alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Estes, 7:20cv137

Hacker, 7:20cv131

Keefer, 7:20cv104

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 1

This Order addresses the Defendants’ objections and counter-designations to 

Plaintiffs’ affirmative deposition designations and Plaintiffs’ objections to 

Defendants’ counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions: 

1. Cynthia Crossley

2. Emily Keefer

3. Robert Klun (June 24, 2020)

4. Taurin Mosby

5. Andy Toyoma (November 14, 2020)

This Order also addresses the Plaintiffs’ objections and counter-designations 

to Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiffs’ counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Lorraine Babeu

Case 7:20-cv-00137-MCR-GRJ Document 87 Filed 03/16/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Jeffrey Hamer

3. Jesus Medina

4. William Murphy

5. Benjamin Whiteman

The Court’s rulings with respect to the above depositions are set forth in the 

attached Exhibit 1. 

SO ORDERED, on this 16th day of March, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00137-MCR-GRJ Document 87 Filed 03/16/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 3560.606 Application requirements and processing. ( a ) On-farm labor housing loan applications will be processed according to 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L. Applicants must submit an application in an Agency-approved format that adequately documents the need for the housing and the eligibility of the applicant.
( b ) The applicant must certify that the farm workers for which the housing is intended are or will be involved in the applicant's agricultural or aquacultural farming operations.
( c ) The applicant must certify that housing operations will be conducted in a non-profit manner such that income from the housing does not exceed eligible expenses associated with the housing. Eligible expenditures for the housing include, but are not limited to housing repairs and upkeep, payment of installments on the loan, taxes, insurance and reserves and other essential uses needed for success of the operations.
Yusuf E. Gokalp yusgokalp.com Aerial photography and videography for artistic work.
yusuf@newschool.edu
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71130-71131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29270]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the

[[Page 71131]]

companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than December 6, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Royal Bank of Canada, Montreal, Canada; to acquire BlueBay Asset 
Management plc, London, England, and thereby indirectly acquire BlueBay 
Asset Management USA LLC, Darien, Connecticut, and thereby engage in 
financial and investment advisory activities, pursuant to section 
225.28(b)(6)(iii) of Regulation Y.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Aslin Group, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas; to engage in servicing 
loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.
    2. Aslin Capital I, LLC, Cape Haze, Florida; to engage in servicing 
loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.
    3. Aslin Opportunity Fund BK, LP, Cape Haze, Florida; to engage in 
servicing loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 16, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-29270 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
| CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO                    |
|---------------------------------------------------|
| 18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350                       |
| AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       |
| SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 |

| 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:      May 20, 2009 |   | /s/ Mark      Seremet                 |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Mark      Seremet                          |   |
|                    |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                    |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)         |   |
|                    |   |                                       |   |
| Date:      May 20, 2009 |   | /s/ David      Fremed                 |   |
|                    |   | David      Fremed                          |   |
|                    |   | Chief      Financial Officer               |   |
|                    |   | (Principal      Financial Officer)         |   |

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

 11 a.m., Friday December 17, 2010.

# PLACE:

 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

 Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010-29902 Filed 11-23-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 4:20cv419-AW-HTC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VERNON ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-419-AW-HTC

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

O R D E R 

Having considered the magistrate judge’s September 3, 2020, Report and 

Recommendation (ECF No. 5), and having reviewed de novo the issues presented in 

Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 7), I now conclude that the Report and 

Recommendation should be adopted. It is incorporated by reference into this order.

Because I have considered Plaintiff’s objection, the motion for an extension 

of time to file objections (ECF No. 6) is DENIED as moot. 

The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Plaintiff is a three-striker under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) and for abuse of the judicial process by failing to disclose Plaintiff’s 

complete litigation history.” The clerk will then close the file.

Case 4:20-cv-00419-AW-HTC Document 8 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:20cv419-AW-HTC

SO ORDERED on October 14, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00419-AW-HTC Document 8 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1999
<CASH>                                           2,243
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,524
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,616
<PP&E>                                          33,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,081
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,936
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,090
<SALES>                                         93,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,578
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (116)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (38)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (38)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Shirley Reinafe, Petitioner, v New York State Human Rights Appeal Board et al., Respondents.

Order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated September 26, 1979, unanimously confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion.—Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.
[No. 9163.

Department One.

December 12, 1910.]

#### W. N. Coler, Jr., *Respondent,*v. Lewis W. Center, Appellant.1

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, ■Clifford, J., entered June 13, 1910, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a. trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action of ejectment.

Affirmed.

*A. H. Q-arretson*and *Jesse Th.omas,*for appellant.

*Frank D. Nash,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 112 Pac. 94.

