alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B JAC2 751004 v1 

1039265-000044 6/29/2007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

VFS LEASING CO. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

vs. ) 3:06cv638-SRW

 ) 

G.F. KELLY, INC. d/b/a KELLY ) 

TRUCKING; and GUY KELLY, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants ) 

NOTICE CONCERNING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND MEDIATION

 Pursuant to this Court’s order of November 3, 2006, Plaintiff, VFS Leasing Co. (“VFS”) 

hereby submits the following notice concerning settlement conference and mediation. 

1. Counsel for the parties have had several occasions to discuss settlement face-to-face 

over the last ninety (90) days. The parties are presently engaged in active settlement 

negotiations. 

2. The parties agree that, at this time, mediation is not appropriate. If, however, the 

parties determine that mediation would be beneficial, the parties will immediately notify the 

Court. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 s/ David B. Hall 

 DAVID B. HALL (HAL052) 

 JULIE A. COTTINGHAM (COT017) 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff VFS Leasing Co. 

Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 45 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
B JAC2 751004 v1 

1039265-000044 6/29/2007

OF COUNSEL:

BAKER DONELSON, BEARMAN 

 CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ 

A Professional Corporation 

420 North 20th Street 

Suite 1600 Wachovia Tower 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203-5202 

(205) 328-0480 Telephone 

(205) 322-8007 Facsimile 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 29th day of June, 2007, the foregoing has been electronically 

filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such 

filing, to the following counsel of record: 

James H. Starnes 

Attorney for Defendants 

PO Box 590003 

Birmingham, AL 35259 

(205) 320-0800 

S. Sanford Holliday 

Attorney for Defendants 

PO Box 727 

Roanoke, AL 36274 

(334) 863-2717 

s/ David B. Hall 

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 45 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
5619.705-4 Reviewing the Subcontract Plan.

(d) All subcontracting plans that contain a Small Disadvantage Business goal of less than 5% must

be approved one level above the contracting officer. If the primary contracting officer is also the

office/division chief, then forward the subcontracting plan to the command’s Director of Small

Business Programs for approval.

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)

SOFARS 5619

February 2007

Parent topic: 5619.705 Responsibilities of the Contracting Officer Under the Subcontract

Assistance Program.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

R.S.,

 Respondent

 v.

T.T.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 262 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
§ 58.444 Packaging and repackaging. ( a ) Packaging rindless cheese or cutting and repackaging all styles of bulk cheese shall be conducted under rigid sanitary conditions. The atmosphere of the packaging rooms, the equipment and the packaging material shall be practically free from mold and bacterial contamination.
( b ) When officially graded bulk cheese is to be repackaged into consumer type packages with official grade labels or other official identification, a supervisor of packaging shall be required. If the repackaging is performed in a plant other than the one in which the cheese is manufactured and the product is officially identified, the plant, equipment, facilities and personnel shall meet the same requirements as outlined in this part.
#### § 701.35 Compliance with regulatory measures.

Participants who perform practices shall be responsible for obtaining the authorities, permits, rights, easements, or other approvals necessary to the performance and maintenance of the practices according to applicable laws and regulations. The ECP or EFRP participant shall be wholly responsible for any actions taken with respect to the project and shall, in addition, be responsible for returning and refunding any ECP or EFRP cost shares made, where the purpose of the project cannot be accomplished because of the applicants' lack of clearances or other problems.

[69 FR 10302, Mar. 4, 2004, as amended at 75 FR 70088, Nov. 17, 2010]
Martin, Michael (OST) 

Subject: FW: Notice Extending The Deadline for EAS Proposals at Crescent City, CA, Moab, UT, 

Pueblo, CO, and Vernal UT - New Due Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015 

From: Martin, Michael (OST) 

Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:24 AM 

Subject: Notice Extending The Deadline for EAS Proposals at Crescent City, CA, Moab, UT, Pueblo, CO, and Vernal UTNew Due Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015 

Everyone: 

By Order 2014-11-18, issued on November 25, 2014, the Department requested proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS) 

at the following communities: 

• Crescent City, California 

• Moab, Utah 

• Pueblo, Colorado 

• Vernal, Utah 

That Order stated that proposals were due on December 22, 2014. 

Since the issuance ofthat Order, the Department has received two requests to extend the due date until midJanuary. The Department has decided to grant an extension to the due date for air carrier proposals. 

Proposals for all four communities are now due by 11:59PM on Thursday, January 15, 2015. 

