alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In Special Term —

Storer, J. presiding.

#### MESSICK & Co. and KY. TRUST Co. BANK *vs.*ROXBURY & WILCOX.

The Court will set aside a default for answer, and allow a meritorious defence to be plead, upon payment of costs by defendant. Notice to the agent, attorney, or other appropriate officer of a banking institution, is notice to the Company.

Motion to set aside default, and for leave to answer.

By the Court.

Storer, J.

Both the above cases are in default for answer, and application is now made for leave to file answers by one of the defendants, alleging a meritorious defence to each suit. It is alleged in the answers, that the defendants on the 10th December 1853 were partners in business; that on that day the co-partnership was dissolved, and the interest of Wilcox, estimated at $5000, was purchased by Roxbury, who gave his ten notes for $500 each, payable at different periods. Two of these notes were transferred, it is stated, to Messick, one of the plaintiffs in the first, for certain purposes which are described in the answer., That they were transferred by Wilcox as collateral security for.a debt due by him only. The principal debt for which they were assigned has already been decreed to be paid to Messick by the Court of Common Pleas in a suit against Wilcox, to which Mes-sick is a party, and that the fund appropriated is sufficient to discharge Messick’s claim. It is also alleged, that Wilcox is indebted to his co-defendant $4475, which is ■set up as a counter claim against the same notes.

*191The answer to the petition of the Kentucky Trust Co. contains the further allegations, that the note set forth in their petition was transferred to the plaintiff by Messick, to whom it was assigned by Wilcox, and that Messick was at the time of the transfer, cashier of the bank. The facts thus stated .exhibit an equitable defence, and, if proved, entitle the defendant Roxbury to relief. There can be no impropriety in permitting the pleas to be filed.

Messick & Co. are charged with the knowledge of Mes-sick at the time of the transfer; and the bank is equally charged with knowledge, as their cashier, it is presumed, received the note in the regular course of business. Notice to the agent, attorney, or other appropriate officer of a banking institution, is notice to the conipany. It is but just that the claims of the parties should be fully examined and adjusted, and while the Court have it in their power to grant relief, they will retain the case until a hearing can be had. Leave is granted to file answers, the defendants first paying all costs, and the plaintiffs, if they desire, having leave to file replications immediately, and set the cases for hearing at the present term.
§ 4.64 Promotion. ( a ) *Scope.* The OCC, under the direction of the Deputy Comptroller for Resource Management, engages in promotion and outreach activities designed to identify MWOBs and IDOBs capable of providing goods and services needed by the OCC, to facilitate interaction between the OCC and the MWOBs and IDOBs community, and to indicate the OCC's commitment to doing business with that community. The Outreach Program is designed to facilitate OCC's participation in business promotion events sponsored by other government agencies and attended by minorities, women and individuals with disabilities. Once the OCC has identified a prospective participant, it will assist the minority- or women-owned business or individual with disabilities-owned business in understanding the OCC's needs and contracting process.
( b ) *Outreach activities.* OCC's Outreach Program includes the following: ( 1 ) Obtaining various lists and directories of MWOBs and IDOBs maintained by government agencies;
( 2 ) Contacting appropriate firms for participation in the OCC's Outreach Program;
( 3 ) Participating in business promotion events comprised of or attended by MWOBs and IDOBs to explain OCC contracting opportunities and to obtain names of potential MWOBs and IDOBs;
( 4 ) Ensuring that the OCC contracting staff understands and actively promotes this Outreach Program; and
( 5 ) Registering MWOBs and IDOBs in the Department of the Treasury's database to facilitate their participation in the competitive procurement process for OCC contracts. This database is used by OCC procurement staff to identify firms to be solicited for OCC procurements.
§ 326.0 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) This part is issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) pursuant to section 3 of the Bank Protection Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1882). It applies to FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions. It requires each institution to adopt appropriate security procedures to discourage robberies, burglaries, and larcenies and to assist in identifying and apprehending persons who commit such acts.
( b ) It is the responsibility of the institution's board of directors to comply with this part and ensure that a written security program for the institution's main office and branches is developed and implemented.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40447 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEAMOND LAROCCA MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-1516-1 Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Deamond Larocca Mitchell appeals his conviction for transporting an alien unlawfully in the United States. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction insofar as it failed to establish that he knowingly transported, or attempted to transport, an undocumented alien. Mitchell did not renewhis motion forjudgment ofacquittal at the close of the evidence. Therefore, our review of the sufficiency issue is “limited to determining whether

. . . the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 7, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40447

2 United States v. Herrera, 313 F.3d 882, 885 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc). The following evidence issufficient tosupport thejury’sdetermination that Mitchell knew his trailer contained illegal aliens: (1) he parked his tractor-trailer in a dimly lit area where 18-wheeler parkingwas prohibited; (2) hedid notsecure his trailer doors when he allegedly went to the bathroom in the theater and then went in search of body lotion; (3) his allegation that he went in search of lotion was not credible given that the shopping mall did not contain a Dollar General Store; (4) he was observed pacing back and forth behind the trailer and talking on a two-way radio that he purportedly f ound in his hotel room; (5) he had to physically enter the trailer around the very time the aliens were being loaded inside to perform the temperature checks; and (6) the three testifying aliens were independently led to his truck within a relatively short period of time, suggesting that Mitchell was knowingly involved in the offense. Consequently, the record contains indirect evidence pointing to his guilty knowledge. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 12.1
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Natuzzi S.p.A.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;
 4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
     5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors
and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
    /s/ Pasquale NatuzziName:
    Pasquale NatuzziTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
# C_2018088EN.01001801.xml

| 8.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/18

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2018/C 88/07)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 15 December 2017 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 81263 |
| Decision No | : | 225/17/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Employee share options |
| Legal basis | : | Norwegian Tax Act section 5-14 |
| Type of measure | : | Aid scheme |
| Objective | : | Aid to micro-enterprises |
| Form of aid | : | Tax exemption |
| Budget | : | NOK 350 million annually |
| Duration | : | 2018-2027 |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Ministry of Finance |
| P.O Box 8008 Dep |
| NO-0030 Oslo |
| Norway |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

