alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COLUMBUS TRUST CO., Respondent, v. MOSIER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by the Columbus Trust Company against George Mosier.

No opinion, Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of George W. Miller et al., Respondents, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, and Charles B. Rangel et al., Appellants.

Judgments unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DANIEL JOSEPHRAY KANE,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5876-MCR/MAF

MARK S. INCH, Secretary,

Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

 /

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the 

U.S. Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 9. The parties have been furnished a copy of 

the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections have been timely filed. 

I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 9, is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order. 

2. The amended § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 4, is 

DISMISSED.

Case 3:20-cv-05876-MCR-MAF Document 10 Filed 04/21/21 Page 1 of 2
3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED and leave to appeal in forma 

pauperis is also DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of April 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05876-MCR-MAF Document 10 Filed 04/21/21 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2890 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2890

       To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Wakil XL.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2006

   Mr. Burr introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Wakil XL.

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

SECTION 1. WAKIL XL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.04 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Wakil XL) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
52.204-18 Commercial and Government

Entity Code Maintenance.

As prescribed in 4.1804(c), use the following clause:

Commercial and Government Entity Code Maintenance (Aug 2020)

(a) Definition. As used in this clause–

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code means–

(1) An identifier assigned to entities located in the United States or its outlying areas by the Defense

Logistics Agency (DLA) Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Branch to identify a commercial

or government entity by unique location; or

(2) An identifier assigned by a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or by the

NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) to entities located outside the United States and its

outlying areas that the DLA Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Branch records and

maintains in the CAGE master file. This type of code is known as a NATO CAGE (NCAGE) code.

(b) Contractors shall ensure that the CAGE code is maintained throughout the life of the contract for

each location of contract, including subcontract, performance. For contractors registered in the

System for Award Management (SAM), the DLA Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Branch

shall only modify data received from SAM in the CAGE master file if the contractor initiates those

changes via update of its SAM registration. Contractors undergoing a novation or change-of-name

agreement shall notify the contracting officer in accordance with subpart 42.12. The contractor shall

communicate any change to the CAGE code to the contracting officer within 30 days after the

change, so that a modification can be issued to update the CAGE code on the contract.

(c) Contractors located in the United States or its outlying areas that are not registered in SAM shall

submit written change requests to the DLA Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Branch.

Requests for changes shall be provided at https://cage.dla.mil. Change requests to the CAGE master

file are accepted from the entity identified by the code.

(d) Contractors located outside the United States and its outlying areas that are not registered in

SAM shall contact the appropriate National Codification Bureau (points of contact available at

http://www.nato.int/structur/AC/135/main/links/contacts.htm) or NSPA at

https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/scage/CageList.aspx to request CAGE changes.

(e) Additional guidance for maintaining CAGE codes is available at https://cage.dla.mil.

(f) If the contract includes Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.204-2, Security Requirements,

the contractor shall ensure that subcontractors maintain their CAGE code(s) throughout the life of

the contract.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.204 [Reserved]
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 4 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 5 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 6 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 7 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 8 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 9 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 10 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 11 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 12 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 13 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 14 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 15 of 16
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 08/17/20 Page 16 of 16
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 279 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 279

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Act of June 7, 1924, to provide for the exercise of 
                         criminal jurisdiction.

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

SECTION 1. INDIAN PUEBLO LAND ACT AMENDMENTS.

    The Act of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 636, chapter 331), is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 20. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

    ``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided by Congress, 
jurisdiction over offenses committed anywhere within the exterior 
boundaries of any grant from a prior sovereign, as confirmed by 
Congress or the Court of Private Land Claims to a Pueblo Indian tribe 
of New Mexico, shall be as provided in this section.
    ``(b) Jurisdiction of the Pueblo.--The Pueblo has jurisdiction, as 
an act of the Pueblos' inherent power as an Indian tribe, over any 
offense committed by a member of the Pueblo or an Indian as defined in 
title 25, sections 1301(2) and 1301(4), or by any other Indian-owned 
entity.
    ``(c) Jurisdiction of the United States.--The United States has 
jurisdiction over any offense described in chapter 53 of title 18, 
United States Code, committed by or against an Indian as defined in 
title 25, sections 1301(2) and 1301(4) or any Indian-owned entity, or 
that involves any Indian property or interest.
    ``(d) Jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico.--The State of New 
Mexico shall have jurisdiction over any offense committed by a person 
who is not a member of a Pueblo or an Indian as defined in title 25, 
sections 1301(2) and 1301(4), which offense is not subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States.''.

