alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of receipt of application.

                    The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,                     *et seq.*).                

Permit No. TE 810834-5

*Applicant:*                     Francesca J. Cuthbert, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MI.                

                    The applicant requests a permit to take (harass) piping plover (                    *Charadrius melodus*) in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin. Activities are proposed for studies to aid in the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.                

Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MI 55111-4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MI 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/713-5343); FAX: (612/713-5292).

Dated: May 11, 2000.

Charles M. Wooley,

Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MI.

[FR Doc. 00-12427 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      13,417,467               6,494,041
<SECURITIES>                               236,014,844             237,645,035
<RECEIVABLES>                               27,000,000              20,000,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           330,180,460             266,165,419
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             330,180,460             266,165,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     225,637,7390             179,017,447
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       104,158                 104,158
<OTHER-SE>                                 104,438,563              87,043,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               330,180,460             266,165,419
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,473,849              12,237,449
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,761,652                 847,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,920,648               5,807,444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,142,589                 602,733
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,142,589                 602,733
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.68                     .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68                     .12


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 32000R0744 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R0744

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 744/2000 of 10 April 2000 rectifying Regulation (EEC) No 32/82 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds for beef and veal **

*
Official Journal L 089 , 11/04/2000 P. 0003 - 0003 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 744/2000

of 10 April 2000

rectifying Regulation (EEC) No 32/82 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds for beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1), and in particular Article 33(12) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 32/82(2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2326/97(3), lays down the conditions for granting special export refunds for beef and veal.

(2) As a result of a drafting error, when Regulation (EEC) No 32/82 was last amended, by Regulation (EC) No 2326/97, the final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) was deleted. That sentence should therefore be reintroduced into the text with effect from 3 December 1997, the date on which Regulation (EC) No 2326/97 entered into force.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following sentence is added to the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 32/82:"However, the competent authorities may authorise the wrapping of the products on condition that the identification mark or seal on each product, referred to in Article 3(2), still remains visible."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 3 December 1997.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 April 2000.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 4, 8.1.1982, p. 11.

(3) OJ L 323, 26.11.1997, p. 1.
Order entered December 9, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00609-CV

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Appellant

V.

VIRGIL HOOD AND LORRIE HOOD, Appellees

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-03619

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ December 7, 2016 second joint motion to extend time for 

filing of briefs and to adopt modified briefing schedule. We GRANT the parties’ motion. 

Appellees’ and cross-appellee’s briefs shall be filed by January 16, 2017. Appellant’s and crossappellants’ reply briefs shall be filed by February 15, 2017. We caution the parties that further 

requests for extensions of time will be disfavored. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
§ 1978.112 Judicial review. ( a ) Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the person resided on the date of the violation.
( b ) A final order is not subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
( c ) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case, including the record of proceedings before the ALJ, will be transmitted by the ARB or the ALJ, as the case may be, to the appropriate court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of such court.
[77 FR 44134, July 27, 2012, as amended at 85 FR 30620, May 20, 2020]
#### Hecox *vs.*Ellis.

ALBANY,

Dec. 1838.

Where, after notice of trial, the defendant serves a relicta and cognovit, with a clause attached that judgment shall not be entered thereon until the term succeeding the circuit, and the plaintiff proceeds and takes an inquest, he is not entitled in the taxation of costs to any allowance for services performed subsequent to the cognovit, in ascertaining the amount of the recovery.

Retaxation of costs. After the cause was noticed for trial, the defendant served a *relicta*and *cognovit,*with a clause attached that judgment should not be entered thereon until the term succeeding the circuit. The plaintiff disregarded the *relicta*and *cognovit,*and took an inquest at the circuit; and in his bill of costs, charged the defendant with the costs of the circuit, which were allowed to him by the taxing officer. The defendant appealed from the taxation, and a relaxation was ordered : *the presiding judge*observing, that for costs accrued anterior to the giving of the *relicta*and *cognovit,*the plaintiff was entitled to an allowance ; but as the *cognovit*fixed the amount due, there was no necessity for further proceedings to ascertain that amount; nor was there any reason why the defendant should be charged with the expense of such proceedings. The clause attached to the *cognovit,*deprived the plaintiff of no rights,- as even after the inquest he could not enter judgment until the succeeding term.*

*

 Decided 4th March, 1836. This case overrules *Leavitt*v. *Woods,*10 Wendell, 558.

In suits and proceedings upon writs of mandamus, it is not the practice of the court, upon awarding a peremptory mandamus, to grant costs against the judges of subordinate courts, or other public officers entrusted with the dis. charge of judicial duties.

From the report of the case of *The People, ex rel. Fisher,*v. *The N. Y. Common Pleas,*lately published in 18 Wendell, *158534, although decided as long since as April, 1836, it might supposed that it is the practice of the court to award costs against the judges of subordinate courts on the granting of a peremptory mandamus. Such, however, is not the practice of the court. Costs were awarded in that case ; but it is doubted whether, in a single instance, since the decision of that case, costs have been awarded against judges of subordinate courts, or against other public officers entrusted with the discharge of judicial duties, on the granting of a mandamus. The awarding of costs in suits and proceedings upon writs of mandamus is by statute submitted to the *discretion*of the court. Statutes of 1833, ch. 271, § 6. 2 R. S. 514, § 42, 2d ed. Costs frequently are awarded on granting a peremptory mandamus, but in such cases they are given generally; to be collected of the *parties,*the *actors*in the suit or proceeding *against whom*is decided the matter in respect to which the writ is granted.
<PAGE>25
Exhibit 32 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Mary D. Cohron, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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


By:  /s/Mary D. Cohron
        Mary D. Cohron
     Chief Executive Officer



Date:  May 14, 2004

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Bill Wright, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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