Regards, 

Michael Martin 

United States Department of Transportation 

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) 

(202) 366-6494 

1 

".r.,:.:,:·
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       8,966,214
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         722,228
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            19,084,416
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 22,416,627
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       6,598,307
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         7,731,178
<LOANS>                                    145,474,759
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,880,817
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             215,207,404
<DEPOSITS>                                 187,478,422
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,139,196
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,764,386
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       807,800
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,017,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             215,207,404
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,782,511
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              442,214
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               138,670
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,363,395
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,588,360
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,630,563
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,732,832
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  419,600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,252,829
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                690,748
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     690,748
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   482,234
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.64
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,263,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   778,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,707,913
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  296,198
<RECOVERIES>                                    49,502
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,880,817
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,880,817
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Roberto Gournet, Respondent, v. Louis J. Lefkowitz, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Order entered October 8, 1966, granting injunctive relief, unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, without costs or disbursements, and the petition dismissed. The said order purports to incorporate the court’s direction at the conclusion of the hearing on the order to show cause herein enjoining inspectors of election from enforcing the ruling of the respondent, Attorney-General of the State of New York, requiring a registrant to fill out and sign in the presence of an inspector of elections the affidavit of literacy provided for in section 168 of the Election Law. The order to show cause was granted under CPLR 6301, 6311-6313, which enable a preliminary injunction in a pending action where the defendant threatens or is about to perform an act in violation of plaintiff’s rights in the subject of the action. It appears that the petitioner on October 4,1966 attempted to register to vote and towards that end presented to an inspector of elections an executed affidavit purporting to comply with section 168 of the Election Law. The tender was allegedly illegally refused on the ground that the affidavit was required to be made and executed before the inspector. The petitioner is without standing to prosecute this proceeding as a class action. The alleged illegal act “ would give rise to separate wrongs against the several members of such class; each such person would be free to determine for himself the remedy for redress of his grievance.” *(Gaynor*v. *Rockefeller,*15 N Y 2d 120, 129.) There is no warrant for the proceeding against the Attorney-General and his assistants. The public policy of the courts is not to review the exercise of discretion of public officials absent a clear violation of the Constitution or statutory mandate. *(Gaynor*v. *Rockefeller, supra,*p. 131; *People*v. *Ballard,*134 N. Y. 269, 293.) The single completed alleged act underlying this proceeding does not afford a basis for an injunction which is designed to preserve the subject of the action against further violation. Moreover, section 331 of the Election Law provides a complete and summary remedy to one whose registration has been unlawfully refused. Injunctive relief may not be had where, as here, an adequate summary statutory proceeding is available. *(Kane*v. *Walsh,*295 N. Y. 198, 205-206.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.
#### § 905.145 Certification of certain shipments.

Whenever a regulation pursuant to § 905.52 restricts the shipment of a portion of a specified grade or size of a variety, each handler shipping such variety during the regulation period shall, with respect to each such shipment, certify to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the committee the quantity of the partially restricted grade or size, or both, contained in such shipment. Such certification shall accompany the manifest of such shipment which the handler furnishes to the Federal-State Inspection Service.
#### Peter La Malfa, Appellant, v. Lloyd H. Denny, Respondent.

Greenblott, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 2, 1969 in Schenectady County, which granted a motion by defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Appellant, a volunteer fireman, brings this action to recover for personal injuries and medical expenses he sustained as a result of an accident in which he was struck by respondent’s automobile while directing traffic in front of the firehouse during a fire. Special Term held that the Workmen’s Compensation Law was appellant’s exclusive remedy; that both parties were members of South Schenectady Fire District No. 6 and fellow employees within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of the State of New York; and that they were engaged in carrying out activities as volunteer firemen at the time of the accident. Appellant argues that issues of fact exist which require a jury trial. We do not agree. Appellant produces no evidence to support his allegation that the respondent was not engaged in answering the fire alarm at the time of the accident. At his examination before trial, respondent testified that he was a volunteer fireman of South Schenectady Fire District No. 6 and was responding to an alarm when he struck the appellant. Appellant testified at his examination before trial that he was also a volunteer fireman and a member of South Schenectady Fire District No. 6; that he had responded to the alarm and was directing traffic in front of the firehouse when he was struck by the respondent’s automobile. Thus the examination before trial of both parties reveals that they were members of the same volunteer firemen company, and were acting in the performance of their duties at the time of the accident. In view of these facts, and the appellant’s failure to produce evidence to the contrary, appellant’s exclusive remedy is governed by section 19 of the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law, which provides that “ The benefits provided by this chapter shall be the exclusive remedy of a volunteer fireman * * * for or on account of an injury to a volunteer fireman in line of duty ® * * as against * * * any person or agency acting under governmental or statutory authority in furtherance of the duties or activities in relation to which any such injury resulted”. Since appellant has not factually demonstrated a genuine issue, summary judgment is therefore appropriate. *(Curry*v. *Mackenzie,*239 N. Y. 267; *Greenbaum*v. *American Metal Climax,*27 A D 2d 225.) Order affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50467

Conference Calendar

 

MARIO ROMO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RONNIE EARL, District Attorney; GARY COBB,

Assistant District Attorney, Travis County;

MINDY MCCRAKEN, Assistant District Attorney,

Travis County; STATE OF TEXAS,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CV-154-LY 

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

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Romo, Texas prisoner # 1015586, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his complaint filed

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court declined to

construe Romo’s complaint as a habeas corpus petition and, to the

extent that he sought such relief, the district court dismissed

those claims without prejudice.
No. 04-50467

-2-

Romo has filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental

brief incorporated in his appellate brief. For the first time in

his proposed supplemental brief, Romo seeks to add new parties

and to raise new claims. These issues will not be considered for

the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder

Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, his motion

to file a supplemental brief is DENIED. 

