alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2802

___________

Public School Retirement System of *

Missouri, *

*

Interpleader Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

United States of America; John J. *

Sanderson, *

*

Interested Parties. *

________ *

* Appeal from the United States

John J. Sanderson, * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Appellant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

v. *

*

United States of America, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 8, 2006

Filed: August 16, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

John J. Sanderson appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal of his

counterclaims against the United States in this interpleader action filed by the Public

School Retirement System of Missouri. The government has filed a motion for

sanctions to partially cover its expenses in defending this suit.

After de novo review, see LeMay v. U.S. Postal Svc., 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th

Cir. 2006), we conclude the dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the

district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Regarding the request for sanctions, we may award “just damages” and single

or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912;

Fed. R. App. P. 38. In this case, we find that Sanderson has filed a frivolous appeal

raising tax-protester arguments of the kind that he unsuccessfully raised below. In

these circumstances, we conclude that sanctions are appropriate. See United States

v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256-57 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (when appellant

brought frivolous appeal based on tax-protester argument, court granted government’s

motion for sanctions).

Accordingly, we award the government $3,000 in damages.

______________________________
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2000 P
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2000 P
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2000 P
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2000 P
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2000 P
EXHIBIT 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.

American Express Credit Account Master Trust

Reporting Period January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (TRS), as Servicer pursuant to the
Third Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 20, 2016 (as so amended and restated and as otherwise amended from time to time, the Agreement), among American Express Receivables Financing Corporation
III LLC and American Express Receivables Financing Corporation IV LLC, as transferors, TRS, as servicer (in such capacity, the Servicer), and The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee and securities intermediary (the Trustee),
as acknowledged and accepted by American Express Receivables Financing Corporation II, as a transferor prior to July 20, 2016, does hereby certify that:



|1. | TRS is Servicer under the Agreement.
|-- | ------------------------------------



|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | A review of the Servicers activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 16th day of March, 2018



|                                                       |  |               
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------
|AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.
|                                                       | 
|By:                                                    |  | /s/ J J Anand 
|Name:                                                  |  | J J Anand     
|Title:                                                 |  | Vice President
#### § 102-37.410 What must a SASP do if a donee fails to maintain its eligibility status?

If you determine that a donee has failed to maintain its eligibility status, you must terminate distribution of property to that donee, recover any usable property still under Federal restriction (as outlined in § 102-37.465), and take any other required compliance actions.
9:22-cv-81881-AHS

Dec 2, 2022 s/ R. Bissainthe

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 1 of 1
§ 181.31 Manufacturer identification code assignment. ( a ) Each person required by § 181.23(a) of this part to affix hull identifications numbers must request a manufacturer identification code in writing from the Commandant (CG-BSX-23), Attn: Recreational Boating Product Assurance Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7501. The request must indicate the manufacturer's name and U.S. address along with the general types and lengths of boats that will be manufactured.
( b ) For boats manufactured outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, a U.S. importer must obtain a manufacturer identification code as required by paragraph (a) of this section. The request must indicate the importer's name and U.S. address along with a list of the manufacturers, their addresses, and the general types and sizes of boats that will be imported. If a nation has a hull identification number system which has been accepted by the Coast Guard for the purpose of importing boats, it may be used by the importer instead of the one specified within this subpart. To request a list of those nations having such a numbering system, write to the Commandant (CG-BSX-23), Attn: Recreational Boating Product Assurance Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7501.
[USCG-2003-14963, 77 FR 18703, Mar. 28, 2012, as amended by USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38449, July 7, 2014]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23074-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

for himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER RESCHEDULING MEDIATION

The mediation conference in this case shall be held on February 8, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

with Laurie L. Riemer via Zoom video conference. On or before February 13, 2024, the parties

shall file a mediation report indicating whether all required parties participated in the mediation. 

The report shall also indicate whether the case settled (in full or in part), the mediation was

continued with the consent of the parties, whether the mediator declared an impasse, and whether 

participation was by video conference or in person. The parties may not reschedule the mediation 

without leave of court.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 6, 2023.

