alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 356.6 Storage of property.

Following the seizure or other receipt of any property specified in § 356.1 and valued at $10,000 or less, the property shall remain in the custody of the Deputy Administrator pending disposition. Pending such disposition, the property shall be stored in such place, as, in the opinion of the Deputy Administrator, is most convenient and appropriate with due regard to the expense involved, whether or not the place of storage is within the judicial district in which the property was seized.
2004-0892.

#### Fostoria v. Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn.

Seneca App. No. 13-03-26, 2004-Ohio-1945. This cause came on for further consideration of appellee’s response to this court’s March 29, 2006, show cause order. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the appellee, the City of Fostoria, is hereby found in contempt of this court for failing to fully comply with this court’s September 14, 2005, judgment entry and opinion and November 23, 2005, entry on reconsideration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee may purge itself of contempt by making payment to each employee affected by this court’s prior decisions in this case within thirty days of the date of this order. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of additional sanctions.
(114 App. Div. 242.)

#### GROSSMAN v. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 20, 1906.)

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Alexander R. Grossman against the Consolidated Gas Company of New York. From an order granting an injunction pendente lite, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, LAUGHLIN, and HOUGHTON, JJ.

John F. Dillon and John A. Garver, for appellant.

Clarence J. Shearn, for respondent.

LAUGHLIN, J.

The facts in this case present similar questions to those discussed in the opinion in Richman v. Consolidated Gas Co. (argued and decided herewith) 100 N. Y. S. 81. In this case, however, with the same justice presiding, the motion for an injunction was granted, which is doubtless accounted for by the fact that the opinion of the learned circuit judge of the United States, construing the restraining order theretofore granted in the suit instituted in the federal court by the defendant, was filed in the meantime.

It follows that the order should be affirmed upon the prevailing opinion in the Richman Case, with $10 costs and disbursements.

O’BRIEN, P. J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

McLAUGHLIN, J.

(dissenting). The order here appealed from should be reversed, and the motion to continue the injunction denied, on the second ground stated in my opinion in Richman v. Consolidated Gas Co. (decided herewith) 100 N. Y. S. 81, for an affirmance of the order there appealed from.

HOUGHTON, J., concurs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank A. Stevenson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered December 1, 1967, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree and another crime, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences of five to seven years on the attempted rape count and two years, six months, to five years on the other count, with execution of the latter sentence suspended, and (2) an order of the same court, dated April 26, 1968, and made in a *coram nobis*proceeding to vacate said judgment, which denied the application without a hearing. Judgment reversed, on the law, and ease remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for proceedings not inconsistent herewith. The findings of fact below have not been considered. Appeal from order dismissed as academic in view of the determination herein on the appeal from the judgment; The guilty plea was entered on the court’s stipulation on the record that the sentence on the rape count would not exceed 10 years. We believe that in any case subject to the discretionary punishment of one day *663to life under section 2189-a of the former Penal Law [of 1909] a guilty plea entered upon the promise or assurance of the court that such punishment will not be imposed may not stand. Since the crime here in question was committed prior to September 1,1967, section 2189-a is applicable (ef. Penal Law, § 5.05). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
#### Teresa Leon, Respondent, v Joseph L. Balkan Incorporated, Appellant, and Sutton Street Realty Corp. et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[814 NYS2d 706]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Joseph L. Balkan Incorporated appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated July 15, 2005, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

*537Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff fell and was injured on a depressed and/or missing portion of sidewalk. It is undisputed that the appellant, Joseph L. Balkan Incorporated, had previously performed work in that area, including the removal of a portion of the sidewalk, to install water and sewer pipes. The appellant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The evidence submitted with its moving papers was insufficient to demonstrate that it had properly repaired and restored the sidewalk before the plaintiff’s accident or that the defective condition was caused and/or created by other entities *(see Lau v City of New York,*22 AD3d 529 [2005]; *Adler v Suffolk County Water Auth.,*306 AD2d 229 [2003]; *Atiles v City of New York,*279 AD2d 543 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Mastro, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OA16
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OA16


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                     Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

#### § 292.25 Investigations.

The Summer EBT agency must promptly investigate complaints received or irregularities noted in connection with the operation of the Program and must take appropriate action to correct any irregularities. The Summer EBT agency must maintain on file all evidence relating to such investigations and actions. The Summer EBT agency must inform the appropriate FNSRO of any suspected fraud or criminal abuse in the Program which would result in a loss or misuse of Federal funds. The Department may make investigations at the request of the Summer EBT agency, or where the Department determines investigations are appropriate.
#### § 3430.1101 Purpose.

The primary goal of the FINI grants program is to fund and evaluate projects intended to increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables by low-income consumers participating in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by providing incentives at the point of purchase.
#### § 29.3540 Raw.