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the respondent uhder ■§ 785 of Rem. *&*Bal. Code, to recover from the appellant the possession of certain lands situated in Pierce county of which the respondent alleged he was the owner in fee, to quiet his title thereto, and to enjoin the defendant’from asserting rights therein, or otherwise interfering with the property. In his complaint the respondent deraigned his title from the government of the United States, showing a complete record title to the property in himself. The appellant in defense pleaded the statute of limitations, alleging that he had been in the open, notorious and exclusive possession of the property under a claim or right for a period of more than ten years next preceding the commencement of the action. The court on the trial,, which was had without the intervention of .a jury, found for the respondent, and entered judgment in his favor. This appeal followed.

There is no serious difference between the parties over the rules of law involved. The questions discussed are principally questions of fact, and these question's, we think, the trial court correctly resolved in favor of the respondent. The respondent’s evidence shows a complete record, title to the property in himself, and we think the appellant failed to show any such open, notorious and continuous possession for the required period as would ripen into a right by adverse possession. It would serve no useful purpose to review the evidence. It is sufficient to say that we have examined it and are satisfied with the conclusions drawn therefrom by the trial judge.

The judgment is affirmed.
§ 301.32 Restrictions on interstate movement of regulated articles. ( a ) No person may move interstate from any quarantined area any regulated article except in accordance with this subpart.[1]
( b ) Section 414 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7714) provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may, under certain conditions, hold, seize, quarantine, treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of any plant, plant pest, plant product, article, or means of conveyance that is moving, or has moved into or through the United States or interstate if the Secretary has reason to believe the article is a plant pest or is infested with a plant pest at the time of movement.
Footnotes -
301.32
[1] Permit and other requirements for the interstate movement of any of the fruit flies regulated under this subpart are contained in part 330 of this chapter.
Case 3:20-cv-05503-RV-HTC Document 25 Filed 08/06/21 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:20-cv-05503-RV-HTC Document 25 Filed 08/06/21 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:20-cv-05503-RV-HTC Document 25 Filed 08/06/21 Page 3 of 3
#### § 29.6041 Strips.

The sides of a tobacco leaf from which the stem has been removed or a lot of tobacco composed of strips.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

DefinitionsDisabilitiesDisability IdentificationEducational LegislationElementary Secondary EducationEligibilityFederal LegislationSpecial Education

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Joan Marie Fotiades, Deceased. Gregory Fotiades et al., Respondents; Daphne Fotiades, Appellant.

Submitted May 21, 2007;

decided July 2, 2007

Reported below, 38 AD3d 892.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
AMENDED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE FOR ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000796486
<NAME> ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         186,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  194,399<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      16,089,317<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,288,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      9,291,732
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,239
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,741,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,288,615
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,287,968
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,148,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             359,585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (244,554)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (14,493)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (230,061)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (10,658)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (282,682)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.88)
<FN>
<F1>RECEIVABLES NET OF ALLOWANCE
<F2>PP&E IS NET OF DEPRECIATION
</FN>


</TABLE>
118 STAT. 2614 PUBLIC LAW 108–434—DEC. 3, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 115:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Nov. 24, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–434

108th Congress

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2005, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

108–309 is further amended by striking the date specified in section

107(c) and inserting the following: ‘‘December 8, 2004’’.

Approved December 3, 2004.

Ante, p. 2338.

Dec. 3, 2004

[H.J. Res. 115]
IB 

Union Calendar No. 412 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 244 

[Report No. 109–682] 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

AN ACT 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction 

of a hydroelectric project in the State of Wyoming. 

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


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 244 RH 

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE FEDERAL EN2 ERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION HYDRO3 ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

4 Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 

5 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 

6 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com7 mission project numbered 1651, the Commission may, at 

8 the request of the licensee for the project, and after rea9 sonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due dili10 gence, and public interest requirements of that section and 

11 the Commission’s procedures under that section, extend 

12 the time period during which the licensee is required to 

13 commence the construction of the project for 3 consecutive 

14 2-year periods from the date of the expiration of the exten15 sion originally issued by the Commission. 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 412 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 244 

[Report No. 109

–682] 

AN ACT 

To extend the deadline for commencement of conof Wyoming. struction of a hydroelectric project in the State 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6645

FRED WALKER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON

OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of

Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General

of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(3:05-cv-03498-MBS)

Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: November 8, 2007

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Walker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Melody

Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Fred Walker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walker has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
# 3.502-3 Contract clause.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.203-7, Anti-*Kickback* Procedures, in *solicitations* and contracts exceeding $150,000, other than those for *commercial products* or *commercial services* (see part  12).

**Parent topic:**3.502 Subcontractor kickbacks.