__________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 221 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2023 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32
                        American Airlines, Inc.
                             Certification
       Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                          United States Code)


Pursuant   to  section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act   of   2002
(subsections  (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63  of  title  18,
United  States  Code), each of the undersigned officers  of  American
Airlines,  Inc.,  a Delaware corporation (the Company),  does  hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2004  (the  Form  10-Q)  of  the  Company  fully  complies  with  the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934  and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in  all  material respects, the financial condition  and  results  of
operations of the Company.

Date:  October 21, 2004            /s/ Gerard J. Arpey
                                   Gerard J. Arpey
                                   Chairman, President and Chief
                                   Executive Officer

Date:  October 21, 2004            /s/ James A. Beer
                                   James A. Beer
                                   Senior Vice President and Chief
                                   Financial Officer


The  foregoing  certification is being furnished solely  pursuant  to
section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections  (a)  and
(b)  of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and
is  not  being  filed  as  part of the Form 10-Q  or  as  a  separate
disclosure document.
-cr-06240-WPD Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2001 P
-cr-06240-WPD Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2001 P
-cr-06240-WPD Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2001 P
-cr-06240-WPD Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2001 P
-cr-06240-WPD Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2001 P
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5635 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5635

               To amend the National Labor Relations Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2000

Mr. Hutchinson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To amend the National Labor Relations Act.

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

SECTION 1. PROPERTY ACCESS.

    Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act is amended by 
adding after ``section 7'' the following: ``Provided, That in the case 
of a published, written, or posted no solicitation or no access rule, 
an exception for charitable, eleemosynary, or other beneficent purposes 
shall not be grounds for finding an unfair labor practice''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 118 (Monday, June 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15383]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-851 (Final)]


Synthetic Indigo From China

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject 
investigation, the United States International Trade Commission 
determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports from China of synthetic indigo, 
provided for in subheadings 3204.15.10, 3204.15.40, and 3204.15.80 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been 
found by the Department of Commerce to be sold in the United States at 
less than fair value (LTFV). The Commission further determines that 
critical circumstances exist with regard to imports of the subject 
merchandise.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Sec. 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Thelma J. Askey found that 
critical circumstances do not exist with regard to imports of the 
subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this investigation effective June 30, 
1999 following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and the 
Department of Commerce by Buffalo Color Corporation, Parsippany, NJ, 
and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC. The final phase of 
the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following 
notification of a preliminary determination by the Department of 
Commerce that imports of synthetic indigo from China were being sold at 
LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's investigation 
and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by 
posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the 
notice in the Federal Register of December 30, 1999 (64 FR 73581). The 
hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2000, and all persons who 
requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by 
counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation 
to the Secretary of Commerce on June 12, 2000. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3310 (June 2000), 
entitled Synthetic Indigo from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-851 
(Final).

    By order of the Commission.
    Issued: June 13, 2000.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15383 Filed 6-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Atm spheric Pollution Research www.atmospolres.com

S1

SUPPORTING MATERIAL

Diesel particulate matter emission factors and air quality 

implications from in-service rail in Washington State, USA 

Daniel A. Jaffe 1,2, Greg Hof 1, Sofya Malashanka 1,2, Justin Putz 1, Jeffrey Thayer 2, Juliane L. Fry 3,

Benjamin Ayres 3 and Jeffrey R. Pierce 4

1

University of Washington‐Bothell, School of STEM, Bothell, WA USA 2

University of Washington‐Seattle, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Seattle, WA USA 3

Reed College, Department of Chemistry, Reed College, Portland, OR USA 4

Colorado State University, Department of Atmospheric Science, Fort Collins, CO USA

Content

Figure S1. BC emission factors calculated for each train event (dots) show substantial variation, but the mean value of 0.66

g/kg is similar to a recent study on diesel truck engines (0.54 g/kg, horizontal line, Dallmann, et al., 2012).

Figure S2. Daily average PM2.5 for four sites in the Seattle metropolitan region (see Figure 1 for locations). During this time

period the average concentrations for the Duwamish, Blue Ridge, Beacon Hill and Lynnwood sites were 11.1, 11.0, 6.6 and

4.3 μg/m3

, respectively.

Table S1. Fraction of total suspended particulate (TSP) mass in the PM1 and PM2.5 size ranges, for each train type. Data is for

the Blue Ridge site only

Corresponding author: Daniel A. Jaffe, Tel.: 425‐352‐5357, Fax: 425‐352‐5335, e‐mail: djaffe@u.washington.edu
Atm spheric Pollution Research www.atmospolres.com

S2

Figure S1. BC emission factors calculated for each train event (dots) show substantial variation, but the mean value of 0.66

g/kg is similar to a recent study on diesel truck engines (0.54 g/kg, horizontal line, Dallmann, et al., 2012).

