alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### B. Steve BIAS, Appellant, v. Arthur TROLLINGER; Florida Police Benevolent Association, a nonprofit corporation; Broward County Police Benevolent Association, a nonprofit corporation; Charles J. McDonald, Gilbert J. Frazier and Thomas F. Panza, Appellees.

No. 80-1940.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 2, 1981.

*1359Robert J. O’Toole, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Borden R. Hallowes and Joel H. Feldman of Lavalle, Wochna, Rutherford & Trues-dell, P. A., Boca Raton, for appellee-Arthur Trollinger.

HERSEY, Judge.

This appeal raises the question of the propriety of an order assessing attorney’s fee^ and costs against appellant as a sanction for his failure to appear for deposition after notice.

It is clear that assessment of costs and attorneys’ fees against a party who fails to appear for the taking of his deposition after being served with a proper notice is appropriate “unless the court finds that the failure was justified....”, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.380(d).

Whether justification is shown by the facts of this case is the issue on appeal.

Appellant, a party to this litigation, lived in North Carolina. Appellees obtained an order dated September 12, 1980, appointing a commissioner to take appellant’s deposition in Charlotte, North Carolina. On September 16, 1980, appellees mailed to all counsel of record a notice indicating that appellant’s deposition was to be taken on October 3, Í980. Thereafter appellees appeared ex parte before the court and obtained an order dated September 18, 1980, requiring appellant to appear for the taking of his deposition “at a time reasonably agreed upon by counsel.”

According to a recital in appellees’ Motion to Compel and Impose Sanctions:

> This court previously entered an order requiring him to appear in his home county at a reasonable time; the plaintiff’s attorney, along with several other attorneys, travelled from South Florida to Charlotte, North Carolina at the appointed and scheduled time, and Mr. Bias failed to appear.

The court, after hearing, entered an order which included the following:

> 1. The Notice to Impose Sanctions as to attorney’s fees and costs re the aborted deposition of defendant, Steve Bias, is granted to the extent that each party making an appearance at said scheduled deposition shall recover one-half of attorneys fees and costs incurred as a result of making the appearance.

Implicit in the court’s holding is a finding that counsel were equally at fault.

Appellant’s position is that the order of September 18, 1980, established that the deposition would be taken only after agreement of counsel, thereby superceding the prior notice setting a date, time and place. We agree. Appellant was entitled to rely on the court order and to consider the earlier notice cancelled. Under the circumstances it was an abuse of discretion to impose sanctions. We therefore vacate that portion of the order doing so and remand the cause for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY and MOORE, JJ., concur.
### Geology of the Craig quadrangle, Alaska

By: W. H. Condon

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1108B

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (3302 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (5715 pdf)                        
-                                 Larger Work: This publication is Chapter                                B of                                                                              Mineral resources of Alaska, 1959-63                                                                    
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### STATE of Florida on the relation of John GILMORE and Margaret Gilmore, Relators, v. Robert S. HEWITT, as Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Respondent,

No. 74-407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 30, 1974.

Mandamus denied.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22086]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF09-2011-000]


Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of Filing

September 8, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 4, 2009, Bonneville Power 
Administration (BPA) filed errata corrections to Table E of the General 
Rate Schedule Provisions of BPA's 2010 Wholesale Power and Transmission 
Rate Case filing, WP-10 Wholesale Power Rates, pursuant to the 
Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 300.10(h).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97d1d2c5d4d8f9fbfef9f2c4e2e7e7f8e5e3d7f1f2e5f4b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="460003140509282a2f282315333636293432062023342568212930">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 15, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22086 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2006074EN.01003204.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/32

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 January 2006 — Steinmetz v Commission

(Case T -155/05) (1)

1

(2006/C 74/62)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

1

---
#### M. Angelo Elias, Respondent, *v.*Timothy J. Hayes et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the First Municipal Court, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the plaintiff.

Wm. Klingenstein, for respondent.

