alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COTTON AND WOOL OUTLOOK CWS-0399 (PDF)       
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report is published by the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20036-5831.  A summary in ASCII form was
released on April 12, 1999.

Electronic release only; no printed copies are available.

Please note that this publication is in .PDF format and 57.2 KB in size.
Acrobat Reader 3.0 or later is required to view and print this document.
The Adobe Acrobat .PDF format is used to preserve all the layout and
content used in the original publication. To download and get help using
the Adobe Acrobat Reader, please go to:

http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html

For More Information on ERS Publications and Data
*************************************************
Visit the ERS web site at:
   http://www.econ.ag.gov

Other reports are available from the Products and Services
area on the ERS web site from:
   http://www.econ.ag.gov/prodsrvs/periodic.htm

For sales information on ERS publications, go to:
   http://www.econ.ag.gov/prodsrvs/sales.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
END_OF_FILE
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4812 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4812

 To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit any operator of 
  an automated teller machine that displays any paid advertising from 
  imposing any fee on a consumer for the use of that machine, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2000

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit any operator of 
  an automated teller machine that displays any paid advertising from 
  imposing any fee on a consumer for the use of that machine, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Money (ATM) Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USER FEES FOR AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES THAT 
              CARRY PAID ADVERTISING.

      The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating sections 918, 919, 920, and 921 as 
        sections 919, 920, 921, and 922, respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after section 917 the following new 
        section:

``SEC. 918. FEES.

    ``(a) In General.--If an automated teller machine or other cash 
dispensing machine at which a consumer may initiate an electronic fund 
transfer displays any advertising on the screen of such machine, 
whether in the form of a banner or a trailer or in any other format, 
for which the operator of such machine has received any payment or 
other financial benefit, no fee may be imposed on the consumer with 
respect to such transaction by the operator of such machine, whether or 
not the consumer maintains an account with the operator.
    ``(b) Exception for Direct Advertising by the Operator and Public 
Service Announcements.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect 
to--
            ``(1) advertising relating to products or services provided 
        by the operator of an automated teller machine or cash 
        dispensing machine referred to in such subsection or by any 
        affiliate of such operator; or
            ``(2) any public service announcement.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 155.1130 Requirements for prepositioned response equipment. The owner or operator of a tanker subject to this subpart shall provide the following prepositioned response equipment, located within Prince William Sound, in addition to that required by § 155.1035: ( a ) On-water recovery equipment with a minimum effective daily recovery capacity of 30,000 barrels, capable of being on scene within 6 hours of notification of a discharge.
( b ) On-water storage capacity of 100,000 barrels, capable of being on scene within 6 hours of notification of a discharge.
( c ) Additional on-water recovery equipment with a minimum effective daily recovery capacity of 40,000 barrels capable of being on scene within 18 hours of notification of a discharge.
( d ) On-water storage capacity of 300,000 barrels for recovered oily material, capable of being on scene within 24 hours of notification of a discharge.
( e ) On-water oil recovery devices and storage equipment located in communities and at strategic locations.
( f ) For sufficient protection of the environment in the locations identified in § 155.1125(a)(1)(ii)— ( 1 ) Boom appropriate for the specific locations;
( 2 ) Sufficient boats to deploy boom and sorbents;
( 3 ) Sorbents including booms, sweeps, pads, blankets, drums and plastic bags;
( 4 ) Personnel protective clothing and equipment;
( 5 ) Survival equipment;
( 6 ) First aid supplies;
( 7 ) Buckets, shovels, and various other tools;
( 8 ) Decontamination equipment;
( 9 ) Shoreline cleanup equipment;
( 10 ) Mooring equipment;
( 11 ) Anchored buoys at appropriate locations to facilitate the positioning of defensive boom; and
( 12 ) Other appropriate removal equipment for the protection of the environment as identified by the COTP.
( g ) For each oil-laden tanker, an escorting response vessel which is fitted with skimming and on board storage capabilities practicable for the initial oil recovery planned for a cleanup operation, as identified by the oil spill removal organization.
( h ) Lightering resources required in subpart I of this part capable of arriving on scene within 6 hours of notification of a discharge.
[CGD 91-034, 61 FR 1097, Jan. 12, 1996, as amended by USCG-2009-0416, 74 FR 27441, June 10, 2009]
Editorial Note on Part 159
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 159.129 Safety: Ignition prevention test. ( a ) Components of a device that are a potential ignition source in an explosive atmosphere must pass the test in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section or meet the requirements of paragraph (d) or have a specific warning in the instruction manual required by § 159.57 that the device should not be installed in an explosive atmosphere.
( b ) Components protected by vapor exclusion must be placed in a chamber filled with a rich mixture of gasoline or propane in air with the pressure being varied from 0 to 2 psig once an hour for 8 hours. Vapor readings must be taken in the void being protected and must indicate a leakage less than 20 percent of the lower explosive limit of the mixture in the chamber.
( c ) Components providing ignition protection by means other than vapor exclusion must be fitted with an ignition source, such as a spark plug, and a means of injecting an explosive mixture of gasoline or propane and air into the void that protects the component. Connections must be made so as to minimize any additional volume added to the protected void by the apparatus delivering the explosive mixture. The component must be placed in a chamber filled with an explosive mixture and there must be no ignition of the explosive mixture surrounding the component when the following tests are conducted: ( 1 ) Using any overload protection that is part of the device, the potential ignition source must be operated for one half hour at 110 percent of its rated voltage, one half hour at 50 percent of its rated voltage and one half hour at 100 percent of its rated voltage with the motor or armature locked, if the potential ignition source is a motor or part of a motor's electrical circuit.
( 2 ) With the explosive mixture in the protected void, the test installed ignition source must be activated 50 times.
( 3 ) The tests paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section must be repeated with any plugs removed.
( d ) Components that are certified as being intrinsically safe in accordance with the Instrument Society of America (RP 12.2) or explosion proof in accordance with the Underwriters Laboratories STD 698 in Class I, Group D hazardous locations (46 CFR 111.80-5(a)) need not be subjected to this testing.
Rockingham