Figure S2. Daily average PM2.5 for four sites in the Seattle metropolitan region (see Figure 1 for locations). During this time

period the average concentrations for the Duwamish, Blue Ridge, Beacon Hill and Lynnwood sites were 11.1, 11.0, 6.6 and

4.3 μg/m3

, respectively.
Atm spheric Pollution Research www.atmospolres.com

S3

Table S1. Fraction of total suspended particulate (TSP) mass in the PM1 and PM2.5 size ranges, for each train type. Data is for

the Blue Ridge site only

Freight Coal Passenger

Count 296 49 104

PM1/TSP Average 0.87 0.77 0.88

PM1/TSP Standard Deviation 0.14 0.19 0.12

PM2.5/TSP Average 0.90 0.81 0.90

PM2.5/TSP Standard Deviation 0.13 0.17 0.11
#### § 102-38.155 What is an offer to sell?

An offer to sell is a notice listing the terms and conditions for bidding on an upcoming sale of personal property, where prospective purchasers are advised of the requirements for a responsive bid and the contractual obligations once a bid is accepted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-MJ-8332-BER

IN RE SEALED SEARCH WARRANT 

________________________________/

NOTICE IN RESPONSE TO DOCKET ENTRY 79

In response to the Court’s order (DE79) directing the government to state its position 

on unsealing miscellaneous filings in this matter (DE15, DE16, DE55, and DE56), the United 

States notifies the Court that it has no objection to the unsealing of those documents.

Date: August 22, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s Juan Antonio Gonzalez 

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

Florida Bar No. 897388

99 NE 4th Street, 8th Floor

Miami, Fl 33132

Tel: 305-961-9001

Email: juan.antonio.gonzalez@usdoj.gov

/s Jay I. Bratt

JAY I. BRATT

CHIEF

Counterintelligence and Export Control Section

National Security Division

Illinois Bar No. 6187361

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

Tel: 202.233.0986

Email: jay.bratt2@usdoj.gov

Case 9:22-mj-08332-BER Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 1 of 2
Certificate of Service

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I caused the attached document to be electronically 

transmitted to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing. 

/s Juan Antonio Gonzalez 

Juan Antonio Gonzalez

United States Attorney

Case 9:22-mj-08332-BER Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 2 of 2
|   | 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 theCompany. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      December 23, 2010 | /s/ Dirk L. Benschop                                                                   |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Dirk      L. Benschop, Director, Chief Executive Officer, President and      Treasurer |

| Date:      December 23, 2010 | /s/ Leslie G. Pettitt                                                                           |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Leslie      G. Pettitt, Director, Chief Financial Officer and principal accounting      officer |

----
#### § 102-117.230 Must I compare costs between a contract or a rate tender and the commuted rate system before choosing which method to use?

Yes, you must compare the cost between a contract or a rate tender, and the commuted rate system before you make a decision.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 9:22-cv-81681-WPD

ALEJANDRO GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PARAMOUNT RECOVERY SYSTEMS, L.P.,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER ON NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT;

RESETTING CALENDAR CALL AND TRIAL 

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Notice of Settlement [DE 17], filed herein on 

November 16, 2023. The parties request sixty days to file the appropriate dismissal papers. See 

id. In light of the settlement, the Court will continue the January 5, 2024 calendar call and the 

January 8, 2024 trial to provide the parties time to file appropriate dismissal papers.1

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The parties shall file the appropriate dismissal papers on or before January 16, 2024.

2. Calendar call is RESET for Friday, January 26, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. 

3. The trial is RESET to commence on Monday, January 29, 2024. 

1 If the parties expect the Court to retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement, the stipulation of 

dismissal must include language conditioning the stipulation on the Court retaining jurisdiction to 

enforce the settlement agreement. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F. 3d 1272, 1280 

(11th Cir. 2012).

Case 9:22-cv-81681-WPD Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 16th day of November, 2023.

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Case 9:22-cv-81681-WPD Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 102-3.190 What portions of this part are severable?

All provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is GSA's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.