alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Glushing, Respondent, *v.*Thomas R. Sharp, Receiver, etc., Appellant.

(Submitted June 25, 1884;

decided October 7, 1884.)

This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence.

*677The mem. of opinion which is given in full state the material facts.

“ The defendant is receiver of the Long Island Railroad Company, and, as such, operates that road. There are two tracks of the road laid in Atlantic avenue in the city of Brooklyn. On the morning of November 8, 1880, the plaintiff was approaching that avenue from the south in New York avenue, in a covered milk wagon drawn by one horse, and saw a train of cars pass east, and then he saw the gate-man raise the gates at the crossing and go into the gate-house. He drove on, and at the cross-walk of Atlantic avenue carefully looked both ways and seeing no train drove on to the railroad where his horse was killed and his wagon wrecked by collision with a train going west. This action was brought to recover the damage thus caused.

*“*The evidence showed that no bell was rung or whistle blown and that the gate was raised, and thus the carelessness of the defendant was established. But the claim of the defendant is that the plaintiff should have been nonsuited on account of his own carelessness, and this claim he bases upon these facts : that at the place where the plaintiff looked, about thirty feet from the railroad track, his view was somewhat obstructed and that he did not look again while passing the thirty feet, although during that space his view was unobstructed and he could have seen the train if he had looked. We think the case as to plaintiff’s negligence was properly submitted to the jury. He looked both ways, and whether, under all the circumstances he should have looked again or continued to look, was for the jury to determine. The raising of the gate was a substantial assurance to him of safety, just as significant as if the gateman had beckoned to him or invited him to come on, and that any prudent man would not be influenced by it, is against all human experience. The conduct of the gateman cannot be ignored in passing upon plain tiff?s conduct, and it was properly to be considered by the jury with all the other circumstances of the case.

“ The court submited the case to the jury with proper instructions as to the law and their verdict cannot be disturbed.’’

*678
      *Edward E. Sprague*for appellant.

*Olvuer 8. Ackley*for respondent.

Earl, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 4:01cr47-SPM

ROBERT HALL,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING RULE 60(B) MOTION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Robert Hall’s Rule

60(b) motion. Doc. 240. Defendant contends that the Court failed to address the

second issue of his 2255 motion regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and

constructive amendment of the indictment. For the following reasons,

Defendant’s 60(b) motion will be denied.

1. The ineffective assistance of counsel and constructive amendment

issue was determined on the merits in the Report and Recommendation (doc.

148 at pp. 5-6) and the Eleventh Circuit’s Order denying a certificate of

appealability (doc. 193 at p. 4). Therefore, Defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion is a

second or successive motion under 2255. 

2. Even if not a second or successive motion under 2255, relief to 
Page 2 of 2

Defendant would be barred by the law of the case doctrine. Brewer v. United

States, 318 Fed. App’x 804 (11th Cir. 2009).

3. Defendant has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances to

justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s motion (doc. 240) is denied.

2. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability because

Defendant has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO. 4:01cr47-SPM
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 8177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02860]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Public Availability of Fiscal Year 2013 Service Contract 
Inventory

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is publishing 
this notice to advise the public of the availability of CFTC's Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2013 Service Contract Inventory.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the Service 
Contract Inventory should be directed to Sonda R. Owens in the 
Financial Management Branch, Procurement Section, at 202-418-5182 or 
sowens@cftc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 743 of Division C 
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-117, 123 
Stat. 3034, CFTC is notifying the public of the availability of the 
agency's FY 2013 Service Contract Inventory. CFTC has posted its 
inventory and a summary of the inventory on the agency's Web site at 
the following link: http://www.cftc.gov/About/CFTCReports/index.htm.
    This inventory provides information on service contract actions 
over $25,000 that were made in FY 2013. The information is organized by 
function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout 
the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with 
guidance issued on November 5, 2010, by the Office of Management and 
Budget, Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), and the revised 
guidance issued on November 8, 2011. The November 5, 2010, OFPP 
guidance is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.

    Dated: February 5, 2014.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-02860 Filed 2-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
# L_2015016DE.01006602.xml

| 23.1.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 16/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 16/66

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2014/53/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 16. April 2014 über die Harmonisierung der Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über die Bereitstellung von Funkanlagen auf dem Markt und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 1999/5/EG

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 153 vom 22. Mai 2014
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 153 vom 22. Mai 2014

In Kapitel I auf Seite 72, in Artikel 3 Absatz 1 Einleitungssatz:

anstatt:

„(1)   Bei Funkanlagen muss durch ihr Baumuster Folgendes gewährleistet sein: ...“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Funkanlagen müssen so gebaut sein, dass Folgendes gewährleistet ist: ...“

.

