alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ARORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **OSmAw c**  **MANN A-**  **.alaUab**

Stat. Codsrlon for tb Blind state **orrio** ~ulldlng **Austin,** Texan Dear &a&n: Attention:

ttcr 0r cctober 3, 1939,

lnformitlon, The hu ecilary of hsuparcltles in Terms for a Lighthouse. These

We desire to mow 1I the Comlsclon tor the Blind maydot 1s an agent for mrketlag articles aada at the verlous Llghth-luses in our exhibit br;oth at the iirazos Vailry ?alr. **The** articlea **C0lrS15l8&** to us for sale are owned bythe lndlvl4uala amking such mtlcles sd the county assoolationa for the blind. TheState Conmissiondt;rLa Comlsslon tar thr Blind, Page 2

be no equity or ownership or any kind in the articles. The Coamlaslon **darlree,** If it any, td assist the blind in dlsposlng ot their products **end**enC?OIirdging the sale or such products In the StaLe.

“If permlttod to mekethese sales, the Comlsslon will **turn the**  proceed8 **Irma** such sales over to the respeotlro county nrsooletloae, whowill in turn distribute the funds according to owuership. Sinoe the Cormlsslon will have no Interest 

### or control over these **funds,** will it be necesaary rot us to aeke any report to the State kudltor, Treueurer, or Comptroller, of the funds received f

’or such se,le~?~ The answer to your question, we believe, is found In Article 32C7a, Vernon*s hevlsed Civil Statutes or Texas, as amnded, 1931, a **pert** of which Is quoted below:

“Sac. e. TheState Comalsslon for the Blind shall rmintain a Bureau or Inforjration, the object or whloh shall be to aid tho blind whose training 1s not otherwise provided for, Infinding employxm, In devrloping hone industries aaong the blind, and in ;P4rketlng their 

### pro$uats. The Commlsslon ehall In its discretion furnish mteriels, tools andbooks for the uso as a atarm **in** rehabilitating such persons, **end** it mayestablish WOrkihODS eiid aaleerooms, and shall have authorltg to use anyreceipta or earnings that ecurue frownthe operation of Industrial schools, **salesrooaui**or workshops as **provided** In this Chapter, but det&led btateaent or receipts or earnings and er~nditures shall be mde monthly **to** the Atiitor of the State.” (Underscoring ours.) Thelangu;?ge of the 8tatutes is very clear t&t the ComIsslon mxyaid in nurketing the products mde by the blind and your glan or selling theee articles in oonneotlon with your exhibit .it the Brezos Vulley Pair is within the scope or the authority granted you by this stdtutr. Bovm9er, 9.13 axmwer totit&e Comlsslon for the Blind, Page 3

your second question, even though the Coamlsslon will have **no**interest or control over tlmiund8, the 8t.tutr it very oleer In requiring that a detelled stetcinent of reoelpts or earnings end **erpndlturrs** rhould be madeto the mlltor of the titete of any suoh rmtter in whl.ohthe Blind Comlsslon is partlclpetlng. Very truly your8 MTOBNEYCZWFii~L

OF‘JXXAS

**BY** (Signedj

Rrederlk BIselg

Asslstent FBI:i?S tiEzcOVzD

: Ootober 13, 1939 Robert E. Kepice (Slgaed) ACTINGAT%iNEYGaZii~i 72 TEXAS

HPPBLVKD

Oi’IBIONCO’4dI;‘TEZBYB.:,.B. C&I?-
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2021250DE.01001001.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15.7.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 250/10 |

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2021/876 der Kommission vom 31. Mai 2021 zur Festlegung von Bestimmungen zur Anwendung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1907/2006 hinsichtlich der Zulassungsanträge und Überprüfungsberichte für die Verwendungen von Stoffen bei der Herstellung von Ersatzteilen für langlebige Alterzeugnisse und bei der Reparatur von nicht mehr hergestellten Erzeugnissen und komplexen Produkten und zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 340/2008

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 192 vom 1. Juni 2021](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2021_192_R_TOC)
)

Seite 8, Anhang zur Änderung des Anhangs VII der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 340/2008, Nummer 1:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „1. | Gebühren für die Überprüfung einer Zulassung“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „1. | Entgelte für die Überprüfung einer Zulassung“. |

