alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000725261
<NAME>                              DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1984-1

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                   148,152
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            112,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         261,137
<PP&E>                                30,245,541
<DEPRECIATION>                        30,030,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           537,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5,002
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                               511,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             537,017
<SALES>                                  307,940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         310,566
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            108,686
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          201,880
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      201,880
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             201,880
<EPS-BASIC>                                36.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
### The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-1860

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Norman Ray Woodall, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 6, 1997 Filed: February 11, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Norman Ray Woodall appeals the district court's de nial of his motion 1 for return of items seized from him by state authorities when they arreste d him, some of which were later used in his federa l prosecution. We affirm.
A postcon viction filing for return of property seized in connection with a criminal case is treated as a civil equitable action, which th e district court where the claimant was tried has ancillary jurisdiction to hear. See Thompson v. Covington , 47 F.3d 974, 975 (8th Cir. 1995) (pe r curiam). The distric t court properly denied Woodall's motion as to items he claims were taken in an "ATF booking." The government states that it has no record of such a booking, and that it does not possess items from any such booking.

### -2-

Although a mere assertion by the government that it does not have Woodall' s prop erty would not render the issue moot, see id. , Woodall failed t o specify the date of t his alleged booking or the items taken at that time.
The distr ict court also properly denied the motion as to items that were used as evidence in Woodall's federal trial and then returned to the state authorities. The items were outside the possession of the federal government, cf. United States v. Wingfield , 822 F.2d 1466, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987) (federal jurisd iction over seized property in federal control), and were seized by state authorities pursuant to a state court warrant, withou t any federal participa tion in the seizure, cf. United States v. Huffhines , 986 F.2d 306, 308 (9th Cir. 1993) (Rule 41 jurisdiction in federal court reaches only as far a s state searches with direct federal authorization). Finally, the governme nt is not accountable for state-seized items that it never possessed or used as evidence. See id. at 307-08. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Mary Dolan *v.*Growers Outlet, Inc.

Maltbie, C. J., Avery, Brown, Jennings and Eels, Js.

Argued May 6

decided June 10, 1942.

*Charles H. Blackall,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Morton E. Cole,*with whom, on the brief, were *Cyril Cole*and *A. W. Firestone,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*159Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was injured by one of a pair of swinging doors in the entrance to the defendant’s store. The jury could reasonably have found that the door, released by a customer who preceded the plaintiff, flew back with sufficient force to break the guard of the plaintiff’s hand which she put up to protect herself; and that it struck her in the mouth. They could also have found that, the doors were not reasonably safe for the use of the plaintiff and other invitees because they were without sufficient restraining mechanism to bring them to a stop or at least to reasonably retard the momentum of the back swing when they were released from a fully open position. The damages were not so excessive as to require interference by this court. The ease was actively contested and the evidence highly contradictory but, giving due weight to the action of the trial court in refusing to set aside the verdict, we cannot say that it erred in that regard. While there have been no “swinging door” cases in this court, there have been a considerable number elsewhere. Notes, 33 A. L. R. 225, 58 A. L. R. 144, 100 A. L. R. 761. The numerous Massachusetts cases are analyzed in *Sterns*v. *Highland Hotel Co.,*307 Mass. 90, 29 N. E. (2d) 721. The familiar general rules of negligence apply. If, on all the evidence, the question is one of fact, the verdict stands. The brief summary of the testimony places this case in that category.

In its appeal from the judgment, all but one of the assignments of error as to the charge allege failure to charge adequately as to burden of proof, proximate cause and contributory negligence. The defendant also complained of the failure of the charge to distinguish between negligence due to construction and negligence due to failure to repair. Reading the charge as a whole in connection with the claims of proof it is found *160“correct in'law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury.?’ *Bullard*v. *de Cordova,*119 Conn. 262, 267, 175 Atl. 673. Read in its context, the one passage specifically complained of falls under the samé holding.

The single ruling on evidence pursued on the brief related to cross-examination of the defendant’s engineer. It does not go beyond the liberality accorded in questions asked on cross-examination of experts and furthermore, the answers given were favorable to the defendant.

There is no error.
HomeTurkey

# Turkey

385 items

        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary of State Bass’ Travel to Türkiye and Italy	  April 12, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Lewis Travels to Türkiye and Greece	  April 4, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 1, 2024	  Matthew MillerApril 1, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 11, 2024	  Matthew MillerMarch 11, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan	  March 9, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the U.S.-Türkiye Strategic Mechanism	  March 9, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Akcapar	  March 8, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 8, 2024Thomas Jefferson RoomWashington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 5, 2024	  Matthew MillerMarch 5, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Istanbul, Türkiye: Istanbul International Community School: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  February 23, 2024 

