect.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00022-MP Document 501 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 1
§ 301.32-7 Assembly and inspection of regulated articles. ( a ) Any person, other than a person authorized to issue certificates or limited permits under § 301.32-5(c), who desires to move a regulated article interstate accompanied by a certificate or limited permit must notify an inspector[1] as far in advance of the desired interstate movement as possible, but no less than 48 hours before the desired interstate movement.
( b ) The regulated article must be assembled at the place and in the manner the inspector designates as necessary to comply with this subpart.
[73 FR 32432, June 9, 2008, as amended 87 FR 80004, Dec. 29, 2022] Footnotes -
301.32-7
[1] See footnote 1 to § 301.32-5(a).
#### § 3565.150 OMB control number.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no party is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0575-0174.
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2530 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

Received 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

AN ACT 

To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits 

and communications between taxpayers and the Internal 

Revenue Service. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

HR 2530 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Taxpayer Trans3 parency and Efficient Audit Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES TO TAXPAYER COR5 RESPONDENCE. 

6 Not later than 30 days after receiving any written 

7 correspondence from a taxpayer, the Internal Revenue 

8 Service shall provide a substantive written response. For 

9 purposes of the preceding sentence, an acknowledgment 

10 letter shall not be treated as a substantive response. 

11 SEC. 3. TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURES BY IRS 

12 OF TAXPAYER INFORMATION. 

13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after dis14 closing any taxpayer information to any agency or instru15 mentality of Federal, State, or local government, the In16 ternal Revenue Service shall provide a written notification 

17 to the taxpayer describing— 

18 (1) the information disclosed, 

19 (2) to whom it was disclosed, and 

20 (3) the date of disclosure. 

21 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply if 

22 the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary’s designee, 

23 determines that such notification would be detrimental to 

24 an ongoing criminal investigation or pose a risk to na25 tional security. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

HR 2530 RFS

1 SEC. 4. DEADLINE FOR CONCLUSION OF AUDITS OF INDI2 VIDUAL TAXPAYERS. 

3 If any audit of a tax return of an individual by the 

4 Internal Revenue Service is not concluded before the end 

5 of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the initiation 

6 of such audit, the Internal Revenue Service shall provide 

7 the taxpayer a written letter explaining why such audit 

8 has taken more than 1 year to complete. 

9 SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED. 

10 No additional funds are authorized to carry out the 

11 requirements of this Act. Such requirements shall be car12 ried out using amounts otherwise authorized or appro13 priated. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 25, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RICHARD MICHAEL ANTHONY LEE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5702/LAC/EMT

MARK INCH,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on March

17, 2021 (ECF No. 26). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of

the timely filed objections (ECF No 29).

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

26) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 21) is DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

Case 3:20-cv-05702-LC-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 2
Page of 2

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5702/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05702-LC-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/27/21 Page 2 of 2