alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WOOLVERTON, Respondent, v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by William H. Woolverton, as president, against the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. C. C. Nadal, for appellant. J. I,. Hill, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 868.307 Moisture.

Water content in milled rice as determined by an FGIS approved device in accordance with procedures prescribed in FGIS instructions.

[67 FR 61250, Sept. 30, 2002]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:04cr5/MCR

3:07cv264/MCR/MD

LARRY DION HAMMOND

_____________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

This cause is before the court upon the government’s response to defendant’s

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (doc. 206). Before the court rules on this

matter, the defendant shall have the opportunity to file a reply.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Defendant shall have forty (40) days from the date this order is entered on the

docket in which to file a reply to the government’s response.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of March, 2008.

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:04-cr-00005-MCR-MD Document 207 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 1
52.215-5 Facsimile Proposals.       As prescribed in 15.209(e), insert the following provision:          Facsimile Proposals (Oct 1997)                                       (a)                   *Definition*. "Facsimile proposal," as used in this provision, means a proposal, revision or modification of a proposal, or withdrawal of a proposal that is transmitted to and received by the Government via facsimile machine.                                          (b) 						            Offerors may submit facsimile proposals as responses to this solicitation. Facsimile proposals are subject to the same rules as paper proposals.                                          (c) The telephone number of receiving facsimile equipment is:_____________ [*insert telephone number*].                                          (d) 						            If any portion of a facsimile proposal received by the Contracting Officer is unreadable to the degree that conformance to the essential requirements of the solicitation cannot be ascertained from the document-                                                         (1) 								                The Contracting Officer immediately shall notify the offeror and permit the offeror to resubmit the proposal;                                                            (2) 								                The method and time for resubmission shall be prescribed by the Contracting Officer after consultation with the offeror; and                                                            (3) 								                The resubmission shall be considered as if it were received at the date and time of the original unreadable submission for the purpose of determining timeliness, provided the offeror complies with the time and format requirements for resubmission prescribed by the Contracting Officer.                                                                             (e) 						            The Government reserves the right to make award solely on the facsimile proposal. However, if requested to do so by the Contracting Officer, the apparently successful offeror promptly shall submit the complete original signed proposal.                                 (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.215 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOHN DOE 1, as parent and natural guardian

of PLAINTIFF C, his minor child; JOHN DOE 2,

as parent and natural guardian of PLAINTIFF D,

his minor child; JANE DOE 1, as parent and natural 

guardian of PLAINTIFF B and PLAINTIFF M, her

minor children; JANE DOE 2, as parent and natural 

guardian of PLAINTIFF J, her minor child; 

JANE DOE 3, as parent and natural guardian of 

PLAINTIFF S, her minor child; and PLAINTIFF L, 

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:03cv260/RS

JOSEPH R. FRANCIS; MRA HOLDING LLC,

 California limited liability company; MANTRA

FILMS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation

(d/b/a “Girls Gone Wild”); AERO FALCONS, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company; MARK D.

SCHMITZ; and RYAN DAVID SIMKIN,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

Following an evidentiary hearing on March 30, 2007, I found Defendant Joseph

Francis to be in civil contempt because of his willful failure to participate in mediation as

required by the Scheduling and Mediation Order. I imposed compensatory and coercive

sanctions upon Defendant Francis, which included coercive incarceration. At the request

of Francis’ attorneys, I held in abeyance Francis’ surrender to the custody of the United

States Marshal upon the condition that he would immediately participate in meaningful

settlement negotiations. Negotiations between the parties apparently continued on March

31, 2007, with involvement by the mediator. In the late afternoon of March 31st, the

Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 304 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 2
mediator reported to me that meaningful negotiations had continued that day and that

Francis had made an unconditional offer which raised the likely prospect of a settlement.

The unconditional offer would remain extended until close of business on April 3, 2007. 

The mediator has now reported to me that the plaintiffs unconditionally accepted the

defendant’s offer. However, the mediator also reported to me that Defendant Francis has

now attempted to revoke his unconditional offer and to impose unacceptable conditions.

Francis’ attempt to renege violates the express condition upon which I suspended the

requirement that he surrender to the custody of the United States Marshal. Therefore, I

terminate my suspension of the order for sanctions, and the implementation of those

sanctions are to take effect immediately. 

Defendant Francis is ordered to surrender to the custody of the United States

Marshal at the United States Courthouse in Panama City, Florida, not later than 12:00 p.m.,

CDT, on Thursday, April 5, 2007.

ORDERED on April 4, 2007.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 304 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 2
#### § 621.33 Conditions for approval.

A joint investigation and report is authorized by a resolution of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the U.S. Senate or the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the U.S. House of Representatives. Studies are initiated when funds for them are appropriated by the Congress.
160 So.2d 227

#### Tom BROWN et al. v. Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator, Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor, State of Louisiana.

No. 47073.

Feb. 14, 1964.

Jn re: Tom Brown et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington. 158 So.2d 305.

The application is denied. The judgment complained of is correct.
---

Exhibit 13.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Ur-Energy Inc. (the "Corporation") on Form 20-F /A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Corporation.