123…39next page

Back to Top
§ 598.408 Alleged change in ownership or control of an entity designated as a specially designated narcotics trafficker. ( a ) A change or alleged change in ownership or control of an entity designated as a specially designated narcotics trafficker shall not be the basis for removal of that entity from the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (“SDN List”) unless, upon investigation by the Office of Foreign Control and submission of evidence by the entity, it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control that the transfer to a bona fide purchaser at arm's length, or other means of changing ownership or control, is legitimate and that the entity no longer meets the criteria for designation under § 598.314. Evidence submitted must conclusively demonstrate that all ties with other specially designated narcotics traffickers have been completely severed, and may include, but is not limited to, articles of incorporation; identification of new directors, officers, shareholders, and sources of capital; and contracts evidencing the sale of the entity to its new owners.
( b ) Any continuing substantial financial obligations on the part of the new owners to any specially designated narcotics traffickers, including long-term payment plans, leases, or rents, will be considered as evidence of continuing control of the entity by the specially designated narcotics trafficker. Purchase of a designated entity without ongoing substantial financial obligations to a specially designated narcotics trafficker may nonetheless be a basis for subsequent designation of the purchaser, if the transaction is determined materially to assist in or provide financial support for the international narcotics trafficking activities of specially designated narcotics traffickers for purposes of § 598.314(b)(1). For example, any acquisition transaction resulting in a direct cash transfer to or other enrichment of a specially designated narcotics trafficker could lead to designation of the purchaser. Mere change in name of an entity will not be considered as constituting a change of the entity's status.
[65 FR 41336, July 5, 2000, as amended at 76 FR 38545, June 30, 2011]
INTRODUCTION

Walden Pond and the underlying and surrounding aquifer arebordered by the Sudbury and Concord Rivers (fig. 1). Walden Pond, a kettle-holelake with no surface water inlet or outlet, formed at the end of the lastglaciation about15,000 years ago by the melting of a large block of ice thatbroke off into glacial Lake Sudbury from the retreating glacier. The ice blockeventually was surrounded by sorted, stratified sediments ranging mainly fromfine sand to coarse gravel deposited by glacial meltwater (fig. 2), (Koteff,1963). Seismic reflection and fathometer data indicate that the lake and itsassociated fine-grained bottom sediments extend to the till and bedrock surfacein the deepest areas. Three deep areas are defined in the lake (fig. 3); themiddle deep area was unmapped before this investigation. The maximum measureddepth of 100.1 feet (ft) was within 2 ft of that measured by Thoreau in thewinter of 1846.

Knowledge of the water balance and the land-surface areacontributing water to Walden Pond is needed to understand the hydrology of thelake and to derive a nutrient budget for the lake. Sources of water to WaldenPond include precipitation on the lake surface and ground water (fig. 2). Waterfrom precipitation infiltrates the permeable surficial deposits, recharges theaquifer, then flows in the direction of decreasing water levels. Thus,ground-water flow does not necessarily follow land surface topography. Alongsteep shoreline areas sloping towards Walden Pond, small quantities of overlandflow may occur after intense precipitation events, thereby adding small amountsof water to the lake. Water leaves Walden Pond by evaporation from the lakesurface and from lake-water seepage to the aquifer (fig. 2).

## SUMMARY

Walden Pond, the deepest lake in Massachusetts, has greathistorical, naturalistic, and limnological significance as the subject of HenryDavid Thoreau's well-known essay "Walden: or, Life in the Woods"(Thoreau, 1854). Only 15 miles (mi) northwest of Boston, Mass. (fig. 1), WaldenPond potentially is threatened by environmental stresses common to urban lakes:a municipal landfill, septic leachate, high visitor-use rates, acid and othercontaminants from atmospheric deposition, and invasion of exotic species. WaldenPond retains clear, undegraded water because of conservation efforts thatprotect the shore and woods surrounding the lake. Questions remain, however,regarding the extent of ecological changes that may already have occurred andthe degree to which conservation efforts will preserve water quality in thefuture. Hydrologic and limnologic results from a cooperative investigation ofWalden Pond between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Massachusetts Departmentof Environmental Management are summarized in this plate report, which showsWalden Pond in relation to the ground-water system and land use. Details of theinvestigation from data collected from 1997 to 1999 (Colman and Friesz, 2001)and basic information about limnology and Walden Pond (Colman and Waldron, 1998)also are available.

----
§ 560.405 Transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction authorized. Any transaction ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction and necessary to give effect thereto is also authorized, except: ( a ) An ordinarily incident transaction, not explicitly authorized within the terms of the license, involving a debit to a blocked account or a transfer of blocked property;
( b ) Payments or transfers of funds; Note to paragraph ( b
) of § 560.405 :
*See* § 560.516 for a general license authorizing United States depository institutions or United States registered brokers or dealers in securities to process transfers of funds if the transfer arises from, and is ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to, an underlying transaction authorized by a specific or general license issued pursuant to, or set forth in, this part.
( c ) Provision of any transportation services to or from Iran not explicitly authorized in or pursuant to this part other than loading, transporting, and discharging licensed or exempt cargo there;
( d ) Distribution or leasing in Iran of any containers or similar goods owned or controlled by United States persons after the performance of transportation services to Iran;
( e ) Financing of sales for the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices that is authorized by general or specific license pursuant to § 560.530; and Note to paragraph ( e
) of § 560.405 :
*See* § 560.530(a)(2) through (4) for general licenses authorizing, with certain exceptions, the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical supplies, and replacement parts for certain medical devices to the Government of Iran, individuals or entities in Iran, or persons in third countries purchasing specifically for resale to any of the foregoing. These general licenses also authorize the conduct of related transactions, including, but not limited to, financing and payment, provided that payment terms and financing are limited to, and consistent with, § 560.532, which sets forth payment terms for sales authorized by one of the general licenses set forth in paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) of § 560.530 or by a specific license issued pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of the same section.
( f ) Letter of credit services relating to transactions authorized in § 560.534. See § 560.535(a).
[77 FR 64666, Oct. 22, 2012, as amended at 79 FR 18993, Apr. 7, 2014; 81 FR 3332, Jan. 21, 2016]
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dalrada Financial Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Randall Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Company do each
hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350), that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     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 result of operations of
          the Company.