No. 7560

#### State of New Hampshire v. Agnes M. Murphy

January 31, 1977

*David H. Souter,*attorney general, and *Richard B. McNamara,*attorney *(Mr. McNamara*orally) for the state.

*Griffin, Harrington, Brigham & Ritzo,*of Portsmouth *(Mr. James E. Ritzo*orally) for the defendant.

Grimes, J.

The question in this case is whether the evidence supports a finding that defendant’s actions constitute disorderly conduct in violation of RSA 644:2. We hold that they do.

Defendant was charged with a violation of RSA 644:2 11(d) in that she did “with the purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof did in a public place, to wit, Exeter Bowling Alleys, engage in a course of abusive or obscene language.” After a trial by the court resulting in a guilty verdict and a fine of $25 suspended, defendant’s exceptions were transferred by *Perkins,*J.

RSA 644:2 II (d) provides in part that: “A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if . . . with a purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof in a public place, he engages in a course of abusive or obscene language or makes obscene gestures. .. .” Defendant does not chai*76lenge the constitutionality of this statute but rather contends that the alleged conduct does not constitute the offense.

Although defendant disputes much of the state’s evidence, the evidence would support a finding of the following facts: On April 18, 1975, defendant, then age 21, was in the Exeter Bowling Lanes in Exeter and had purchased a beer. A detective of the Exeter Police Department and a state liquor store inspector came in to investigate possible violations of the liquor laws. They noticed defendant at the bar and, being of the opinion that she was “very young,” asked for her identification. She showed them an out-of-state driver’s license but the officers could not read it as she held it and asked to examine it more closely. They had shown her their identification but both were in civilian clothes and were using an unmarked car. When defendant refused to hand over the license, she was told that she was suspected of being a minor and that if she did not prove her age, she would have to go with them to the police station. She then said “I’m not going anywhere with you f... ing pigs.” It could be found that she repeated the statement three times and that she yelled, kicked and swore when the officers took her into custody and put her in the police car. In the bar at the time were at least the bartender, another customer and two owners.

Contrary to the argument of the defendant, we. hold that it could be found that defendant engaged in a “course of abusive” language within the meaning of the statute rather than a single outburst. We also hold that it could be found that defendant by her conduct recklessly created a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm within the meaning of the statute.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
#### § 136.205 Compensation allowable.

The amount of compensation allowable is the total of uncompensated reasonable removal costs of actions taken that were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC. Except in exceptional circumstances, removal activities for which costs are being claimed must have been coordinated with the FOSC.

Natural Resources
#### Commonwealth v. Lexington & Eastern Railway Company.

(Decided December 17, 1915.)

Appeal from Lee Circuit Court.

• Appeal and Error — Briefs—Failure to File. — Where appellant has filed no brief specifying the errors for which a reversal is asked, it will be presumed that no errors exist and that the judgment is correct.