Date: January 26, 2011


/s/ Roger SmithRoger SmithChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

175) ll-E-135 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:09 AM Sheet 175 of 264 
P.2 

MAR-//-30 riu i.uo rw ri£Li/ OHM.IW: 

03/27/88 10:11 ©181SM10234 

fAA nv, 

PES RIP NC 

UiULJUUU J 

10002/002 

A 945? 

JiVE- /35 

Contact Report 

*\ Melanie Proctor, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

Date: March 26,1998 

Mr. Colby Edwards 

Company: Altec Industries, Ina 

Telephone Number: (816) 364-2244 

Fax Number: (816) 236-1352 

?H 

Contact Summary: 

44-94/. 

otvt 

COT 2 21999, 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

MS. Proctor explained that PES is working with the U.S. EPA on the developing of a 

national emission standard for the reinforced plastic composites industry. Ms. Proctor added that 

Altec Industries, Inc. was contacted to verify information provided in the 1993 EPA serening 

survey submitted for their facility. 

Ms. Proctor asked Mr. Edwards if Altec Industries, Inc. is using any pollution prevention 

measures for their centrifugal casting process. Ms. Proctor further explained that such pollution 

preventton measures may include 1****2**TM^ or elimination of air flow through the centrifugal 

casting machines, not heating the air and the ««" AnAngapplication and curing or.the reduction 

if hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in the resin. $fr. Edwards indicated thatAltec Industries, Inc. i7 

'not using any special pollution preventionrneasure&^for.tiutf process.- He e^Iamcdthat the 

Centrifugal casting machines have end caps which havejfaHrin them that provide an opening foi 

air to be moved through (he spinning mold during curing. Mr. Edwards indicated that he did not 

know the exact air flow rate through tiie mold at the time (Could you please find out what the air 

flow rate through the mold Is and if the resin or the air is heated in the process? If the air or 

the resin is heated, eould yon provide the temperature?). According to Mr. Edwards the facility 

still uses the same resins that were reported in the 1993 scieenmg survey which are polyester flex 

ream at a HAP content of 30 percent and unsaturated 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE. 

H fat* fs fhr ktUeJ /A Ji* frecctS 

j( ETZAS/AIO. pfaa is. used? &r Coo Ay t n*± £**~ 

£+r-t*£. f-Llps too//**/& *£for <#otferM'<~-
#### § 900.504 Appeals.

Any person whose request under § 900.503 above is denied shall have the right to appeal such denial in accordance with § 1.3(e) of this title. Appeals shall be addressed to the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

[40 FR 20267, May 9, 1975]
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-1168 FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. THIRD DIMENSION (3D) SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine

in case no. 08-CV-158, Judge D. Brock Hornby.

ON MOTION 

### ORDER Third Dimension Semiconductor, Inc. (3D) moves to stay proceedings due to settlement efforts. 3D states that Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation consents. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted to the extent that Fairchild's brief is due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order.

The motion for judicial notice remains in abeyance. FOR THE COURT 

### MAY 21 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk PILED cc: Robert H. Stier, Jr., Esq. US. eaVRTDP APPEALS PON THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Michael W. Shore, Esq. s17 MAY 21 2009
JAN HOiitskthi CLERK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LEROY WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv658-ID

v. )

 )

STATE OF ALABAMA DEP'T OF )

TRANSPORTATION, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that the pretrial hearing presently set on June

19, 2007, is hereby reset on Monday, June 18, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. in chambers B-300,

United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

Done this 9th day of May, 2007.

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 28 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. MOSES ANTONIO SHEPARD, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-10253 D.C. No. 4:10-cr-01032-CKJ-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 12, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Defendant Moses Antonio Shepard app eals from his conviction for interstate stalking and cyberstalking in violati on of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1) and (2)(A). We affirm.1. The district court did not err in allowing Defendant to invoke his right to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 (1975). 

# FILED
JUN 18 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.Assuming without deciding that Indiana v. Edwards , 554 U.S. 164 (2008), established an affirmative requirement to determine a defendant’s competency to represent himself, the court did not err in finding Defendant competent to represent himself after holding a hearing and obs erving Defendant. Defendant appeared intelligent and educated, had no history of mental illness and suffered only from "grandiosity" and some obsessive behavior, clearly understood the proceedings and procedures, participated extensively in pr etrial matters, and chose a rational (if illadvised) trial strategy. 2. The district court set appropriate limitations during trial preparation. Defendant had reasonable access to the mate rials and means necessary to prepare a defense. For example, Defendant recei ved seven continuances, the assistance of advisory counsel, and access to sufficient resources. 3. The statutes of conviction are not unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Osinger , No. 11-50338, 2014 WL 2498131, at *3–7 (9th Cir. June 4, 2014). AFFIRMED.

2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3167 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3167

              To extend temporarily the duty on Bentazon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To extend temporarily the duty on Bentazon.

