alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38594-38595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15598]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The ATM Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 10, 2000, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The ATM Forum has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Ellacoya Networks, 
Inc., Merrimack, NH; NorthPoint Communications, San Frncisco, CA; Calix 
Networks, Petaluma, CA; Jetstream Communications, Inc., Los Gatos, CA; 
Onex Communications Corporation, Bedford, MA; Oresis Communications, 
Inc., Portland, OR; and Westwave Communications, Santa Rosa, CA have 
been added as parties to this venture. The following members have 
changed their names: Omnia Communications, Inc. to Ciena Corporation, 
Marlboro, MA; Future Communications Software to Future Software Private 
Ltd., Nandanam, Madras, India; Mitel Corporation to Mitel 
Semiconductor, Kanata, Ontario, Canada; Broadband Technologies, Inc. to 
Pliant Systems Inc., Durham, NC; Telefonica I+D to Telefonica de 
Espana, Madrid, Spain. Also, the following four auditing members have 
upgraded to principal members: ADTRAN, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Altera 
Corporation, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom; ANDA 
Networks, Inc., Santa Clara, CA; and Efficient Networks, Dallas, TX.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project.

[[Page 38595]]

Membership in this group research project remains open, and The ATM 
Forum intends to file additional written notification disclosing all 
changes in membership.
    On April 19, 1993, The ATM Forum filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on June 2, 1993 (58 FR 31415).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 12, 
1999. A notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-15598 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
536 P.2d 1119

#### STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Vernon Joseph BOGAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11547.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June 16, 1975.

William H. Mulberry, Coeur d’Alene, for defendant-appellant.

Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for the crime of grand larceny after appellant, Vernon Joseph Bogar, entered a plea of guilty. The basic issue on appeal is whether the guilty plea was entered voluntarily. The record discloses that at the time appellant entered his guilty plea, counsel was present and appellant was cognizant of the circumstances and consequences of his plea.1

Judgment affirmed.

1

. *See*State v. Turner, 95 Idaho to 206, 506 P.2d 103 (1973).
<PAGE> 1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Household Home Equity Loan Trust 1999-1
<S>                                     <C>

Original Principal Class A       431,920,000.00
   Class A-1                     237,000,000.00
   Class A-2                      62,000,000.00
   Class A-3                      90,000,000.00
   Class A-4                      42,920,000.00
Number of Class A Bonds              431,920.00
(000's)
   Class A-1                         237,000.00
   Class A-2                          62,000.00
   Class A-3                          90,000.00
   Class A-4                          42,920.00
Original Principal Class M        68,470,000.00
   Class M-1                      35,550,000.00
   Class M-2                      32,920,000.00
Number of Class M Bond                68,470.00
(000's)
   Class M-1                          35,550.00
   Class M-2                          32,920.00

Distribution Date
Days
                                                1999 Totals
CLASS A
Principal Distribution - A-1                        13,300,734.40
Class A-1 Interest                                   1,348,925.00
Distribution

Principal Distribution - A-2                                 0.00
Class A-2 Interest                                     359,083.33
Distribution

Principal Distribution -A-3                                  0.00
Class A-3 Interest                                     540,750.00
Distribution

Principal Distribution - A-4                                 0.00
Class A-4 Interest                                     257,877.67
Distribution



CLASS M
Principal Distribution - M-1                                 0.00
Interest Distribution - M-1                            231,963.75

Principal Distribution - M-2                                 0.00
Interest Distribution - M-2                            243,333.67


</TABLE>
AUSTUU. -msxaus
October 22, 1948

Hon. E. Ii. Poteet 3..Act,lng President Texas Colleges of Arts &Industries Kingsville, Texas Attention: Hon. JamesH. Calvin

Opinion No. 

### V-705.

Dear Sir: 

### Re: The authority of the Hoard of Directors of Texas College ‘of Arts and Industries to permit an employee to take a State.. automobile Into Mexico on official business.

Your request for an opinion reads as follows: *m thh ~O&%tk

& **Directors** of the Texas Colleg& of Arts and Industries authorize.~~.;;erhpToyee”..~f:the College to take a state-owned automobile Into Mexico on officlal business?” ,Nelther the current appropr$atlon bill making appropriations to the **Texas** College of Arts and Industries and other educational Institutions for the current biennium (H.B. 246, Acts 50th Leg. ch. 

### 339,p. 

### 6491,nor any general lawwhich we have been able to find, prohibits the use of a state-owned automobile by an officer or employee of an educational Institution whentraveling without the State on institutional business.