Milliken *&*Gasten, for appellants.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff’s assignor, having rendered services in the binding of books, assigned her claim therefor to the plaintiff, who brought an action to recover the amount of the claim. The cause came to trial, whereupon it developed that the party against whom the plaintiff sought to enforce this claim had not been summoned, and that the defendant in the action was improperly designated as the party for whom the plaintiff’s assignor had rendered the sendees. At this stage of the trial, the plaintiff’s' counsel offered to withdraw the action, when the court directed that ah amended summons be issued, incorporating the defendants herein, without the additional expenses of bringing another action. To.this.action, of’the court an exception was duly taken.

The'judgment- should be reversed on the following grounds, viz.: The court had no power to amend the original summons by substituting new defendants for the one originally named therein, nor-*755to issue an alias summons addressed to the new defendants. The case is not one in which an alias summons is authorized by law. The return contains the original summons, and all the proceedings which took place, including the evidence given by the witnesses for the plaintiff, before- the direction for the issuing of the alias summons was given. . It would thus seem that the court in deciding the questions involved in the suit, considered that the proceedings were continuous, and that the original action still' subsisted and continued, and that the issue of the alias summons was not the commencement of a new action, but a proceeding in the original one. Could it be said that there was a waiver of the irregularity in bringing defendants into court in the manner above stated, and could we regard the proceeding subsequent to the. amended summons as a new action, we are still of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed, since the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is exceedingly meagre and unsatisfactory.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, but without prejudice to the plaintiff to bring another action.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildersleeve and Gieg-erich, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs, without prejudice to plaintiff.
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.122 Hearing officer's decision. ( a ) *Timing.* ( 1 ) If the decision is based on a review of the record, the hearing officer mails the decision to all known parties within 120 days from the date of receipt of the request for hearing.
( 2 ) If the decision is based on an oral hearing, the hearing officer mails the decision to all known parties within 120 days from the conclusion of the hearing.
( b ) *Basis, content, and distribution of hearing decision.* ( 1 ) The written decision is based on substantial evidence and contains findings of fact, a statement of reasons, and conclusions of law.
( 2 ) The hearing officer mails a copy of the decision to each of the parties, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and includes a notice that the administrator may review the hearing decision at the request of a party or on his or her own motion.
( c ) *Effect of hearing decision.* The hearing officer's decision is the final Departmental decision and is binding upon all parties unless the Administrator chooses to review that decision in accordance with § 411.124 or it is reopened by the hearing officer in accordance with § 411.126.
# C_2006060EN.01003901.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/39

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2005 — Arla Foods and Others v Commission

(Case T- 397/02) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 - Registration of a designation of origin ‘Feta’ - Action for annulment - Capacity to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 60/76)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicants: Arla Foods AMBA (Viby, Denmark), Løgismose A/S (Broby, Denmark), Nordex Food A/S (Dronninglund, Denmark), Sinai Landmejeri (Broby), Andelsmejeriet Sædager (Hobro, Denmark), Søvind Mejeri (Horsens, Denmark), Steensgaard Herregårdsmejeri (Millinge, Denmark), Mejeriet Grambogård I/S (Tommerup, Denmark) and Kirkeby Cheese Export (Svendborg, Denmark), (represented by G. Lett, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by H. Støvlbæk, J. Iglesias Buhigues and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicants: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by P. Ormond, Agent)

Interveners in support of the applicants:

Intervener: in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by V. Kontolaimos, I. Chalkias and M. Tassopoulou, Agents) and Syndesmos Ellinikon Viomichanion Galaktokomikon Proïonton (SEV-GAP) (represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Intervener: in support of the defendant:

Application for

annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277 p. 10)

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the Commission.