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

SECTION 1. BENTAZON.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Bentazon) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(bentazon, sodium slat)'' and inserting 
        ``(Bentazon, sodium salt)''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 4(b)


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN
(as restated effective January 1, 2014)
Background Information
		
	A.
	State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company (the “Company”) previously adopted and maintains the State Auto Insurance Companies Retirement Savings Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligible employees and their beneficiaries.


		
	B.
	Section 12.02 of the Plan permits the Company to amend the Plan at any time.


		
	C.
	The Plan was most recently amended and restated, in its entirety, on December 29, 2014, the same to be effective (except as otherwise provided therein) as of January 1, 2014.


		
	D.
	The Company desires to amend the Plan to clarify how matching contributions shall be calculated.




Amendment of the Plan
The Plan is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2017, as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 3.04B.(i), regarding “Safe Harbor Matching Contributions,” is amended to read as follows:


“Amount.  For Plan Years beginning on and after January 1, 2008, matching contributions sufficient to meet the “safe harbor” requirements of Code Section 401(k)(12) shall be made to each eligible Participant’s Account and shall be referred to as “Safe Harbor Matching Contributions.”  Specifically, for each eligible Employee who authorizes Salary Reduction Contributions, or is deemed to have authorized Salary Reduction Contributions under Section 3.02C. of the Plan, the Employer will pay to the Trustee a Safe Harbor Matching Contribution for the Plan Year equal to:
		
	(i)
	100% of the Participant’s Salary Reduction Contributions up to one-percent of the Participant’s Compensation for the Plan Year, plus


		
	(ii)
	50% of the Participant’s Salary Reduction Contributions in excess of one percent but not in excess of six percent of the Participant’s  Compensation for the Plan Year.


Safe Harbor Matching Contributions shall be made to the Trustee (i) as soon as practicable after the end of each pay period to which they relate (based on the Participant’s Salary Reduction Contributions and Compensation for such pay period), and (ii) as soon as practicable after the end of the Plan Year (if a “true-up” contribution is necessary, based on the Participant’s Salary Reduction Contributions and Compensation for the Plan Year).”
		
	2.
	All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.




STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (the “Company”)


By: 
Its:
Date:
§ 766.251 Repayment of unauthorized assistance. ( a ) Except where otherwise specified, the borrower is responsible for repaying any unauthorized assistance in full within 90 days of Agency notice. The Agency may reverse any unauthorized loan servicing actions, when possible.
( b ) The borrower has the opportunity to meet with the Agency to discuss or refute the Agency's findings.
#### § 58.631 Emulsifiers.

Emulsifiers shall be clean and wholesome and consist of one or more of those approved in § 58.605.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 

 

May 25, 2018 

a0516 

Order 

 

Clerk 

May 25, 2018 

150672 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 150672 

 COA: 314060 

Wayne CC: 04-000496-FC 

SAMIR HADOUS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/ 

 By order of December 18, 2015, the application for leave to appeal the October 

28, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Temelkoski (Docket No. 150643). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on January 24, 2018, 501 Mich ___ (2018), the application is again considered 

and, it appearing to this Court that the cases of People v Tucker (Docket No. 152798) and 

People v Snyder (Docket No. 153696) are pending on appeal before this Court and that 

the decisions in those cases may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decisions in those cases.
Exhibit 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
85-A  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of Net Lease Management
85-A,  Inc.,  the  Managing General Partner of  the  Partnership,
certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Partnership.


                           /s/ Patrick W. Keene
                               Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                               Net Lease Management 85-A, Inc.
                               Managing General Partner
                               May 12, 2003
§ 4280.114 Ineligible projects. The Agency will not award funding under this part for any projects identified in this section, unless otherwise noted. ( a ) Research and development projects and projects that involve technology that is not commercially available;
( b ) Business operations that derive more than 10 percent of annual gross revenue from gambling activity. Gambling activities include any lease income from space or machines used for gambling activities. State or Tribal-authorized lottery proceeds, as approved by the Agency, conducted for the purpose of raising funds for the approved project are excluded;
( c ) Business operations deriving income from activities of a sexual nature or illegal activities;
( d ) Residential RES or EEI projects, including farm labor housing, apartment complexes, and owner-occupied bed and breakfasts, except for-profit nursing homes and assisted living facilities that provide full-time medical care for residents, and for-profit hotels that provide short-term housing;
( e ) Racetracks or facilities for conducting either professional or amateur races of animals, or by professional or amateur drivers or jockeys, or any other type of racing;
( f ) RES projects that co-fire with fossil fuels, natural gas or petroleum-based products or materials such as coal and other non-renewable fuels, oils, and chemicals, and tires or plastic;
( g ) Projects where 50 percent or more of the costs are ineligible or where project costs as defined in the application do not meet the definition of a renewable energy system or energy efficiency improvement, including projects submitted for labor costs only. Project costs associated with an EEI that are not clearly identified in the energy assessment or audit will be considered ineligible costs; and
( h ) Projects proposing two or more different types of RES technologies that are not incorporated into a unified system and projects proposing two or more different types of RES technologies at two or more locations.