' T. C. JOHNSON and M. M. LOGAN,- Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

SAMUEL M. WILSON, BENJ. D. WARFIELD, SAM HURST and G. W. GOURLEY for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

Appellee, Lexington *&*Eastern Railway Company, was indicted under section 772-a, Kentucky Statutes, ■for a failure, on August 21st, 1914, to run and operate a passenger or a mixed train over a-certain portion of its road exceeding five miles in length. On the trial before a jury defendant was acquitted. The Commonwealth appeals.

No brief has been filed for appellant. In the absence of a brief specifying the errors for which a reversal is asked, it will be -presumed that no errors - exist and •that the judgment is correct. Continental Insurance Co. v. Ramsey, 160 Ky., 441; Crawford v. Wiedemann, 158 Ky., 33; Brown v. Daniels, 154 Ky., 267.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-91064) and Registration Statement (Form S-8/S-3 No. 333-56762) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan, 2000 Stock Plan, 2000 Incentive
Stock Plan and 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Opsware Inc. (formerly Loudcloud, Inc.), of our report dated February 26, 2002 (except for the second paragraph of Note 13, as to which the date is June 14, 2002 and except for the last five
paragraphs of Note 13, as to which the date is November 22, 2002), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Opsware Inc., as amended, included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended January 31, 2002, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





/s/    ERNST
& YOUNG LLP





San Jose, California


November 22, 2002
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

January 6, 2010

JOHN LEY

ACTING CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-13048

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 09-20028-CR-JIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SYDNEY CESAIRE-VALERY,

a.k.a. Sidney Cesaire-Valery,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(January 6, 2010)

Before BLACK, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sydney Cesaire-Valery appeals his 46-month sentence following his guilty
plea to illegal reentry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and

(b)(2). Cesaire argues that this sentence is substantively unreasonable because the

district court failed to make a proper assessment in light of the factors listed in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). We find no merit in Cesaire’s argument and affirm the sentence

of the district court.

We review the sentence of the district court for abuse of discretion. Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). Once we conclude that

the district court made no procedural errors, we then consider “the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence,” under the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 51,

128 S. Ct. at 597.

1

Cesaire’s sentence was substantively reasonable. Cesaire argues that his

sentence is unreasonable because the district judge failed to give proper weight and

consideration to: (1) the fact that his purpose for returning to the United States was

to see his son; (2) that he was under the impression that a French judge could give

him permission to return to the United States; and, (3) that he did not have specific

intent to violate any federal statutes. However, the district judge, in pronouncing

sentence, specifically referred to “your guideline range and the statutory factors.”

Doc. 44 at 7 (emphasis added). This statement is adequate to establish the district

Cesaire did not raise the issue of procedural reasonableness, so we will not consider that 1

issue.

2
court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d

1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). As such, we find that the sentence of the district

court was procedurally and substantively reasonable.

AFFIRMED.

3
###### Editorial Note on Part 165

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

#### § 165.1107 San Diego Bay, California.

(a) *Location.* The area encompassed by the following geographic coordinates is a regulated navigation area:

| 32°41′24.6′′ N | 117°14′21.9′′ W |
| --- | --- |
| 32°41′34.2′′ N | 117°13′58.5′′ W |
| 32°41′34.2′′ N | 117°13′37.2′′ W |
| Thence south along the shoreline to |
| 32°41′11.2′′ N | 117°13′31.3′′ W |
| 32°41′11.2′′ N | 117°13′58.5′′ W |
| Thence north along the shoreline to the point of origin. |

Datum: NAD 1983.

(b) *Regulations.*

(1) During submarine docking/undocking operations at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base on Ballast Point, San Diego Bay, California, mariners transiting within the regulated navigation area shall proceed at a speed that generates no wake from their vessel.

(2) The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and if time permits a Local Notice to Mariners, to inform the maritime community of the dates and times of the submarine docking/undocking operations covered by paragraph (b)(1).

(3) The master and/or operator of a vessel within the regulated navigation area shall comply with any other orders or directions issued by the Coast Guard as required for the safety of the submarine docking/undocking operations covered by paragraph (b)(1).