Romo has not challenged in this court the district court’s

reasons for dismissing his complaint. Accordingly, it is as if

Romo had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Romo’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Romo’s complaint as

frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does

the dismissal of this appeal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d

383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Romo is CAUTIONED that if he

accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to

proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED;

MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED.
52.246-14 Inspection of Transportation.

As prescribed in 46.314 , insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for freight

transportation services (including local drayage) by rail, motor (including bus), domestic freight

forwarder, and domestic water carriers (including inland, coastwise, and intercoastal). The

contracting officer shall not use the clause for the acquisition of transportation services by domestic

or international air carriers or by international ocean carriers, or to freight services provided under

bills of lading or to those negotiated for reduced rates under 49 U.S.C.10721 or 1 3712 . (See part 

47 , Transportation.)

Inspection of Transportation (Apr 1984)

The Government has the right to inspect and test the Contractor’s services, facilities, and equipment

at all reasonable times. The Contractor shall furnish Government representatives with the free

access and reasonable facilities and assistance required to accomplish their inspections and tests.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.246 [Reserved]
---

---

Exhibit 15

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of DirectorsRRsat Global
Communications Network Ltd.:

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-140936) on Form S-8 of RRsat Global
Communications Network Ltd. (the Company) of our report dated March 24, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
shareholders equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period
ended December 31, 2007 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2007, which report appears
in the December 31, 2007 Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company.

/s/ Somekh Chaikin
Somekh Chaikin
Certified Public Accountants (Israel)
Member Firm of KPMG International
TelAviv, Israel
March 24, 2008



---

---
###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter VIII](/current/title-7/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A)

#### Authority:

[7 U.S.C. 71-87K](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/7/71), [1621-1627](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/7/1621).

###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter VIII](/current/title-7/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at [84 FR 45645](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-45645), Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 868.312 Grade and grade requirements for the class Screenings Milled Rice. (See also [§ 868.315](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-868.315).)

Grades, Grade Requirements, and Grade Designations

| Grade | Maximum limits of— | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Paddy kernels and seeds | | Chalky kernels1 3 (percent) | Color requirements1 | Minimum milling requirements2 |
| Total (number in 500 grams) | Objectionable seeds (number in 500 grams) |
| U.S. No. 14 5 | 30 | 20 | 5.0 | White or Creamy | Well milled. |
| U.S. No. 24 5 | 75 | 50 | 8.0 | Slightly gray | Well milled. |
| U.S. No. 34 5 | 125 | 90 | 12.0 | Light gray or slightly rosy | Reasonably well milled. |
| U.S. No. 44 5 | 175 | 140 | 20.0 | Gray or rosy | Reasonably well milled. |
| U.S. No. 5 | 250 | 200 | 30.0 | Dark gray or very rosy | Reasonably well milled. |
| U.S. Sample grade: | | | | | |
| U.S. Sample grade shall be milled rice of this class which: (a) Does not meet the requirements for any of the grades from U.S. No. 1 to U.S. No. 5, inclusive; (b) contains more than 15.0 percent of moisture; (c) is musty or sour, or heating; (d) has any commercially objectionable foreign odor; (e) has a badly damaged or extremely red appearance (f) contains more than 0.1 percent of foreign material; (g) contains two or more live or dead weevils or other insects, insect webbing, or insect refuse; or (h) is otherwise of distinctly low quality. | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 For the special grade Parboiled milled rice, see [§ 868.315(c)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-868.315#p-868.315(c)). | | | | | |
| 2 For the special grade Undermilled milled rice, see [§ 868.315(d)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-868.315#p-868.315(d)). | | | | | |
| 3 For the special grade Glutinous milled rice, see [§ 868.315(e)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-868.315#p-868.315(e)). | | | | | |
| 4 Grades U.S. No. 1 to U.S. No. 4, inclusive, shall contain not more than 3.0 percent of heat-damaged kernels, kernels damaged by heat and/or parboiled kernels in nonparboiled rice. | | | | | |
| 5 Grades U.S. No. 1 to U.S. No. 4, inclusive, shall contain not more than 1.0 percent of material passing through a 30 sieve. | | | | | |

[[67 FR 61251](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/67-FR-61251), Sept. 30, 2002]