| 3. | The Hellenic Republic, the United Kingdom of Geat Britain and Northern Ireland and Syndesmos Ellinikon Viomichanion Galaktokomikon Proïonton (SEV-GAP) shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Hellenic Republic, the United Kingdom of Geat Britain and Northern Ireland and Syndesmos Ellinikon Viomichanion Galaktokomikon Proïonton (SEV-GAP) shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6498

HAROLD SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EDWARD F. REILLY, JR.; SANDRA HILTON; JEFFREY

S. KOSTBAR; CHARLES LYONS; ALBERTO R.

GONZALES; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; RICHARD HOLT; JOHN

J. LAMANNA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(6:05-cv-03426-HFF)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Harold Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order denying as moot his motion for an unredacted copy of

the record at government expense in his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)

action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Smith v. Reilly, No. 6:05-cv-03426-HFF (D.S.C. Feb. 22,

2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1



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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc. (PNBC) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Tony J. Sorcic, President & Chief Executive Officer of PNBC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of PNBC.




/s/ Tony J. SorcicTony J. SorcicPresident & Chief Executive OfficerMarch 24, 2009






---
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nicholas Konidaris, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Nicholas Konidaris               
|Nicholas Konidaris                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|Dated: August 5, 2008                

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMethod for estimating crack-extension resistance curve from residual strength dataA method is presented for estimating the crack extension resistance curve (R curve) from residual strength (maximum load against initial crack length) data for precracked fracture specimens. The method allows additional information to be inferred from simple test results, and that information is used to estimate the failure loads of more complicated structures. Numerical differentiation of the residual strength data is required, and the problems that it may present are discussed.Document ID19810002909Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsOrange, T. W.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1980Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-1753E-439Accession Number81N11417Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-33Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810002909.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...House of Representatives Vote on a Libyan Interim Government of National Unity

# 									House of Representatives Vote on a Libyan Interim Government of National Unity							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

March 10, 2021

We welcome today’s vote of confidence by the House of Representatives in support of the slate of choices put forward by Interim Prime Minister-designate Abdulhamid Dabaiba for an interim Government of National Unity.  This is a milestone toward the fulfillment of the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum’s Roadmap for an effective and unified interim Government of National Unity. We encourage this new leadership, upon assuming power, to take the necessary steps to ensure free and fair national elections on December 24 as a key step toward finalizing a political solution to end a decade of conflict.  A smooth and orderly transfer of authority to leaders elected by the Libyan people in these elections is critical to furthering Libya’s democratic process.

In addition to ensuring timely national elections, the new interim Government of National Unity will have the responsibility to implement the October 23 ceasefire agreement, provide essential public services, initiate a national program for reconciliation, and address the economic crisis.

In welcoming the vote in support of the interim Government of National Unity, we also acknowledge departing Prime Minister Fayez Sarraj’s key transitional role in bringing Libya to this next stage.  The United States calls on all sides to maintain this positive momentum and to support the full implementation of the Libyan ceasefire agreement, restore full respect for the UN arms embargo, and end foreign interference.  All Libyan and international actors should support these steps, including the immediate removal of all foreign forces and mercenaries.  The United States stands with the Libyan people as they work to establish lasting peace and security throughout their country.

 

Tags

Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization OperationsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Near Eastern AffairsConflictsDemocracyElectionsLibyaOffice of the SpokespersonPeaceThe Secretary of StateSecurity

Back to Top
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3139

To redesignate the United States Post Office building located at 245

Centereach Mall on Middle Country Road in Centereach, New York,

as the ‘‘Rose Y. Caracappa United States Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 1996

Mr. FORBES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To redesignate the United States Post Office building located

at 245 Centereach Mall on Middle Country Road in

Centereach, New York, as the ‘‘Rose Y. Caracappa United States Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

4 The United States Post Office building located at 245

5 Centereach Mall on Middle Country Road in Centereach,

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Rose

7 Y. Caracappa United States Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 3139 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

4 States Post Office building referred to in section 1 shall

5 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Rose Y. Caracappa

6 United States Post Office Building’’.

Æ