[CGD11-90-07, 56 FR 14645, Apr. 11, 1991; 56 FR 40360, Aug. 14, 1991, as amended by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35533, June 30, 1998. Redesignated by USCG-2001-9286, 66 FR 33642, June 25, 2001]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-22897-CV-WILLIAMS

RYAN BOWERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRADING CARD WORLD LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez’s

Report and Recommendation (DE 16) (“Report”) on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Default 

Judgment (DE 13) (“Motion”). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Sanchez recommends 

that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion. (DE 16 at 11–12.) No Party 

filed objections to the Report and the time to file objections has passed.

1

Upon an independent review of the Report, the record, and applicable case law, it 

is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. The Report (DE 16) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion (DE 13) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

3. The Court will separately enter an order of final default judgment.

1 On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of No Objection, notifying the Court that he 

“does not object to the Report and Recommendations for Plaintiff’s Motion for Final 

Default Judgment issued by Judge Sanchez[.]” (DE 17.)

Case 1:22-cv-22897-KMW Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2023 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 10th day of August, 

2023.

Case 1:22-cv-22897-KMW Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2023 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm’s Consent

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statement of Advaxis, Inc. (a development stage company) on Form S-8 ****(File No. 333-130080) of ourreport which includes an explanatory paragraph as the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, dated February 13,2013, with respect to our audit of the financial statements of Advaxis, Inc. (a development stage company) as of October 31, 2012and for the year ended October 31, 2012 and the cumulative period from March 1, 2002 (inception) to October 31, 2012, which reportis included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advaxis, Inc. (a development stage company) for the year ended October 31, 2012.

 

/s/ Marcum llp

 

Marcum llp

New York, New York

February 13, 2013
§ 3.35-15 Sector Charleston Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone; Marine Safety Unit Savannah. Sector Charleston's office is located in Charleston, SC. A subordinate unit, Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Savannah, is located in Savannah, GA. ( a ) Sector Charleston's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone start at the intersection of the North Carolina-South Carolina boundaries and the sea at latitude 33°51′04′′ N, longitude 78°32′28′′ W, proceeding west along the North Carolina-South Carolina boundary to the intersection of the North Carolina-South Carolina-Georgia boundaries; thence south along the South Carolina-Georgia boundary to the intersection with the Federal dam at the southern end of Hartwell Reservoir at latitude 34°21′30′′ N, longitude 82°49′15′′ W; thence south along the eastern bank and then east along the northern bank of the Savannah River to the sea at latitude 32°02′23′′ N, longitude 80°53′06′′ W, near the eastern tip of Oyster Bed Island; thence east on a line bearing 084° T to latitude 32°03′00′′ N, longitude 80°45′00′′ W; thence southeast on a line bearing 122° T to latitude 30°50′00′′ N, longitude 78°35′00′′ W; thence east to the outermost extent of the EEZ at latitude 30°50′00′′ N, longitude 76°09′54′′ W; thence northeast along the outermost extent of the EEZ to latitude 31°42′32′′ N, longitude 74°29′53′′ W; thence northwest to the point of origin; and in addition, all the area described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The boundaries of the MSU Savannah Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones start near the eastern tip of Oyster Bed Island at latitude 32°02′23′′ N, longitude 80°53′06′′ W, proceeding west along the northern bank and then north along the eastern bank of the Savannah River to the intersection of the South Carolina-Georgia boundary with the Federal dam at the southern end of Hartwell Reservoir, at latitude 34°21′30′′ N, longitude 82°49′15′′ W; thence north along the South Carolina-Georgia boundary to the intersection of the North Carolina-South Carolina-Georgia boundaries; thence west along the Georgia-North Carolina boundary and continuing west along the Georgia-Tennessee boundary to the intersection of the Georgia-Tennessee-Alabama boundaries; thence south along the Georgia-Alabama boundary to latitude 32°53′00′′ N; thence southeast to the eastern bank of the Flint River at latitude 32°20′00′′ N; thence south along the eastern bank of the Flint River and continuing south along the eastern shore of Seminole Lake to latitude 30°45′57′′ N, longitude 84°45′00′′ W; thence south along longitude 84°45′00′′ W to the Florida boundary; thence east along the Florida-Georgia boundary to longitude 82°15′00′′ W; thence north to latitude 30°50′00′′ N, longitude 82°15′00′′ W; thence east to the outermost extent of the EEZ at latitude 30°50′00′′ N, longitude 76°09′54′′ W; thence northwest to latitude 32°03′06′′ N, longitude 80°45′00′′ W; thence southwest to the point of origin. The boundary includes all the waters of the Savannah River including adjacent waterfront facilities in South Carolina.
[USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36321, July 2, 2007]