alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 18, 2015*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)F.229 Proprietors Equity in Noncorporate Business
Billions of dollars; quarterly figures are seasonally adjusted annual rates                                                                                                                                               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Description2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2014   Q22014   Q32014   Q42015   Q12015   Q2LineHouseholds and nonprofit organizations; proprietors' equity in noncorporate business-107.6167.2171.5140.576.539.121.637.914.5-4.2-31.01Nonfinancial noncorporate business; proprietors' equity in noncorporate business (net worth)-108.2166.4174.4133.782.137.123.230.815.6-3.0-29.92Security brokers and dealers; proprietors' equity in noncorporate business0.60.9-2.96.7-5.62.0-1.67.0-1.1-1.1-1.13 |
| Release dates | Announcements | Coded tables |Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release | Screen reader | PDF (450 KB) | Data Download Program (DDP)Statistical releasesHome | Economic research and dataAccessibility | Contact Us**Last update: September 18, 2015**                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 6, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**B.100 Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations 1** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22248]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Z-Wave Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 4, 2023, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (the ``Act''), Z-Wave Alliance, Inc. (the 
``Joint Venture'') filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. 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, Bettina Roll (individual member), Greve, DENMARK has 
been added as a party to this venture.
    Also, Robotix.be, Wezembeek-Oppem, BELGIUM; D2E Electrical, New 
South Wales, AUSTRALIA; Establishment Hulul al-Manazil For Real Estate 
Development, Jedda City, SAUDI ARABIA; Black Watch Systems, LLC, 
Snyder, TX; MY CLIMA GREEN ENERGIE SRLS, Milano, ITALY; FireAvert, LLC, 
Springville, UT; NexMetro Development, LLC, Phoenix, AZ; Trinitas All 
Electric, LLC, Opelousas, LA; Sengled, Shanghai City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC 
OF CHINA; Logic Group A/S, Broendby, DENMARK; ABUS Security Center GmbH 
& Co. KG, Affing, GERMANY; ABUS KG, Wetter, GERMANY; Good Energy 
Solutions, Lawrence, KS; COMPUTIME Ltd., Pak Shek Kok, HONG KONG-CHINA; 
Security Specialists Ltd., Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND; and OBLO Living, Novi 
Sad, SERBIA have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or the 
planned activity of the venture. Membership in this venture remains 
open, and the Joint Venture intends to file additional written 
notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 19, 2020, the Joint Venture 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 December 1, 2020 (85 FR 77241).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 12, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 38540).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-22248 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
No. 66079.

#### Vanetta Fabrics Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/30788, etc. (New York).

*315Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 623), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY HUGH LIBBY,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5086M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 (T) Safety of any person and the community.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 (T) Serious risk the defendant will flee. 

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (/) Defendant stipulated to detention without prejudice.

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 May 11, 2006.

__s/ Karen L. Strombom_______________

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mj-05086-GHK Document 8 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 1
PRAECIPE TO ATTACH DOCUMENT- 1

CR06-157MJP PLATT & BUESCHER 

 Attorneys at Law 

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

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

 Chief Judge Marsha J. Pechman 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HENRY C. ROSENAU 

 Defendant. 

NO. CR06-157MJP 

PRAECIPE TO ATTACH DOCUMENT 

TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

RELEASE 

 

The DEFENDANT, by and through his counsel of record, Craig Platt, hereby files this praecipe 

to attach document to the above-referenced case. 

 Please take note that the attached document is Exhibit 1 to Defendant’s Motion for 

Release (Dkt. No. 156). 

DATED this 11th day of June, 2012. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 PLATT & BUESCHER 

 s/Craig Platt_______________ 

 Craig Platt 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 WSBA #12396 

 P.O. Box 727 

 Coupeville, Washington 98239-0727 

 Telephone: (360) 678-6777 

 Fax: (360) 678-0323 

 Email: craig@plattbuescher.com

 P.O. Box 727 

 Coupeville, WA 98239-0727 

 Phone: (360) 678-6777 

 Fax: (360) 678-0323

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 161 Filed 06/11/12 Page 1 of 2
PRAECIPE TO ATTACH DOCUMENT- 2

CR06-157MJP PLATT & BUESCHER 

 Attorneys at Law 

 P.O. Box 727 

 Coupeville, WA 98239-0727 

 Phone: (360) 678-6777 

 Fax: (360) 678-0323

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

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on 6/11/2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the attorney(s) 

of record for the Government. 

 s/Connor Tasoff_______________ 

 Connor Tasoff 

 Legal Assistant 

 P.O. Box 727 

 Coupeville, Washington 98239-0727 

 Telephone: (360) 678-6777 

 Fax: (360) 678-0323 

 Email: reception@plattbuescher.com 

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 161 Filed 06/11/12 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 78 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 78

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates 
  and the Resident Commissioner to the Congress to cast votes in the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 2007

    Mr. Hoyer (for himself, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Larson of 
 Connecticut, Mr. Becerra, and Ms. Slaughter) submitted the following 
        resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates 
  and the Resident Commissioner to the Congress to cast votes in the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. VOTING BY DELEGATES AND RESIDENT COMMISSIONER IN COMMITTEE 
              OF THE WHOLE.

