alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 31, 20115

NO. 03-15-00550-CV

In re Estate of Miguel Alonso Hernandez, Deceased

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on October 22, 2003. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellants shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
No. 61513.

#### John J. Ryan & Sons, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 292852-K, etc. (New York).

*431Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 267, C. D. 1834), the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, assessing duty upon the basis of the unit appraised value per conditioned pound or kilo, multiplied by the total number of conditioned pounds or kilos, as set forth in the invoices.
- i - 

House Engrossed

State of Arizona 

House of Representatives 

Forty-ninth Legislature 

Second Regular Session 

2010 

CHAPTER 42 

HOUSE BILL 2033 

AN ACT 

AMENDING LAWS 2008, CHAPTER 64, SECTION 2; RELATING TO VEHICLE EMISSIONS 

TESTING. 

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) 
H.B. 2033 

 - 1 - 

1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: 

2 Section 1. Laws 2008, chapter 64, section 2 is amended to read: 

3 Sec. 2. Conditional enactment; notice

4 A. Section 49-542, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act

5 LAWS 2008, CHAPTER 64, SECTION 1, does not become effective unless on or 

6 before July 1, 2010 2012 the United States environmental protection agency 

7 issues a vehicle emissions testing exemption for motorcycles in area A for 

8 purposes of the state implementation or maintenance plan for air quality. 

9 B. The director of the department of environmental quality shall 

10 promptly notify in writing the director of the Arizona legislative council of 

11 the date on which the condition prescribed in subsection A of this section is 

12 met or if the condition is not met. 

13 Sec. 2. Emergency

14 This act is an emergency measure that is necessary to preserve the 

15 public peace, health or safety and is operative immediately as provided by 

16 law. 

APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR APRIL 14, 2010. 

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE APRIL 14, 2010.
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 3211-010]
 On July 31, 2020, the Power Authority of the State of New York (NYPA) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the Hinckley (Gregory B. Jarvis) Hydroelectric Project No. 3211 (Jarvis Project). On June 27, 2022, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to prepare a draft and final Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the effects of relicensing the Jarvis Project. The notice of intent included a schedule for preparing a draft and final EA. On September 6, 2023, Commission staff issued the draft EA. By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural schedule for completing a final EA. The revised schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone
Target dateIssue Final EA
March 2024.
 Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Andy Bernick at (202) 502-8660, or by email at 
                    *andrew.bernick@ferc.gov.* Dated: September 21, 2023. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2023-21110 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 68136.

#### Unicord, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/6428, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chord organs and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Excelsior Accordions, Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 148, C.D. 2328), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: davidbrandts@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:16:59 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

David Brandts

Cincinnati, OH 45240
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CITIZENS SOUTH DAKOTA N.A. (AT&T),

as trustee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(IRS), and ROES and DOES i THROUGH cm,

INCLUSIVE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARBARA JOAN; KENASTON,

Defendant.

Case No. MS05-5035FDB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendant Kenaston purports to remove a matter from the Kitsap County Superior Court,

alleging “complete diversity between the parties.” Kenaston refers to a summary judgment motion

brought by Plaintiff Citibank South Dakota, N.A. against Joan Kenaston in a Kitsap County case

wherein Citibank is Plaintiff and Joan Kenaston is Defendant. There are other documents attached

with other case headings. 

It is not clear what case Kenaston purports to remove, and, therefore, it cannot be

determined whether removal was timely nor can any of the other requirements for assessing whether

an action was properly removed be addressed. This case appears to be a different case from those

referenced in the attached documents. This method of filing a case is improper under the Federal

Case 3:05-mc-05035-FDB Document 5 Filed 11/10/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

Rules of Civil Procedure, especially, Rule 8. Moreover, Kenaston has improperly categorized this as

a miscellaneous case and has failed to pay the filing fee for a civil action. Neither the basis for this

Court’s jurisdiction nor the nature of the claim can be discerned from the documents filed. 

Defendant appears to be contesting matters pending in Kitsap County Superior Court. Kenaston will

be left to her remedy therein, as this matter must be dismissed for the above-referenced deficiencies.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: This cause of action is DISMISSED. 