Freshly harvested tobacco or tobacco as it appears between the time of harvesting and the beginning of the curing process.

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                          15,316
<SECURITIES>                                     8,293
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (526)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,803
<PP&E>                                          11,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,536)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,058
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            84
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,917
<SALES>                                          9,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,065
<CGS>                                            2,455
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    752
<INCOME-TAX>                                       285
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                467
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       467
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
Rev 0 (9/08)

Comments in Response to 

“Final rule; request for comments”

Docket: FAA-2011-0573- Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-082-AD

Comments have been received in response to: “Final rule; request for comments,”

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. 

(Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted.

Once you have made your determination, please fill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the 

appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, 

if necessary. Then include your name and the date in the spaces provided, and return it to the 

AD directorate focal.

The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: 

Virgin America on July 07, 2011 and Delta Airlines on July 28, 2011. Both comments were 

regarding clarification on definition of "new" part in paragraph (m) of AD. The FAA clarified 

that intent of "new" includes new or servceable units.

(Please check one)

 These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration 

or change of this AD.

 These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of 

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual 

FAA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)

______Sanjay Ralhan_____ 08/18/11__

Name: Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)
8.405-5 Small business.

(a) Although the preference programs of part 19 are not mandatory in this subpart, in accordance

with section 1331 of Public Law 111-240 (15 U.S.C. 644(r))-

(1) Ordering activity contracting officers may, at their discretion-

(i) Set aside orders for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3); and

(ii) Set aside BPAs for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3).

(2) When setting aside orders and BPAs-

(i) Follow the ordering procedures for Federal Supply Schedules at 8.405-1, 8.405-2, and 8.405-3;

and

(ii) The specific small business program eligibility requirements identified in part 19 apply.

(b) Orders placed under schedule contracts may be credited toward the ordering activity’s small

business goals. For purposes of reporting an order placed with a small business schedule contractor,

an ordering agency may only take credit if the awardee meets a size standard that corresponds to

the North American Industry Classification System code assigned to the order in accordance with

19.102(b)(3). Ordering activities should rely on the small business representations made by schedule

contractors at the contract level (but see section 19.301-2(b)(2) concerning rerepresentation for an

order).

(c) Ordering activities may consider socio-economic status when identifying contractor(s) for

consideration or competition for award of an order or BPA. At a minimum, ordering activities should

consider, if available, at least one small business, veteran-owned small business, service disabled

veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, women-owned small business, or small

disadvantaged business schedule contractor(s). GSA Advantage! and Schedules e-Library at

http://www.gsa.gov/fas contain information on the small business representations of Schedule

contractors.

(d) For orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold, ordering activities should give preference to

the items of small business concerns when two or more items at the same delivered price will satisfy

the requirement.

Parent topic: 8.405 Ordering procedures for Federal Supply Schedules.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 VS CASE NO. 3:98-CR-00098-002/LAC

 ANDREW G. HAMLETT

FINANCIAL REFERRAL AND ORDER

Regarding refund of funds for: X Fine, Restitution, Filing Fee, Attorney Admission Fee,

 Copy Fee, Bond, Other (Specify) 

By: Andrew G. Hamlett (Payee)

Address: 127 High Street

 Hagerstown, MD 21740

Receipt Number 400-110033 

Date of Receipt 3/7/06 

Motion: N/A

Explanation: A review of the payment records for Mr. Hamlett indicates an overpayment of $5.00. 

According to the court dockets and financial records, Mr. Hamlett does not owe any additional money

and should be reimbursed $5.00.

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, Clerk of Court

Prepared by: __s/Philip Detweiler_____________

 Philip Detweiler, Financial Specialist Date: April 5, 2006 

Referred by: ,Deputy Clerk

ORDER OF COURT

It is ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2006, that the Clerk refund the identified funds to the payee.

APPROVED XX 

DENIED_________________ s/L.A. Collier 

 LACEY A. COLLIER 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Adopted: 12/03/99

Case 3:98-cr-00098-LC Document 38 Filed 04/05/06 Page 1 of 1
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-00043-MP-AK

JOSEPH THERON MILES,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 437, Motion for Reconsideration, filed by

Defendant Joseph Miles, which seeks reconsideration of the order denying Defendant’s motion

to reduce his sentence. At sentencing, the Court exercised its discretion and sentenced

Defendant Miles below the Guideline range. Since Defendant’s sentence is still below the range

under the amended Sentencing Guidelines, the Court finds that no further reduction is warranted

at this time. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00043-MW-GRJ Document 439 Filed 06/16/08 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KENT E. HOVIND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-5484-TKW/MJF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter was referred to the undersigned by the clerk of the court upon 

Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the court’s order dated February 1, 2021. Plaintiffs 

were ordered to file a response to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order 

imposed a deadline of February 16, 2021. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the 

court order.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. On or before March 11, 2021, Plaintiffs shall show cause—if any—

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. 

2. Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with this order likely will result in 

dismissal of this action for failure to comply with a court order and failure to 

prosecute.

Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 20 Filed 02/24/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

SO ORDERED this 24th day of February, 2021.

/s/ Michael J. Frank

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 20 Filed 02/24/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 3570.256 Allocation of funds.

The Agency will administer these grant funds and will award them on a competitive basis.
<PAGE>
September 3, 1997


Nordstrom, Inc.
1321 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101

Attn:  John A. Goesling

Re:  Amendment to Master Note Agreement

Dear John:

This letter will serve to document the amendment to the Master Note Agreement 
and Master Note dated as of July 17, 1997 (collectively, the "Agreement") by 
and between Nordstrom Credit, Inc. and Nordstrom, Inc. and effective as of 
September 3, 1997.

The parties wish to amend the Agreement as to the method by which the interest 
rate is computed.  Therefore, the parties agree as follows:

1.  The third paragraph of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the 
following is inserted in lieu thereof:


The principal amount of each loan shall be specified from time to time in the 
manner hereinafter provided.  The master note shall be dated as of the date of 
its issue and shall bear interest from said date, payable on the first day of 
each month on the daily principal amount from time to time outstanding during 
the accrual period, at a rate or rates equivalent to the One Month LIBOR Rate 
(as hereinafter defined) for such day, less fourteen (14) basis points, or, if 
such day is not a business day, the rate for the immediately preceding 
business day.  For purposes of this Agreement, the term "One Month LIBOR Rate" 
shall mean the one month USD LIBOR Rate (British Bankers Association) quoted 
on page 3750 of Telerate.  If the One Month LIBOR Rate is not available for 
any business day, the applicable rate for such date shall be the one month 
LIBOR rate for such day as determined by you, in a commercially reasonable 
manner, on the basis of quotations received by you from one or more U.S. money 
center banks of recognized standing used by you.  Each change in such rate 
shall be effective with respect to all loans outstanding hereunder on the same 
date as the change in the index rate is effective.  For purposes of computing 
interest, principal amounts loaned hereunder shall be deemed to be outstanding 
on the date loaned but not on the date repaid.

<PAGE>
2.  Any and all sums outstanding pursuant to the Agreement as of the effective 
date shall immediately begin to accrue interest under the Agreement as hereby 
amended from and after the effective date.

3.  Except as expressly amended by this letter amendment, the Agreement and all 
the terms, conditions and provisions thereof shall continue in full force 
and effect, and from and after the effective date of this amendment as set 
out above, all references to the Agreement shall be to the Agreement as so 
amended.

Nordstrom Credit, Inc.


By /s/ John Walgamott
   -----------------------------------------
   John Walgamott, President


Nordstrom, Inc.


By /s/ John A. Goesling
   -----------------------------------------
   John A. Goesling, Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-45-MP-GRJ

STEVEN LAWRENCE LAKE,

____________________________/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court on Doc. 218, Defendant’s Motion To Vacate, Set

Aside, Or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to the Rules

Governing § 2255 proceedings, the Government will be required to file an answer or

other response. Upon receipt of the Government's response and Defendant's reply, if

any, the Court will review the file to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is

required. If an evidentiary hearing is not required, the Court will dispose of the motion

as justice requires pursuant to § 2255 Rule 8(a). 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Clerk shall furnish by certified mail, return receipt requested, this Order

and Doc. 218 to the United States Attorney for this district, who shall file an

answer or other appropriate pleading no later than May 2, 2013.

2. If review of the PSR is necessary, the Probation Office shall allow counsel for

the Government to review the PSR upon request.

3. Defendant shall have until June 3, 2013, to file a reply, if desired.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1 day of February 2013. 

st

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
EPA Meeting with EHSCP

September 27, 2012

EPA OUST:

Liz McDermott, Erin Knighton, Linda Gerber, Paul Miller, Tim Smith

EHSCP:

Julianne Barnum, Verizon

Greg Micah, Verizon

Randy Moore, Verizon

Barbara Patton, AT&T

Grif Bond, Century Link

Bethany French, Beveridge & Diamond

EPA had a conference call with representatives of the Environmental, Health and Safety 

Communications Panel (EHSCP) to discuss the proposed changes to the UST regulation and 

answered questions on the proposal. The conversation focused on the proposal to require 

secondary containment testing.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                               BERNARD CHAUS, INC.
                            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 Bernard Chaus, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

o    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

September 28, 2006
                                              /s/ Josephine Chaus
                                              -------------------
                                              Josephine Chaus
                                              Chairwoman of the Board and
                                              Chief Executive Officer
```