---
#### § 707.6 Death, disappearance, or incompetency of one eligible to apply for payment pursuant to the regulations in this part.

In case any person entitled to apply for a release of a payment pursuant to the provisions of § 707.3, § 707.4, § 707.5, or this section, dies, disappears, or is adjudged incompetent, as the case may be, after he has applied for such payment but before the payment is received, payment may be made upon proper application therefor, without regard to claims of creditors other than the United States, to the person next entitled thereto in accordance with the order of precedence set forth in § 707.3, § 707.4, or § 707.5, as the case may be.

[30 FR 6246, May 5, 1965, as amended at 75 FR 81836, Dec. 29, 2010]
______________________________________________________________ Page 22 is not included in this copy. Pages through are not included in this copy.

_________________________________________________________________ The material not included contains the following type of information: _____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

__ __ Identity of product impurities.

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process.

__ __ Description of quality control procedures.

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients. _____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. _____ A draft product label.

__ X __ The product confidential statement of formula. _____ Information about a pending registration action.

__ __ FIFRA registration data.

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _ . _____ The document is not responsive to the request.

__ __ Internal deliberative information.

__ __ Privileged attorney-client communication.

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the Agency.
#### § 51.2735 Whole.

*Whole* means that the peanut kernel is not split or broken.
Order entered July 27 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 01321
- CV MARK RINES, Appellant

V. CITY OF CARROLLTON, Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial D istrict Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 07615



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s July 25, 2017 motion for extension of time to file a reply brief . In his motion, appellant also ask s this Court to reconsider its July 17, 2017 or der denying his request to enlarge the word limit . We GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent that we ORDER appellant’s reply brief filed no later than July 31, 2017 . Appellant’s request for reconsideration of our previous order is DENIED

.
/s/ CRAIG STODD ART JUSTICE
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                             NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE

RE: THE ISSUING ENTITIES LISTED ON EXHIBIT A HERETO (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The  undersigned,  a duly  authorized  officer of National City Mortgage Co., as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered by each
relevant Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's  performance
under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 14th
day of March 2007.

NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE CO


By:     /s/ T. Jackson Case, Jr.
        ----------------------------
        Name: T. Jackson Case, Jr.
        Title: Executive Vice President




<PAGE>


EXHIBIT A

RALI SERIES 2006-QA4 TRUST RALI SERIES 2006-QA5 TRUST RALI SERIES 2006-QS1 TRUST
RALI SERIES 2006-QS2 TRUST RALI SERIES 2006-QS3 TRUST RALI SERIES 2006-QS5 TRUST
RALI SERIES 2006-QS6 TRUST RALI SERIES 2006-QS7 TRUST RALI SERIES 2006-QS8 TRUST
RALI SERIES  2006-QS10 TRUST RALI SERIES  2006-QS13 TRUST RALI SERIES  2006-QS16
TRUST RALI SERIES  2006-QS18  TRUST RAMP  SERIES  2006-RZ3  TRUST  RFMSI  SERIES
2006-S10 TRUST RFMSI SERIES 2006-S11 TRUST RFMSI SERIES 2006-S12 TRUST
#### § 58.17 Order of service.

Inspection or grading service shall be performed, insofar as practicable and subject to the availability of qualified inspectors or graders, in the order in which applications are made except that precedence may be given to any application for an appeal inspection or grading.
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 14 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 14 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 14 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 14 Filed 10/29/2003 Page 4 of 4
KPMG
                         KPMG LLC
                         1601 Market Street
                         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499


              Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management
has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether
errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

                               /s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007



           KPMG LLP, a U.S. Limitied Liability partnership in the U.S.
           member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative
52.247-22 Contractor Liability for Loss of and/or Damage to Freight other than Household Goods.       As prescribed in 47.207-7(d), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for the transportation of freight other than household goods:          Contractor Liability for Loss of and/or Damage to Freight other than Household Goods (Apr 1984)          Except when loss and/or damage arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, the Contractor shall assume full liability for any and all goods lost and/or damaged in the movement covered by this contract.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 1 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 2 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 3 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 4 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 5 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 6 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 7 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 8 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 9 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 10 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 11 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 12 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 13 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 14 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 15 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 16 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 17 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 18 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 19 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 20 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 21 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 22 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 23 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 24 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 25 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 26 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 27 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 28 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 29 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 30 of 31
Case 5:99-cv-00224-SPM Document 1 Filed 08/31/99 Page 31 of 31
#### Joan E. Peebles, Respondent, v Robert M. Peebles, Jr., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants, and David Peebles, Appellant.