Date: February 20, 2006


By: /S/ Randall Jones
---------------------------------
Randall Jones
Chief Financial Officer


                                       31
§ 3.312 Secretarial action regarding complaints and compliance reviews. ( a ) *Resolution when noncompliance is indicated.* ( 1 ) If an investigation of a complaint pursuant to § 3.306 of this subpart or a compliance review pursuant to § 3.308 of this subpart indicates noncompliance, the Secretary may attempt to reach a resolution of the matter satisfactory to the Secretary by informal means. Informal means may include demonstrated compliance or a completed corrective action plan or other agreement.
( 2 ) If the matter is resolved by informal means, the Secretary will so inform the respondent and, if the matter arose from a complaint, the complainant, in writing.
( 3 ) If the matter is not resolved by informal means, the Secretary will— ( i ) So inform the respondent and provide the respondent an opportunity to submit written evidence of any mitigating factors. The respondent must submit any evidence to the Secretary within 30 days (computed in the same manner as prescribed under § 3.526 of this subpart) of receipt of such notification; and
( ii ) If, following action pursuant to paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, the Secretary decides that a civil money penalty should be imposed, inform the respondent of such finding in a notice of proposed determination in accordance with § 3.420 of this subpart.
( b ) *Resolution when no violation is found.* If, after an investigation pursuant to § 3.306 of this subpart or a compliance review pursuant to § 3.308 of this subpart, the Secretary determines that further action is not warranted, the Secretary will so inform the respondent and, if the matter arose from a complaint, the complainant, in writing.
( c ) *Uses and disclosures of information obtained.* ( 1 ) Identifiable patient safety work product obtained by the Secretary in connection with an investigation or compliance review under this subpart will not be disclosed by the Secretary, except in accordance with § 3.206(d) of this subpart, or if otherwise permitted by this part or the Patient Safety Act.
( 2 ) Except as provided for in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, information, including testimony and other evidence, obtained by the Secretary in connection with an investigation or compliance review under this subpart may be used by HHS in any of its activities and may be used or offered into evidence in any administrative or judicial proceeding.
#### § 587.300 Applicability of definitions.

The definitions in this subpart apply throughout the entire part.
CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598

DCN: SGE00273.A10

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
699 A.2d 727

#### Richard CARTER, For the Incarcerated Citizens’ Congress, Appellant, v. Tom RIDGE, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Stewart J. Greenleaf, Senator/Chairman of the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee, and, Michael R. Hackman, Associate Director of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 20, 1997.

Reargument Denied Oct. 23, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 1997, the order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed.
#### Efstathios J. CATOGAS, Appellant, v. Frank SAPP and Edwin Sapp, Appellees.

No. 80-1432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 5, 1981.

Pertnoy & Greenberg and Stuart H. So-bel, Miami, for appellant.

Ezzo, Garel & Saylor and Bruce A. Say-lor, Miami, for appellees.

Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Efstathios Catogas, plaintiff below, appeals from a court order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. Appellate jurisdiction is pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A) and 9.110. We reverse.

*1183Following the announcement that both parties were ready for trial, the trial court ordered attorneys for both sides to appear on Monday, June 9, 1980 at 9:00 a. m. prepared for trial. Late in the afternoon, on Friday, June 6, 1980, the attorney for Catogas checked with the secretary of the trial judge and learned that his case still stood at number four on the trial calendar. Believing that his case would not be called for trial before midmorning, counsel for Catogas.attended a 9:00 a. m. hearing in criminal court. When he appeared before the trial court by 10:00 a. m., he was advised by the court that he should appear promptly with his client to proceed to trial, or that the case would be dismissed, for failing to prosecute. Counsel for Catogas advised the court he would then take a voluntary dismissal. The next day, counsel for Catogas appeared before the court intending to seek a continuance and argue in favor of permitting the case to go to trial either then or on a subsequent calendar. Because Catogas was not present at that moment, the case was not allowed to proceed. Catogas did not file a voluntary dismissal as he indicated he would. On July 12, 1980, the court ordered the case dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to appear for trial.

Where the record is devoid of evidence reflecting a willful or flagrant disregard for the court’s authority, dismissing a plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure of counsel to appear on time for trial is too severe a sanction to visit upon a litigant. *Aller v. Editorial Planeta, S. A.,*389 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). For derelictions of this nature, the court is empowered to discipline the offending attorney by contempt or other appropriate punishment. *Aller, supra.*

Reversed.