Subsectl;n 

### 6 of House Bill 246, amongother things provides: Notravel shall be performed outside of the Stati,‘e;cept upon the written consent of the schoo&‘s board of regents or directors.tl

Therefore, it is the oplnion,of this office that there is no legal objection to an employee of the College using a state&owned automobile on a trip to Mex**ico** on official business for the College, provided he obtains in advance the written consent of the Board of Directors of the College.Hon. E. H. Poteet, Page 2 

### (V-705)

SUMMARY Anemployee of Texas College of Arts &Industries mayuse a State-owned automobile on a trip to Mexico on official business for the College, provided he obtains in advance the written consent of its Board of Directors. Subsection 

### 6of H. B. 

### 246,Acts 

### 1947,50th Legislature, at page 

### 649. Yours very truly ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS

WB:wb 

# BY Bruce W..Bryant Assistant
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 572

To remove any doubt that split-dollar insurance arrangements are an

unwarranted tax avoidance scheme and are prohibited under current law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To remove any doubt that split-dollar insurance arrangements are an unwarranted tax avoidance scheme and

are prohibited under current law.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Charitable Integrity

5 Restoration Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PROHIBITION OF CHARITABLE

7 SPLIT-DOLLAR INSURANCE AND OTHER PER8 SONAL BENEFIT ARRANGEMENTS.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in the Internal Revenue

10 Code of 1986 or in any other provision of law shall be
2

•HR 572 IH

1 construed to permit any deduction under section 170,

2 545(b)(2), 556(b)(2), 642(c), 2055, 2106(a)(2), or 2522

3 of such Code for any transfer of money or property di4 rectly or indirectly to a charitable organization if there is

5 a reasonable expectation that as a consequence of such

6 transfer the organization will directly or indirectly—

7 (1) purchase a life insurance, endowment, or

8 annuity contract benefiting the donor or any des9 ignee of the donor, or

10 (2) engage in any other transaction which pro11 vides a personal benefit directly or indirectly to the

12 donor or any designee of the donor.

13 (b) IMPACT ON EXEMPT STATUS.—Any purchase, or

14 the engaging in any transaction, which results under sub15 section (a) in the disallowance of a deduction shall be

16 treated for purposes of section 501 of the Internal Reve17 nue Code of 1986 as an expenditure which inures to the

18 benefit of a private individual.

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATES.—

20 (1) CONTRIBUTIONS.—Subsection (a) shall

21 apply to all contributions, whether made before, on,

22 or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
3

•HR 572 IH

1 (2) PAYMENTS, ETC.—Subsection (b) shall

2 apply to payments made, and other transactions en3 gaged in, after February 4, 1999.

Æ
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff, COLLECTIVE ACTION 

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC AND 

ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING CONSENT TO JOIN 

(Ashley Hernandez, Michelle Cardenas and Normari Lopez) 

 

Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, notices the Court and all parties of the filing of the Consent to 

Join in these proceedings by Ashley Hernandez, Michelle Cardenas and Normari Lopez.

Dated this 20th day of September 2023. 

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2023 Page 1 of 1
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

The Elie Neufeld, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.

Edward Wolf & Associates, LLC, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-23204-Civ-Scola

Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

Previously, the Court referred Plaintiff The Elie Neufeld, LLC’s motion for 

default judgment (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 14) to United States Magistrate Judge 

Jonathan Goodman for a report and recommendations. (Court’s Ref., ECF No. 

15.) Thereafter, Judge Goodman issued a report, recommending that the Court

deny the motion without prejudice. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 16.) No objections 

have been filed and the time to do so has passed. 

The Court has considered Judge Goodman’s report, the record, and the 

relevant legal authorities and agrees with his findings and conclusions: the 

Plaintiff’s motion, containing no analysis, no law, and no citations to the record, 

is deficient. The Court therefore affirms and adopts Judge Goodman’s report 

and recommendations (ECF No. 16), thus denying the motion without 

prejudice (ECF No. 14). On the other hand, since the Plaintiff has already filed 

an amended motion for default judgment (ECF No. 17), the Court declines to 

instruct the Plaintiff regarding the presentation its motion. Instead, the Court 

assumes the Plaintiff is well aware of Judge Goodman’s admonishments and

forewarns that the Plaintiff’s failure to abide by those instructions may result in 

the denial of its motion or dismissal of its case.

Done and ordered, at Miami, Florida, on January 5, 2023.