    (a) Permitting Votes To Be Cast.--Clause 3(a) of rule III of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as follows:
    ``3. (a) In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, each Delegate and the Resident Commissioner shall possess the 
same powers and privileges as Members of the House. Each Delegate and 
the Resident Commissioner shall be elected to serve on standing 
committees in the same manner as Members of the House and shall possess 
in such committees the same powers and privileges as the other members 
of the committee.''.
    (b) Appointment of Chair.--The first sentence of clause 1 of rule 
XVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
striking ``a Chairman'' and inserting ``a Member, Delegate, or the 
Resident Commissioner as Chairman''.
    (c) Repeating of Certain Votes.--Clause 6 of rule XVIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
    ``(h) Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided by 
a margin within which the votes cast by the Delegates and the Resident 
Commissioner have been decisive, the Committee of the Whole shall rise 
and the Speaker shall put such question de novo without intervening 
motion. Upon the announcement of the vote on that question, the 
Committee of the Whole shall resume its sitting without intervening 
motion.''.
                                 <all>
```
August 27, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DERRICK W. PARKER, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00085-CV V.

BRITTANI A. DENNIS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee Brittani A. 

Dennis signed, January 18, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the 

judgment of the court below AFFIRMED. We order appellant Derrick W. Parker 

to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified 

below for observance.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2014

p0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148723

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148723

COA: 312421

Saginaw CC: 11

- 036004

- FH

MUKHTIAR SINGH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
(Reap. Dec. 10562)

#### Sackett-Detrick Sales, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 25966, etc.

(Decided July 8, 1963)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (Edward N. G-lad*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *(Andrew P. Vance,*trial attorney) , for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> Me. Glad : If it please the Court, I offer to stipulate that the merchandise involved in these six appeals are described on the invoices as metal non-mechani*329cal toys, stopped from tones Bros. Ltd., from England, during tlie latter half of 1959;

> And, further, that these items do not appear, on the final list with regard to the new valuation act, which is part of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> I further offer to stipulate that the basis of appraisement is export value as defined under Section 402(b) as thusly limited, and that the proper export value is the appraised value used by the Appraiser to appraise, less 2%% which represents a cash discount.

> Mb. Vance : This matter has been discussed with Assistant Appraiser Feran, and Examiner Piatt, and with their concurrence the Government so stipulates.

> Me. Glad : Plaintiff rests.

> Me. Vance : Government rests.

> Me. Glad : Plaintiff submits.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question, and that such value is the appraised value, less *2y2*per centum discount, in each case.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

June 20, 1949

No. 53302.

protest 134501-K (New York).

#### Simon Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 DENYING MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ROBERT S.D. BERGEN, 

Petitioner,

v.

DR. HENRY RICHARDS,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-819RSL

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s Motion Requesting Evidentiary

Hearing (Dkt. #20). Petitioner previously sought an evidentiary hearing in connection

with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November

21, 2006, the Court transferred this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit because the petition was successive and petitioner had not sought or

obtained permission to file it.

The Ninth Circuit construed petitioner’s filings as an application for authorization

to file a second or successive § 2254 petition in the district court, and denied the request. 

Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s § 2254 petition and

the related request for an evidentiary hearing.

Case 2:06-cv-00819-RSL Document 22 Filed 04/30/07 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 DENYING MOTION

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING - 2

For this reason, petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. The

Court will not consider any further requests for an evidentiary hearing in this closed case.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00819-RSL Document 22 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Barnes, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 54]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered August 13, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a. weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, a new trial is ordered on the count of the indictment charging the defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and the count of the indictment which charged the defendant with murder in the second degree is dismissed without prejudice to the People to re-present any appropriate charges to another Grand Jury *(see, People v Beslanovics,*57 NY2d 726).

The record reveals that the defendant was not present during the in camera discussion wherein the Assistant District Attorney advised the court that he recognized one of the prospective jurors and that he had attended the high school where the juror taught. In addition, although the record is replete with colloquy concerning the defense counsel’s discussions with his client during the voir dire prior to this revelation, the record is conspicuously barren of any proof that defense counsel advised his client that the Assistant District Attorney recognized one of the jurors, that he consulted with his client after the in-chambers discussion, or that either the defendant or his counsel were questioned as to whether the jurors selected in that round were satisfactory to the defense.

A defendant has a fundamental right to be present at any material stage of a trial against him under the Federal and New York Constitutions *(see,*CPL 260.20; *see also, People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469), that is, where his absence would have a substantial effect on his ability to defend himself *(see, Snyder v Massachusetts,*291 US 97, 105-106). This right cannot be waived by defense counsel absent ratification by the defendant *(see, People v Amato,*172 AD2d 545).

Here, the defendant’s lack of knowledge regarding the Assistant District Attorney’s familiarity with the prospective juror clearly prejudiced the defendant by denying him a full and fair *678opportunity to question this juror regarding any potential bias, to object to the selection of this juror, *or to*exercise a peremptory challenge to eliminate this juror.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Thompson, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
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

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JUAN BARELA

Accused as Suspect in Child Abuse 

Arrested, Cover Cited for Obstruction

LYNN BARELA

Joined as Party of Interest,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

ELLIS W. JOHNSON, M.D.

In Individual Capacity and

In Professional Capacity as Family Physician

LORI JOHNSON

In Individual Capacity and

In Professional Capacity as Medical Assistant,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5785 RBL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on the Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Set Aside the Order Dismissed with

Prejudice.” [Dkt. # 28]. The Motion’s precise basis is not clear, but it is apparent that the Plaintiffs seek

Reconsideration of the Court’s October 23, 2006 Order of Dismissal [Dkt. # 26]. Because the Plaintiffs’

Motion was not filed “within 10 judicial days” of that Order, it is not timely under Local Rule 7(h)(2). 

///

//

/

Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.

Case 3:05-cv-05785-RBL Document 33 Filed 11/20/06 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

 ORDER

Page - 2

DATED this 20th day of November, 2006.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05785-RBL Document 33 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 2