---
§ 4284.1004 Definitions. *Board of Directors* —The group of individuals that govern the Center.
*Center* —The Agriculture Innovation Center to be established and operated by the grantees. It may or may not be an independent legal entity, but it must be independently governed in accordance with the requirements of this subpart.
*Producer Services* —Services to be provided by the Centers to agricultural producers. Producer Services consist of the following types of services: ( 1 ) Technical assistance, consisting of engineering services, applied research, Scale Production Assessments, and similar services, to enable the agricultural producers to establish businesses to produce Value-Added agricultural commodities or products;
( 2 ) Assistance in marketing, market development and business planning, including advisory services with respect to leveraging capital assets; and
( 3 ) Organizational, outreach and development assistance to increase the viability, growth and sustainability of businesses that produce Value-Added agricultural commodities or products.
*Qualified Board of Directors* —A Board of Directors that includes representatives from each of the following groups: ( 1 ) The two general agricultural organizations with the greatest number of members in the State in which the Center is located;
( 2 ) The State department of agriculture, or equivalent, of the State in which the Center is located; and
( 3 ) Entities representing the four highest grossing commodities produced in the State in which the Center is located, as determined on the basis of annual gross cash sales.
*Scale Production Assessments* —Studies that analyze facilities, including processing facilities, for potential Value-added activities in order to determine the size that optimizes construction and other cost efficiencies.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00110-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.X.C., A Child

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI-08707

Honorable Michael P. Peden, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 11, 2011

DISMISSED

Appellant Angelica Lopez has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal in which she 

represents to the court that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement resolving all the 

issues related to this appeal. Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against the appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(d). 

PER CURIAM
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

 Case No.: 8:18-mc-79-33AAS

3M COMPANY,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

The United States requests an order quashing a subpoena served by 3M 

Company (3M) on Department of Veterans Affairs employee Dr. Leslie Schulman, in 

connection with a products liability action pending in the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Florida. (Doc. 1). In response, 3M moves to transfer the 

motion to quash to the Northern District of Florida. (Doc. 3). The United States does 

not oppose the transfer but responds “to correct the erroneous assumptions 

underlying the request.” (Doc. 7, p. 2). 

Rule 45(f) permits the court where compliance is required to transfer a 

subpoena-related motion to the issuing court “if the court finds exceptional 

circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). “[T]ransfer may be warranted in order to avoid 

disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation,” such as when 

“the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(f) advisory committee’s note (2013 amendments). 3M anticipates issuing over ten

Case 3:20-mc-00049-MCR-GRJ Document 8 Filed 09/21/20 Page 1 of 2
2

similar subpoenas to federal employees in multiple districts in connection with the 

multi-district litigation pending in the Northern District of Florida. (Doc. 3, pp. 3–4).

In addition, 3M and the United States have litigated other discovery disputes before 

United States District Judge M. Casey Rodgers and United States Magistrate Judge 

Gary R. Jones as part of the same multi-district litigation pending in the Northern 

District of Florida. (See Doc. 3, Exs. E-G). Indeed, Judge Rodgers appointed Special 

Master Judge David Herndon (ret.) to coordinate government discovery issues. (Id., 

Ex. D). 

The court considered the Unites States’ response to the 3Ms motion to transfer. 

Because the balance of interests weighs in favor of transfer and the United States 

does not oppose the transfer, the request to transfer is due to be granted. 

Accordingly, 3M’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. 3) is GRANTED. The Clerk is 

directed to transfer the Unites States’ Motions to Quash (Doc. 1) to the Northern

District of Florida and close this case.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 21, 2020.

Case 3:20-mc-00049-MCR-GRJ Document 8 Filed 09/21/20 Page 2 of 2
[LETTERHEAD OF WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.]


           ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the
"Company") is responsible for assessing  compliance with the servicing  criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB  promulgated  by the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission.  The Company has determined that the servicing criteria are
applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period as follows:

Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended)  residential  mortgage-backed
securities and commercial  mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January
1, 2006, for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any
publicly  issued  transactions  issued by any government  sponsored  entity (the
"Platform").

Applicable  Servicing  Criteria:  The  servicing  criteria  set  forth  in  Item
1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii),  in regard to the activities  performed by the
Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria").  The
Company  has  determined  that all other  servicing  criteria  set forth in Item
1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform.

Period:  Twelve months ended December 31, 2006 (the "Period").

With respect to the Platform,  the Company provides the following  assessment of
compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

1. The Company is responsible  for assessing the Company's  compliance  with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.

2. The Company has assessed  compliance with the Applicable  Servicing Criteria.
In performing  this  assessment,  the Company used the criteria set forth by the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation
AB.

3. Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has complied,
in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation  report
with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for the Period.


                                   WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


                                   By:  /s/ Shari L. Gillund
                                            Shari L. Gillund

                                   Its:     Senior Vice President

                                   Dated:   March 1, 2007
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-214-TKW/MJF

RICKY D. DIXON,

Defendant.

/

ORDER

This case is before the court upon Defendant’s motion to continue. Doc. 88. 

Defendant seeks to reschedule the settlement conference, and to extend the deadlines 

for the parties to file their settlement statements and pretrial materials, due to 

counsel’s resignation from the Florida Attorney General’s Office. Defendant 

certifies that Plaintiff’s counsel does not oppose the motion. See Doc. 88, ¶ 6. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, is it ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to continue, Doc. 88, is GRANTED.