15 December 2017

Case No

Case No

:

81263

Decision No

Decision No

:

225/17/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Employee share options

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Norwegian Tax Act section 5-14

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Aid scheme

Objective

Objective

:

Aid to micro-enterprises

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Tax exemption

Budget

Budget

:

NOK 350 million annually

Duration

Duration

:

2018-2027

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Ministry of Finance

P.O Box 8008 Dep

NO-0030 Oslo

Norway

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2015-4213 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2015-CE-022-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
EXHIBIT 32



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 of Naturade, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Bill D. Stewart     
|Bill D. Stewart         
|Chief Executive Officer 
|November 15, 2004       
|                        
|/s/ Stephen M. Kasprisin
|Stephen M. Kasprisin    
|Chief Financial Officer 
|November 15, 2004       



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and it will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff on request.
§ 380.65 Priorities for unsecured claims against a covered broker or dealer. Allowed claims not satisfied pursuant to § 380.63(d), including allowed claims for net equity to the extent not satisfied after final allocation of customer property in accordance with § 380.64(a)(3), shall be paid in accordance with the order of priority set forth in § 380.21 subject to the following adjustments: ( a ) Administrative expenses of SIPC incurred in performing its responsibilities as trustee for a covered broker or dealer shall be included as administrative expenses of the receiver as defined in § 380.22 and shall be paid *pro rata* with such expenses in accordance with § 380.21(c).
( b ) Amounts paid by the Corporation to customers or SIPC shall be included as amounts owed to the United States as defined in § 380.23 and shall be paid *pro rata* with such amounts in accordance with § 380.21(c).
( c ) Amounts advanced by SIPC for the purpose of satisfying customer claims for net equity shall be paid following the payment of all amounts owed to the United States pursuant to § 380.21(a)(3) but prior to the payment of any other class or priority of claims described in § 380.21(a)(4) through (11).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2011 

p0620 

Order 

 

June 28, 2011 

142507 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142507 

 COA: 294149 

Wayne CC: 99-011967-FC 

KENNETH ROY BARTLEY, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

ZAHRA, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
EXHIBIT
      32.2


**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Arrow Resources
      Development, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended on March 31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), I, Peter Frugone, Principal Accounting 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 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/
      Peter
      Frugone


Peter
      Frugone





Date: August
      14, 2007.
# C_2020323EN.01001101.xml

| 1.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/11

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 323/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 26 June 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85 291 |
| Decision No | 066/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title | 2021 extension of the production grant scheme for news and current affairs media |
| Legal basis | Regulation No 332 of 25 March 2014 on production grants for news and current affairs media |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Media diversity and plurality |
| Form of aid | Grants |
| Budget | NOK 370 million |
| Duration | 1.1.2021-31.12.2021 |
| Economic sectors | Media |
| Name and address of the granting authority | The Norwegian Media Authority |
| Nygata 4 |
| N-1607 Fredrikstad |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

26 June 2020

Case No

85 291

Decision No

066/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title

2021 extension of the production grant scheme for news and current affairs media

Legal basis

Regulation No 332 of 25 March 2014 on production grants for news and current affairs media

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Media diversity and plurality

Form of aid

Grants

Budget

NOK 370 million

Duration

1.1.2021-31.12.2021

Economic sectors

Media

Name and address of the granting authority

The Norwegian Media Authority

Nygata 4

N-1607 Fredrikstad

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
July 6, 2015

Mr. Paul Alley

12512 SE 72nd Street

Newcastle, WA 98056

Dear Mr. Alley:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 9, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0938), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 304

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor posthumously 

to Henry Johnson for acts of valor during World War I. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2003

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

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor 

posthumously to Henry Johnson for acts of valor during 

World War I.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR 

4 TO HENRY JOHNSON. 

5 Notwithstanding the time limitations specified in sec6 tion 3744(b) of title 10, United States Code, or any other 

7 time limitation, the President may award the Medal of 

8 Honor posthumously to Henry Johnson (service number 

9 10–33–48), of Albany, New York, for acts of valor during 
2

•HR 304 IH 

1 World War I while a sergeant in the 369th Infantry Regi2 ment of the United States Army.

Æ
§ 366.5 What causes a substantial loss to a federal deposit insurance fund? You cause a substantial loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund (or any predecessor deposit insurance fund) under § 366.3(d) when you, or any person that owns or controls you, or any entity you own or control has: ( a ) An obligation to us that is delinquent for 90 days or more and on which there is an outstanding balance of principal, interest, or a combination thereof of more than $50,000;
( b ) An unpaid final judgment in our favor that is in excess of $50,000, regardless of whether it becomes discharged in whole or in part in a bankruptcy proceeding;
( c ) A deficiency balance following foreclosure of collateral on an obligation owed to us that is in excess of $50,000, regardless of whether it becomes discharged in whole or in part in a bankruptcy proceeding; or
( d ) A loss to us that is in excess of $50,000 that we report on IRS Form 1099-C, Information Reporting for Discharge of Indebtedness.
[67 FR 69991, Nov. 20, 2002, as amended at 71 FR 20527, Apr. 21, 2006]
#### § 313.96 Exclusions from garnishment.

The FDIC will not garnish the wages of a debtor it knows has been involuntarily separated from employment until the debtor has been re-employed continuously for at least 12 months. The debtor has the burden of informing the FDIC of the circumstances surrounding an involuntary separation from employment.