            Passed the Senate July 26, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 279

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Act of June 7, 1924, to provide for the exercise of 
                         criminal jurisdiction.
```
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CECILE M. COLE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-557-AW-MAF

DHO OFFICER ORR and F.B.O.P.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I have reviewed the magistrate judge’s March 5, 2021 Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 11, to which no objections were filed.

1

I agree that the 

complaint is an impermissible shotgun complaint. And because Plaintiff has not filed 

an amended complaint as directed, it appears she has abandoned her case.

The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is now adopted and 

incorporated into this order. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a 

court order.” The clerk will then close the file.

1 The Report and Recommendation was returned as undelivered, apparently 

because Plaintiff did not keep the court apprised of her address change. ECF No. 12. 

The clerk mailed a copy to the new address, and in the meantime, I deferred action 

on the Report and Recommendation to ensure Plaintiff had time to object if she chose 

to. Later, Plaintiff acknowledged receipt, ECF No. 14, and the court granted an 

extension until May 21 to file objections, ECF No. 15. She has filed none.
2

SO ORDERED on June 19, 2021. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 8 Filed 09/30/2003 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 8 Filed 09/30/2003 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Wendyll Jones, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[813 NYS2d 684]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for cannabinoids. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, but the penalty was modified. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. Supreme Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that petitioner’s failure to timely effectuate service of the papers referenced in the order to show cause was excusable because it was due to factors related to his imprisonment. After service of respondent’s answer, the proceeding was transferred to this Court.

We agree with respondent that petitioner’s failure to effect service in accordance with the provisions of the order to show cause requires dismissal of the petition. The order to show cause *1089provided that petitioner was to serve the order, petition, exhibits and supporting affidavits by first class mail “upon each named respondent and upon the Attorney General” on or before May 28, 2004. Notwithstanding the lack of timely service upon the Attorney General, there is no proof that respondent was ever served with the necessary papers. Given this fatal defect (see *Matter of Standifer v Goord,*285 AD2d 912, 912 [2001]; *Matter of Taylor v Poole,*285 AD2d 769, 770 [2001]), the petition should have been dismissed.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ, concur. Adjudged that respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Exhibit 32

NEWSTAR FINANCIAL, 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 on Form 10-K of NewStar Financial, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                    |  | NEWSTAR FINANCIAL, INC.                        
|                    | 
|Date: March 4, 2011 |  | /S/    TIMOTHY J.
CONWAY                       
|                    |  | Timothy J. Conway                              
|                    |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
|                    | 
|Date: March 4, 2011 |  | /S/    JOHN K.
BRAY                            
|                    |  | John K. Bray                                   
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer
# L_2014360EN.01005801.xml

| 17.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 360/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 360/58

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

of 15 December 2014

correcting the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/154/EU authorising the placing on the market of (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(notified under document C(2014) 9452)

(Only the Italian text is authentic)

(2014/916/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Decision 2014/154/EU (2) authorises the placing on the market of (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt as a novel food ingredient. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision 2014/154/EU (2) authorises the placing on the market of (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt as a novel food ingredient.

| (2) | The Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/154/EU lays down the specification for (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt. The Annex contains an error in the specifications. That error should be corrected. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/154/EU lays down the specification for (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt. The Annex contains an error in the specifications. That error should be corrected.

| (3) | Implementing Decision 2014/154/EU should therefore be corrected accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Implementing Decision 2014/154/EU should therefore be corrected accordingly.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the specifications concerning purity of the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/154/EU, the entry as regards glucosamine assay is replaced by the following:

| ‘Glucosamine assay | 34-46 % in dry basis’ |
| --- | --- |

‘Glucosamine assay

34-46 % in dry basis’