Submitted June 25, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 1388.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
§ 625.12 30-year contracts. ( a ) To enroll land in HFRP through the 30-year contract option, a landowner will sign a 30-year contract with NRCS. The contract will require that the contract area be maintained in accordance with HFRP goals and objectives for the duration of the term of the contract, including the restoration, protection, enhancement, maintenance, and management of habitat and forest ecosystem functions and values.
( b ) For the duration of its term, the 30-year contract will require, at a minimum, that the landowner and the landowner's assignees, will cooperate in the restoration, protection, enhancement, maintenance, and management of the land in accordance with the contract and with the terms of the HFRP restoration plan. In addition, the contract will grant to the United States through NRCS: ( 1 ) A right of access to the contract area by NRCS or its representative;
( 2 ) The right to allow such activities by the landowner as hunting and fishing, managed timber harvest, or periodic haying or grazing, if such use is consistent with the long-term protection and enhancement of the purposes for which the contract was established;
( 3 ) The right to specify the amount, method, timing, intensity, and duration of the activities listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, as incorporated into the terms of the contract; and
( 4 ) The right to perform restoration, protection, enhancement, maintenance, and management activities on the contract area.
( c ) The landowner will: ( 1 ) Comply with the terms of the contract;
( 2 ) Comply with all terms and conditions of any associated agreement or contract; and
( 3 ) Agree to the long-term restoration, protection, enhancement, maintenance, and management of the contract area in accordance with the terms of the contract and related agreements.
( d ) A 30-year contract will: ( 1 ) Be signed by the participant;
( 2 ) Identify the amount and extent of cost-share assistance that NRCS will provide for the adoption or implementation of the approved conservation treatment identified in the restoration plan; and
( 3 ) Include any other provision determined necessary or appropriate by the NRCS representative.
( e ) Once the landowner and NRCS have signed a 30-year contract, the land will be considered enrolled in HFRP.
The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which 

Wilkins' counsel testified that Wilkins did not ask him to file an appeal. 

The district court denied Wilkins' appeal-deprivation claim after finding 

that counsel's testimony was credible. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 

248, 254, 71 P.3d 503, 507 (2003) (counsel is ineffective if he fails to file a 

direct appeal only if "a defendant has requested or expressed a desire for a 

direct appeal"). And the district court denied Wilkins' remaining claims, 

concluding that no constitutional law prohibits an arrest warrant 

authorizing a nighttime arrest and therefore Wilkins failed to support his 

assertion that counsel would have been successful had he challenged the 

constitutionality of the arrest warrant, see generally Welsh v. Wisconsin, 

466 U.S. 740, 754 (1984) (suggesting approval of nighttime arrests 

pursuant to a warrant); Sanchez v. State, 103 Nev. 166, 169, 734 P.2d 726, 

728 (1987); see also NRS 171.136(2)(a) (authorizing a nighttime arrest for 

a misdemeanor offense "[u]pon the direction of a magistrate, endorsed 

upon the warrant"), the award of restitution did not create a double 

recovery, see Martinez v. State, 115 Nev. 9, 12, 974 P.2d 133, 135 (1999), 

and Wilkins did not prove any other defects with the restitution amount. 

We conclude that the district court did not err by denying these claims. 

Having considered Wilkins' contentions and concluded that no 

relief is warranted, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

,J. 

Hardesty 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

2 
cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Janet S. Bessemer 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ) ■ 

3
NO. 07-12-0031-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

FEBRUARY 10, 2012

______________________________

JOEL AND KEM LANIER FARMS, APPELLANT

V.

LOUIS DREYFUS CORPORATION D/B/A

ALLENBERG COTTON COMPANY, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2011-558,212; HONORABLE LES HATCH, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

****Pending before this Court is a motion to dismiss this appeal filed by Appellant, Joel and Kem Lanier Farms, and agreed to by Appellee, Louis Dreyfus Corporation d/b/a/ Allenberg Cotton Company.  Appellant represents it no longer wishes to pursue this appeal, and dismissal would not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.

	The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.  *See* Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).  Having granted the motion at Appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and mandate will issue forthwith.  There being no agreement in the motion regarding costs, pursuant to Rule 42.1(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all costs are taxed against Appellant.

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice

2