DATED this 10th day of November, 2005.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-mc-05035-FDB Document 5 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2
From: Robert Hamilton

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:35:35 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Robert Hamilton
Green Valley, Arizona
Exhibit 99.1





The First Bancorp Keeps Quarterly Dividend at 22 Cents per Share





DAMARISCOTTA, Maine - (BUSINESS WIRE) - December 17, 2015 - The Board of Directors of The First Bancorp (NASDAQ: FNLC) today declared a quarterly dividend of 22 cents per share. This fourth-quarter dividend is payable January 29, 2016, to shareholders of record as of January 7, 2016, and is equal to the 22 cents per share the Company paid in the prior two quarters.


“This continues to be an excellent year for The First Bancorp,” Tony C. McKim, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer observed. “We have posted three consecutive quarters with net income above $4.0 million and record quarterly earnings in three of the past five quarters.


“The combination of higher net interest income driven by asset growth, lower operating costs and improved asset quality are the major factors in our strong performance in 2015,” Mr. McKim continued. “These enable us to share our earnings with our shareholders in the form of cash dividends. We are confident in the view that our generous dividend payout is very important to our shareholders and remains a key component in our total return and the valuation of our shares.”


The First Bancorp, headquartered in Damariscotta, Maine, is the holding company for The First, N.A. Founded in 1864, The First is an independent community bank serving Mid-Coast and Down East Maine with 16 offices in Lincoln, Knox, Hancock, Penobscot and Washington Counties. The Bank provides a full range of consumer and commercial banking products and services. First Advisors, a division of The First, provides investment advisory, private banking and trust services from four offices in Lincoln, Penobscot and Hancock Counties.


Forward-looking and cautionary statements: except for the historical information and discussions contained herein, statements contained in this release may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results and events to differ materially, as discussed in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


For more information, please contact F. Stephen Ward, the First Bancorp's Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer, at 207.563.3272.
















---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING

RECONSIDERATION OF

PRETRIAL DETENTION- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RAJINDER SINGH JOHAL,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-334 RSL

ORDER DENYING

RECONSIDERATION OF

PRETRIAL DETENTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion to Reconiser [sic] Order

Denying Motion for Review of Detention Order” (Dkt. # 94). The Court previously granted that

order in part to allow defendant to appear before Magistrate Judge Benton to present his

proposed property bond (Dkt. # 120). Magistrate Judge Benton considered the materials

presented and proposed a report and recommendation denying the motion for reconsideration

(Dkt. # 130). This Court has considered the material and arguments presented to Magistrate

Judge Benton, the conclusions set forth in the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Benton, and all other arguments previously presented to the Court.

The Court previously denied “Defendant’s Motion for Review of Detention Order” (Dkt.

# 64) after concluding that Johal was a flight risk if released, pursuant to the four factor statutory

test. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The Court’s conclusion is unchanged by the proposed property bond.

Case 2:05-cr-00334-RSL Document 182 Filed 06/15/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The guilty plea does affect defendant’s outstanding motions to suppress (Dkts. # 137, 146). 

These are hereby stricken as moot.

ORDER DENYING

RECONSIDERATION OF

PRETRIAL DETENTION- 2

Defendant’s recent guilty plea to the money laundering charge, and the government’s

reciprocal agreement to drop the drug charges, does not change this calculation.1

 For these

reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to reconsider (Dkt. # 94) is

DENIED.

DATED this 15th day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00334-RSL Document 182 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 2
H. Res. 384 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 23, 2007. 