2. The deadline for the parties to file their pretrial statements, exhibit and 

witness lists is EXTENDED for both parties, to a unified deadline of 

MARCH 10, 2023.

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 89 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The undersigned will reschedule the settlement conference by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2023.

/s/ Michael J. Frank 

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 89 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 2
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

5:92CR5006LAC - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. G. E. LOVETT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs

G. E. LOVETT

Case No.5:92CR5006LAC

ORDER

Your document, MOTION TO REDUCE OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO

RULE 35 (submitted on WD of OK form) was referred to the undersigned with the

following deficiencies:

The document does not have a Certificate of Service as required by Rule

5(b) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, showing proper

service.

The document does not have an original signature

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the document shall remain in the electronic

file, but no further pleadings will be accepted unless they comply with NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA local rules.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2006.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:92-cr-05006-LC-MD Document 175 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 1
2006-0135.

#### Arnold & Caruso v. Nyktas.

Lucas App. No. L-05-1011, 2005-Ohio-5566. Reported at 109 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2006-Ohio-1967, 846 N.E.2d 534. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Resnick, J., not participating.
```

[House Report 106-732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-732

======================================================================

 
 WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
                               COMMITTEE

                                _______
                                

   July 13, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

Ms. Pryce of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 550]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 550, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to a special rule reported on the legislative day of July 17, 
2000, providing for consideration or disposition of any Senate 
amendments to H.R. 4810, the Marriage Penalty Tax Elimination 
Reconciliation Act of 2000.

                                

```
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 72 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 72 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 72 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 72 Filed 06/22/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 72 Filed 06/22/21 Page 5 of 5
Directorate ID FAA-2013-0418

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 10/31/12

Regional Airline Association 10/31/12

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 10/31/12

ATA M Lopez 10/31/12
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANDY SCOTT BAILEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MAXWELL, CO IV-Administrator

Offender Services at Phoenix Central

Office, sued in individual and official

capacity; et al,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-15261

D.C. No. 2:04-CV-01175-MHMMEA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 10, 2010 ** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Randy Bailey, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment for Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We

FILED

AUG 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment. 

Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. 

The district court properly concluded that Defendants are entitled qualified

immunity because Bailey’s right to due process before assignment to the Security

Maximum Unit was not clearly established at the time he was in the Unit. See

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223 (2005) (holding that assignment to a

supermax facility can invoke a liberty interest and noting, in 2005, that “Courts of

Appeals have not reached consistent conclusions for identifying the baseline from

which to measure what is atypical and significant in any particular prison system”);

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (holding that without atypical and

significant hardship, due process is not violated). 

AFFIRMED.
157 So.2d 234

#### In re TUTORSHIP OF LA FAUCI CHILDREN.

No. 46988.

Nov. 12, 1963.

In re: Lilly Ruth Jones, etc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 156 So.2d 233.

Writ refused. The result is correct..'
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 quarterly report of SRKP 3, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

         /s/ Richard Rappaport
         --------------------------------------
         Richard Rappaport
         President (Principal Executive Officer)

         /s/ Anthony C. Pintsopoulos
         --------------------------------------
         Anthony C. Pintsopoulos
         Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

August 14, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SRKP 3, Inc. and will be retained by SRKP 3, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### JACOBY, Appellant, v. JACOBY et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 22, 1906.)

Action by Julius Jacoby against Samuel Jacoby and others.

No opinion. Motion denied.
#### § 407.1 Applicability.

The provisions of this part are applicable only to those crops for which a Crop Provision is contained in this part and the crop years specified.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29937]



[[Page 72964]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R09-OAR-2010-0718; FRL-9233-1]


Determinations of Attainment by the Applicable Attainment Date 
for the Hayden, Nogales, Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Areas, 
Arizona; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing 
the November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67220), direct final rule determining that 
the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/Douglas areas in Arizona had 
attained the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for 
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal 
to ten microns by the applicable attainment date. On the basis of this 
determination, EPA concluded that these three ``moderate'' 
nonattainment areas were not subject to reclassification. In the direct 
final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were submitted by 
December 2, 2010, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. On 
November 3, 2010, EPA received a comment. EPA believes this comment is 
adverse and, therefore, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA 
will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon the 
proposed action also published on November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67303). EPA 
will not institute a second comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 75 FR 67220 on November 2, 
2010, is withdrawn as of November 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, Air 
Division (AIR-2), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 947-4192, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93e7f2ebbde4faf6fdf8f6d3f6e3f2bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8ccd9c096cfd1ddd6d3ddf8ddc8d996dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, National Parks, Particulate matter, Wilderness Areas.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 19, 2010.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-29937 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JOHNNIE LEE BURKETT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20cv164-MW/GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 7. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This action is DISMISSED for 

failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute.” The Clerk shall close 

the file. 

SO ORDERED on December 21, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00164-MW-GRJ Document 8 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 2
2

Case 1:20-cv-00164-MW-GRJ Document 8 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 2