By:  /s/ Bill D. Wright
         Bill D. Wright
     Chief Financial Officer


Date: May 14, 2004

                                                25
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 23.01

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated January 26, 2000 (except with respect to the
matters discussed in Note 22, as to which the date is March 3, 2000) included
in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement
No. 333-43985 and Restoration Statement No. 333-88673 relating to the
Company's Savings Plan and the 401(K) Savings Plan for Employees of the
Louisville Gas and Electric Company who are represented by Local 2100 of IBEW
and the WKE Corp. Bargaining Employees' Savings Plan; Post-Effective
Amendment No. One to Registration Statement No. 33-56942 and Post-Effective
Amendment No.1-C to Registration Statement No. 33-33687 relating to the
Automatic Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan of the Company;
Registration Statement No. 333-05457 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 2-C to
Registration Statement No. 33-33687 relating to the Employee Common Stock
Purchase Plan of the Company; Registration No. 333-05459 and Post-Effective
Amendment No. Two to Registration Statement No. 33-38557 and Registration
Statement No. 333-88653 relating to the Omnibus Long-Term Incentive Plan of
the Company; Post-Effective Amendment No. One to Registration Statement No.
33-56525 relating to the Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors of the
Company; and Post-Effective Amendment No. One to Registration Statement No.
33-60765 relating to the Deferred Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee
Directors of the Company.


                                               /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                               ---------------------------
                                                Arthur Andersen LLP

Louisville, Kentucky
March 23, 2000
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
MOAMM AR BADAWI DOK HAN, etal., P e ti ti one r s, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -0 98 7 ( JD B) GEORG E W. BUSH , et al., Re spo nde nt s.
OR DE R Upon consider ation of [106] petitioner' s motion t o compel produc tion of the dec lassified fac tual return, [110] respondents' opposition t here to, and the entire rec ord her ein, it is hereby OR DE RE D that responde nts shall produce the decla ssified retur n to petitioner' s counsel by not later tha n April 22, 2009. Althoug h the re turn is not due until April 24, 2009 under § I .A of the Ca se Mana g e me nt O rd e r, re sp on de nts re c og nize that pe tit ion e r' s c ouns e l, K ri sti ne Hu sk e y , mu st be able to discuss the decla ssified retur n with petitioner when Ms. Huske y meets with him on Ap ri l 23 , 2 00 9. B ut r e sp on de nts ' pr op os a l - - t hat th e de c la ssi fi e d r e tur

n b e pr od uc e d o n th e date of her meeting-- doe s litt le to abate that conce rn bec ause it does not provide Ms. Huskey with an op po rt un ity to r e vie w the de c la ssi fi e d r e tur n b e fo re me e tin g wi th p e tit ion e r. Pr od uc tio n o n Apr il 22, 2009, howeve r, will g ive Ms. Huskey that opportunity

without overly

burdeningresponde nts. In p ro du c ingthe de c la ssi fi e d r e tur n, re sp on de nts sh a ll c oo rd inate wi th M s. Hu sk e y to t ake int o
a c c o un th e r

tr av e l s c h e d

u l e t o G u an t an am o B ay. SO ORDERED.
/s/ JohnD. B a te s J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge Date: Apr il 15, 2009
#### § 102.43 Continuance and adjournment.

In the Administrative Law Judge's discretion, the hearing may be continued from day to day, or adjourned to a later date or to a different place, by announcement at the hearing by the Administrative Law Judge, or by other appropriate notice.
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.1420 Signals—radio, telephone or other electronic transmission of signals. ( a ) The device(s) used to transmit signals must be tested on site before beginning operations to ensure that the signal transmission is effective, clear, and reliable.
( b ) Signal transmission must be through a dedicated channel, except: ( 1 ) Multiple cranes/derricks and one or more signal persons may share a dedicated channel for the purpose of coordinating operations.
( 2 ) Where a crane is being operated on or adjacent to railroad tracks, and the actions of the crane operator need to be coordinated with the movement of other equipment or trains on the same or adjacent tracks.
( c ) The operator's reception of signals must be by a hands-free system.
#### Betsey Friedman, Def’t, *v.*Israel H. Eisenberg, Pl’ff.

*(City Court of New York,*

*Special Term,*

*Filed March, 1889.)*

Costs—Code Crv. Peo., § 3328—When plaintive entitled to..

Where a plaintiff sued for $475, and the defendant interposed a counter, claim for $146, and the plaintiff recovered a verdict for the difference between these two amounts: *Held,*that the plaintiff was entitled to costs.

Appeal from clerk’s taxation of costs.

*H. Fox,*for pl’ff; *C. Meyers,*for def’t.

MoAdam, Ch. J.

The plaintiff sued for $475. The defendant admitted the debt and pleaded a counterclaim of $146, the existence of which was disputed by the plaintiff. On the trial the jury allowed the counterclaim, and gave the plaintiff a verdict for the difference between it and the claim. The clerk taxed a full bill of costs in favor of the plaintiff, under defendant’s objection, and refused to tax the defendant’s bill, which claimed costs from the time the answer was served. The clerk was right. Tlie counterclaim was used substantially as a payment *pro tanto,*and if the defendant intended to stop the running of costs, he should have served an offer to allow judgment under section 738 of the Code. The plaintiff did not apply for a severance of the admitted part of the claim (Code, § 511), and what might have resulted if he had, need not be considered now. Both parties went to trial on the pleadings as originally framed, and it is nothing inore nor- less than a case where the plaintiff sued on contract, and recovered more than fifty dollars, and became entitled as of course to a full bill of costs. Code, § 3238. It does not fall under any of the exceptions to this rule. Taxation affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001072914
<NAME>                        FIN SPORTS U.S.A., INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         701
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               701
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,873
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,083
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,225)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   701
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (807)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (807)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)




</TABLE>