alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 63381.

protests 58/10936 and 58/15193 (New

#### Associated Dry Goods Corp. (Lord & Taylor Div.) and Furniture Import Corp. *v.*United States,

York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of coun'sel that the merchandise consists of headboards similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61224, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 58238.

protests 203315-K, etc. (New York).

#### Malhame & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the sheets or printed pages of books bound wholly or in part in leather the subject of *United States*v. *John Wanamaker*(20 C. C. P. A. 381, T. D. 46185), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

September 1, 1955

No. 59267.

protests 230090-K (B), etc. (New York).

#### Astra Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
# Semiannual Risk Perspective

Share This Page:

The OCC's Semiannual Risk Perspective addresses key issues facing banks, focusing on those that pose threats to the safety and soundness of banks and their compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The report presents data in four main areas: the special topic, operating environment, bank performance, and trends in key risks.

The OCC publishes the report twice a year, drawing on midyear and year-end data.

      -  Current IssueJune 18, 2024Semiannual Risk Perspective, Spring 2024View Current Issue 

## All Semiannual Risk Perspectives
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE MYERS RECREATIONAL

COACH NORTHWEST DETENTION

CENTER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING

DEFENDANTS MEYERS, WIGEN,

MONCIVAIS, McHATTON, AND

CHEEK

The Court, having reviewed, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold, objections to the report and recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby

find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants motion is GRANTED. These defendants are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for defendants

who have appeared and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 132 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 6,619,

#### HINES et al. v. DEAN et al.

[4 Wash. C. C. 159.] 1

Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1821.

Pbactice— Sekvioe or Process — Judgment foe Want of Appearance.

When the summons is served ten days before the return day, the plaintiff, on filing his declaration, is entitled to enter up judgment by nil dicit, for want of appearance. .But this • must be done at rules.

[Cited in Wallace v. Clark, Case No. 17,09S.]

•The summons, in this case, having been returned executed to the last term, and no appearance entered, the plaintiff moved for judgment by default, under the act of assembly of this state of the 20th of March, 1724 (1 Smith’s Laws, 165) referred to in the case of Smith v. Bohn [Case No. 13,015].

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

PER CURIAM.

We should in this case follow the practice of the state courts under the above law, by granting the motion, if it did riot contradict a written rule of this court, which directs pleadings, rules and judgments, for want of appearance or filing pleas, to be transacted at rules, to be held monthly in the clerk’s office. In this case, the summons having been served, the plaintiff should have ruled the defendant to appear and plead, and if he had failed to do so, he might have entered up judgment, by default, nisi; which this court would, upon motion, make absolute or set aside, upon the defendant’s entering his appearance and pleading to issue. The courts of this state having so construed the above law, as to give judgment, although the declaration was not filed before the return day, this court would also dispense with it, if it be filed before the rule to appear and plead is entered. The motion is, therefore, overruled.
Order entered May 2 9 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 00251
- CR VICTOR JOEL SUAREZ, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12
- 71456
- K 

### O RDER
The Court GRANTS the State’s May 22, 2014 second motion for extension of time to
file the State’s brief

. We ORDER the Clerk of the Court to file the brief tendered as of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00304

- CR

T ONY S TATURE

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal f ro m County Criminal Court No. 7

of Tarrant County ( 1724153 )

July 18, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgmen t. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; Heart, Lung, and Blood Program Project Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         December 1, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         DoubleTree by Hilton McLean Tysons, 1960 Chain Bridge Rd., McLean, VA 22102.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Melissa H. Nagelin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 208-R, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-7951,                         *nagelinmh2@nhlbi.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 22, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21146 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### In the Matter of Henry Gatson, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of the Department of Correctional Ser*907vices, Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Program, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 693]

—White, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty, after a disciplinary hearing, of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of controlled substances. Even though the positive results of a drug test, confirmed with the results of a second test, provide substantial evidence supporting respondent’s determination *(see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*71 NY2d 135, 138), petitioner contends that it should be annulled due to respondent’s failure to comply with 7 NYCRR 1020.4 (e) (1) (ii), which provides in relevant part that "[a] log book shall be kept in the vicinity of the refrigerator /freezer, and each person accessing the specimens shall note his name, the date, and the time of each such access”.

Petitioner contends that he was prejudiced by respondent’s undisputed failure to maintain a refrigerator log book as it could have provided relevant evidence substantiating his claim that the testing officers may have confused his urine sample with one of the 11 samples that were tested at the same time as his. We reject petitioner’s argument since all of the chain of custody information that would have been included in the refrigerator log book was recorded on the "request for urinalysis test” form that was provided to petitioner at the hearing *(see, Matter of Adorno v Coughlin,*216 AD2d 615). Therefore, since petitioner has not cited any evidence adduced at the hearing substantiating his claim that his specimen could have been confused with other samples, we shall dismiss the petition *(see, Matter of Curry v Coughlin,*175 AD2d 970; *Matter of Price v Coughlin,*116 AD2d 898, 899).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
(Reap. Dec. 10782)

#### G. E. Posey Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1850-H.

(Decided June 24, 1964)