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to Gnosis SpA, Via Lavoratori Autobianchi 1, 20832 Desio (MB), Italy.

Done at Brussels, 15 December 2014.

For the Commission

Vytenis ANDRIUKAITIS

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision 2014/154/EU of 19 March 2014 authorising the placing on the market of (6S)-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid, glucosamine salt as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 85, 21.3..2014, p. 10).

2

---
52.247-15 Contractor Responsibility for

Loading and Unloading.

As prescribed in 47.207-5(e), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for

transportation or for transportation-related services when the contractor is responsible for loading

and unloading shipments:

Contractor Responsibility for Loading and Unloading (Apr 1984)

(a)

(1) Unless otherwise specified in this contract to cover store-door or inside delivery, the Contractor

shall load and unload shipments at no additional expense to the Government.

(2) The Government or its agent will place or receive freight at the tailgate of the Contractor’s

vehicle. Tailgate delivery, for purposes of this contract, is defined as that which enables a forklift

truck or similar equipment, with operator only, to place or remove cargo from the tailgate of the

Contractor’s vehicle.

(b) If loading is the responsibility of the Contractor, the Contractor shall perform all shoring,

blocking, and bracing. The Contractor shall provide dunnage at the Contractor’s expense.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
52.241-11 Multiple Service Locations.       As prescribed in 41.501(d)(5), insert a clause substantially the same as the following:          Multiple Service Locations (Feb 1995)                                       (a) 						            At any time by written order, the Contracting Officer may designate any location within the service area of the Contractor at which utility service shall commence or be discontinued. Any changes to the service specifications shall be made a part of the contract by the issuance of a contract modification to include the name and location of the service, specifying any different rate, the point of delivery, different service specifications, and any other terms and conditions.                                          (b) 						            The applicable monthly charge specified in this contract shall be equitably prorated from the period in which commencement or discontinuance of service at any service location designated under the Service Specifications shall become effective.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.241 Utility Services Provisions and Clauses.
#### § 58.228 Dump hoppers, screens, mixers and conveyors.

The product contact surfaces of dump hoppers, screens, mixers and conveyors which are used in the process of transferring dry products from bulk containers to fillers for small packages or containers, shall be of stainless or equally corrosion resistant material and designed to prevent contamination. All parts should be accessible for cleaning. The dump hoppers shall be of such height above floor level as to prevent foreign material or spilled product from entering the hopper.
§ 760.5 Fair market value of milk. ( a ) The county committee shall determine the fair market value of the affected farmer's normal marketings, which, for the purposes of this subpart, shall be the sum of the net proceeds such farmer would have received for his normal marketings in each of the pay periods in the application period.
( b ) The county committee shall determine the net proceeds the affected farmer would have received in each of the pay periods in the application period ( 1 ) in the case of an affected farmer who markets his whole milk through a milk handler, by multiplying the affected farmer's normal marketings for each such pay period by the average net price per hundred-weight of whole milk paid during the pay period by such farmer's milk handler in the same area for whole milk similar in quality and butterfat test to that marketed by the affected farmer in the base period used to determine his normal marketings, or
( 2 ) in the case of an affected farmer whose commercial market consists of direct retail sales to consumers, by multiplying the affected farmer's normal marketings for each such pay period by the average net price per hundredweight of whole milk, as determined by the county committee, which other producers in the same area who marketed their whole milk through milk handlers received for whole milk similar in quality and butterfat test to that marketed by the affected farmer during the base period used to determine his normal marketings.
( c ) In determining the net price for whole milk, the county committee shall deduct from the gross price therefor any transportation, administrative, and other costs of marketing which it determines are normally incurred by the affected farmer but which were not incurred because of the removal of his whole milk from the commercial market.
Editorial Note on Part 57
Editorial Note: 1. At 63 FR 69969, Dec. 17, 1998, part 57 was added by duplicating portions of part 59. At 63 FR 72353, Dec. 31, 1998, part 59 was redesignated as part 590 of 9 CFR. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 57 appear at 63 FR 69971, Dec. 17, 1998.

§ 57.110 Licensed inspectors. ( a ) Any person who is a Federal employee or the employee of a cooperating agency who possesses proper qualifications as determined by an examination for competency, and who is to perform surveillance inspection services, may be licensed by the Secretary as an inspector.
( b ) All licenses issued by the Secretary shall be countersigned by the Administrator or by any other designated official of the service.
[69 FR 67166, Sept. 24, 2004]