Whereas on March 31, 2007, the University of Wyoming 

Cowgirls defeated the University of Wisconsin Badgers 

by a score of 72–56 in the championship basketball game 

of the Women’s National Invitation Tournament; 

Whereas the victory of these 14 very accomplished young 

women and their coach, Joe Legerski, was witnessed by 

over 15,000 fans at the University of Wyoming’s sold out 

Arena-Auditorium; 

Whereas the Cowgirls won 21 games in their regular season 

and tied for second in the Mountain West Conference 

(MWC); 

Whereas Jodi Bolerjack scored 16 points in the championship 

game and earned Third Team All-MWC honors; 

Whereas Elisabeth Dissen scored the last shot for the Cowgirls of the first half, giving the team a 39–26 lead; 

Whereas Megan McGuffey scored back-to-back layups in the 

second half, totaling 10 points for the game, and received 

the MWC Newcomer of the Year honor; 

Whereas Justyna Podziemska scored 16 points in the championship game, had 10 rebounds, and 8 assists; 
2 

•HRES 384 EH 

Whereas Dominique Sisk scored 5 points, had 2 assists, and 

7 rebounds for the Cowgirls; 

Whereas Rebecca Vanderjagt scored 4 points and had 1 block 

during the championship game; 

Whereas Aubrey Vandiver brought a strong end to the first 

half, shooting or assisting the last seven points; 

Whereas Hanna Zavecz scored 12 points and earned the 

award of the Women’s National Invitation Tournament 

Most Valuable Player; 

Whereas Amy Bolerjack, Mallory Cline, Annie Gorenstein, 

Angiah Harris, Gemma Koehler, and Megan Mordecai 

also contributed to the team’s top season; and 

Whereas these top athletes are also dedicated to academic 

achievement, and serve as the standard of excellence, 

scholarship, and sportsmanship for the entire Nation: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the University of Wyoming women’s basketball team for 

their championship victory in the 2007 National Invitational 

Tournament. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
EX-10.7



 Exhibit 10.7 

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO 
 REAL
ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is
made as of January 8, 2018, by and between MONTGOMERY STERLING, L.L.C., an Illinois limited liability company, as Seller, and S.R. JACOBSON DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Michigan corporation on behalf of an entity to be named, as Purchaser. 

WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser entered into a certain Real Estates Purchase And Sale Agreement, dated as of January 10, 2017, as amended
by a certain Amendment To Real Estates Purchase And Sale Agreement, dated April 7, 2017, as amended by a Second Amendment To Real Estates Purchase And Sale Agreement, dated April 25, 2017, as amended by a Third Amendment to Purchase and
Sale Agreement, dated as of June 9, 2017, and further amended by a Fourth Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as of November 15, 2017 (together the “Agreement”), pursuant to which Seller agreed to sell, and Purchaser
agreed to purchase, that certain real property located in the Village of Montgomery (“Village”), County of Kendal and State of Illinois with Parcel Identification Numbers 03-02-203-002, 03-02-202-001, 03-02-204-001 and 03-02-100-028 (the
“Property”). 
 WHEREAS, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree the
Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Paragraph 6. The Approval Period been extended to, and shall expire on, January 24, 2018, to allow for the approval by the Village of Montgomery of the annexation agreement amendment.


  

	 	2.	Paragraph 7. The Closing Date shall be within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the Approval Period. 

  

	 	3.	Balance of Terms. Except as set forth herein, the Agreement remains unmodified and in full force and effect. 

  

	 	4.	Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, and by separate parties hereon on separate counterparts, and all of such counterparts taken together shall constitute one and the same
Amendment. This Amendment may be executed and delivered by facsimile or electronic mail in PDF format. The section headings set forth in this Amendment are for convenience of reference only, and do not define, limit or construe the contents of such
sections. 

 The parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 

 

									
	SELLER:	 		 	PURCHASER:
	MONTGOMERY STERLING, L.L.C.	 		 	 S.R. JACOBSON DEVELOPMENT CORP.

on behalf of an entity to be named

					
	/s/	 	   GUADALUPE GRIFFIN
	 		 	/s/	 	   S.R. JACOBSON DEVELOPMENT CORP.

	By:	 	  Guadalupe Griffin	 		 	By:	 	  Scott .R. Jacobson
	Its:	 	  Senior Vice President	 		 	Its:	 	  President

 [5th Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement for Montgomery]
Exhibit 31.1  Certification  I, Craig M. Nash, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2015 of Interval Leisure Group, Inc.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.  Dated: March 9,   2016
/s/ CRAIG M.   NASHCraig M. NashChairman,   President and Chief Executive Officer
From: maestro378@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:47:27 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

David Rohr

Battle Creek, MI 49015