*Glad & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain ungalvanized steel wire rope, exported from the United Kingdom on or about July 18,1962.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, established that the proper basis for the instant merchandise is statutory export value and that such value therefor is the invoiced values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
          
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                          37,333
<SECURITIES>                                     9,872
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,858
<INVENTORY>                                     10,897
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,311
<PP&E>                                          33,949
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,563
<BONDS>                                          1,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,605
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,272
<SALES>                                         32,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,200
<CGS>                                           15,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,359
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  51
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,306
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,157
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,149
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
From: thejanaks@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:14:48 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,

Elaine Janak

Boston, NY 14025
----

**Exhibit      4.1**

**AMENDMENT      TO**

**CERTIFICATE      OF DESIGNATION**

**OF      PREFERENCES OF**

**SERIES      C CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK**

**OF      LAPOLLA INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**A      DELAWARE CORPORATION**

**PURSANT      TO SECTION 151 OF**

**THE      GENERAL CORPORATION LAW OF**

**THE      STATE OF DELAWARE**

|    | DATED:                September 27, 2006       |   |   | LAPOLLA                INDUSTRIES, INC.  |   |
|---------|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|    |                                           |   |   |                                     |   |
|    |                                           |   |   |                                     |   |
|    |                                           |   |   |                                     |   |
|    |                                           |   |   |                                     |   |
|    |                                           |   | By:    | /s/                Michael T. Adams, EVP |   |
|    |                                           |   |   | Michael                T. Adams          |   |
|    |                                           |   |   | Executive                Vice President  |   |
| Attest: |                                           |   |   |                                     |   |
|    |                                           |   |   |                                     |   |
|    | LAPOLLA                INDUSTRIES, INC.        |   |   |                                     |   |
|    |                                           |   |   |                                     |   |
|    |                                           |   |   |                                     |   |
|    |                                           |   |   |                                     |   |
|    |                                           |   |   |                                     |   |
| By:     | /s/                Michael T. Adams, Secretary |   |   |                                     |   |
|    | Corporate                Secretary             |   |   |                                     |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21681]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION


Board of Directors Meeting

SUMMARY: Notice of the forthcoming regular meeting of the Board of 
Directors of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC), is 
hereby given in accordance with the provisions of the Bylaws of the 
FCSIC.

DATES: 10 a.m., Wednesday, October 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may observe the open portions of this meeting in person 
at 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, or virtually. 
If you would like to virtually attend, at least 24 hours in advance, 
visit FCSIC.gov, select ``News & Events,'' then select ``Board 
Meetings.'' From there, access the linked ``Instructions for board 
meeting visitors'' and complete the described registration process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you need more information or 
assistance for accessibility reasons, or have questions, contact Ashley 
Waldron, Secretary to the Board. Telephone: 703-883-4009. TTY: 703-883-
4056.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting will be open to the 
public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public. The 
following matters will be considered:

Portions Open to the Public

<bullet> Approval of Minutes for July 12, 2023
<bullet> Quarterly FCSIC Financial Reports
<bullet> Quarterly Report on Insured Obligations
<bullet> Quarterly Report on Annual Performance Plan
<bullet> Annual Performance Plan
<bullet> Budget 2024-2025

Portions Closed to the Public

<bullet> Confidential Report on Insurance Risk

Ashley Waldron,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 2023-21681 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of State Auto Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven E. English, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    Steven E. EnglishSteven E. EnglishChief Financial OfficerAugust 5, 2010


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to State Auto Financial Corporation and will
be retained by State Auto Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

1

 This is one of a string of incorrectly-noted motions filed by plaintiff at the very outset of this

litigation. Plaintiff is directed to review the requirements of Local Civil Rule 7 to ensure future

compliance. A copy of the applicable Local Civil Rules can be obtained on-line at

http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/wawd/documents.nsf/3a55ca523f1ad3ef882563fb0080c38f?OpenView&

Start=1&Count=250&Expand=2#2.

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

JERRY A. BRENDEN, )

) Case No. C05-1681L

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER RENOTING SECOND 

SELLEN CONSTRUCTION, INC., ) MOTION ON COURT’S CALENDAR

)

Defendant. ) 

_______________________________________)

On January 5, 2006, the Court received plaintiff’s “Second Time: Motion: Change

of Venue” in the above-captioned matter. Dkt. # 20. Because the motion is “nondispositive,” it

should have been noted for consideration on the third Friday after filing. See LR 7(d)(3).1

 The

Clerk of Court has therefore renoted the “Second Time: Motion: Change of Venue” on the

Court’s calendar for Friday, January 20, 2006. Any opposition is due no later than noon on

Tuesday, January, 17, 2006. Any reply is due no later than 4:30 p.m. on Friday, January 20,

2006.

Because plaintiff’s second motion for change of venue essentially duplicates his

original motion on the same topic, the original motion (Dkt. # 9) is hereby STRICKEN and will

not be considered by the Court.

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 25 Filed 01/09/06 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

ORDER -2-

DATED this 9th day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 25 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2