_______________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23204-RNS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2023 Page 1 of 1
# (Jor-osr...**~603-** 

# 147fJ'3 Devany, Dennis (OST) From: slashua@aol.com**~e"t~,,,** .,. ." ..8atLlrday, February20,2010 11 :48AM



### .**~:~·T** 

## 0:-**,.,,,,~** : ",. DevanY"Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST)
> 

### Subject: . CAPE'AIR VS COLGAN
IAM HOPING THAT THE COUNTY LEGISLATORS WILL RECONSIDER THEIR DECISI0NTQCHANGEAIRLINES TO BOSTON. CAPE AIR HAS DONE A REMARKABLE JOB OF PROVIDING NECESSARY CONNECTIONS TO THIS DESTINATION. ONCE AGAIN THE IDEA OF IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T TRYTO FIX IT COMES TO MIND. OUR AREA IS COMPETENTLY COVERED BY CAPE AIR AND NO CHANGE IS NECESSARY. THANK YOU FOR ANY INFLUENCE YOU MIGHT HAVE IN SEEING THAT THIS TRAVESTY DOESN'T TAKE PLACE. SANDRA LASHUA. 3712 ROUTE 22 PLATTSBURGH, NY 12901

1
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

** **

**Section 1350 Certification**

** **

**In connection with this annual report of ML Select FuturesI L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”),I, Robert M. Alderman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 31, 2006                           |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |   |
| By                                             |  /s/ ROBERT M.  ALDERMAN |   |
| Robert M. Alderman                             |
| Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager |
| **(Principal Executive Officer)**              |
|                                                |  |  |  |

 

 

----
Affirmed as Modified and Op inion Filed September 21, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-01157-CR CRISTIAN CARLOS TIRADO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-71061-U 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Jus tice Myers, and Justice Stoddar t Opinion by Chief Justice Wright A jury convicted Cristian Carlos Tirado for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the trial court assessed punishment at two years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concl udes the appeal is wholly frivol ous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the r ecord showing why, in effect, t here are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (deter mining whether brief meets requirements of Anders ). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, bu t he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2014) (noting appella nt has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).–2– We have reviewed the reco rd and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s dut y in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not an arguable issue, w e note the trial court’s judg ment incorrectly recites the punishment was assessed by the jury. The record, however, show s appellant elected to have the trial court assess the punishment. Accordingly, on our own mot ion, we modify the section of the judgment entitled “punishment asse ssed by” to show “Court.” TE X. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v.
State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (courts of appeal s have authority to modify a judgment); Estrada v. State , 334 S.W.3d 57, 63–64 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 171157F.U05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
CRISTIAN CARLOS TIRADO, Appellant

No. 05-17-01157-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-71061-U. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Myers and Stodd art participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of t his date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Punishme nt Assessed by” is modified to s how “Court.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment
Judgment entered September 21, 2018.
#### § 102-36.150 For which non-federal activities may we acquire excess personal property?

Under the Property Act you may acquire and furnish excess personal property for use by your non-appropriated fund activities, contractors, cooperatives, and project grantees. You may acquire and furnish excess personal property for use by other eligible recipients only when you have specific statutory authority to do so.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
DUKE-WEEKS REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND SUBSIDIARIES' DECEMBER 31, 1999
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,616)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,394
<PP&E>                                       5,466,970
<DEPRECIATION>                               (254,574)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,487,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          269,959
<BONDS>                                      2,113,476
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,101,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,487,284
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               602,281
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  307,219
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                159,447
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            159,447
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   159,447
<EPS-BASIC>                                    $1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.32


</TABLE>
#### § 102-117.315 Whom must I notify on suspension or debarment of a TSP?

Agencies must report electronically any suspension or debarment actions in accordance with the provisions of 48 CFR 9.404(c).

[75 FR 51394, Aug. 20, 2010, as amended at 87 FR 32323, May 31, 2022]
#### § 55.1 Purpose.

This subpart implements 46 U.S.C. 515, which provides for Coast Guard Child Development Services.
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2000 P
#### § 953.8 Location of hearing.

Unless otherwise ordered by the presiding officer, the hearing shall be held at 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078, on the date set in the notice.

[63 FR 66050, Dec. 1, 1998]
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2878

_____________________________

MARC S. FREY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County.

Michael S. Sharrit, Judge.

October 31, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5503

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery

for veterans in the Staten Island, New York, metropolitan area.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 19, 2000

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a

national cemetery for veterans in the Staten Island, New

York, metropolitan area.

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

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

5 shall establish, in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38,

6 United States Code, a national cemetery in the Staten Is7 land, New York, metropolitan area to serve the needs of

8 veterans and their families.
2

•HR 5503 IH

1 (b) CONSULTATION IN SELECTION OF SITE.—Before

2 selecting the site for the national cemetery established

3 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with—

4 (1) appropriate officials of the State of New

5 York and local officials of the New York City metro6 politan area, and

7 (2) appropriate officials of the United States,

8 including the Administrator of General Services,

9 with respect to land belonging to the United States

10 in that area that would be suitable to establish the

11 national cemetery under subsection (a).

12 (c) REPORT.—As soon as practicable after the date

13 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit

14 to Congress a report on the establishment of the national

15 cemetery under subsection (a). The report shall set forth

16 a schedule for such establishment and an estimate of the

17 costs associated with such establishment.

Æ