alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

LANIER RENE AYERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5264RBL-KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO DEPOSE ALL

LISTED DEFENDANTS

THROUGH USE OF

ELECTRONIC RECORDING

DEVICE

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), Local Magistrates Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The case is before the Court on plaintiff’s filing of a motion to depose all listed defendants through use of

electronic recording device. (Dkt. #23). After reviewing plaintiff’s motion and the balance of the record,

the Court finds and orders as follows:

Plaintiff requests that he be allowed to depose all of the defendants named in his complaint via use

of an electronic portable cassette recording device to be provided by the Court. In appears, however, that

discovery has not yet begun in this case. Indeed, the answer has only just recently been filed. (Dkt. #32). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is pre-mature. In addition, plaintiff should be aware that discovery is a

process to be worked out between the parties, and that his in forma pauperis status does not entitle him to

receive assistance from the Court in prosecuting his case beyond waiver of the filing fee and service of the

complaint, including the provision of recording or other similar devices for use during litigation. 

Case 3:06-cv-05264-RBL-KLS Document 39 Filed 03/28/07 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion to depose all listed defendants through

use of electronic recording device (Dkt. #23) hereby is DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05264-RBL-KLS Document 39 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 2
BOARD OF GOVERNORS

OF THE

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20551

ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE

TO THE BOARD

September 20, 2018

Mr. Malik Cooper

452 North Holly Street

Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19104

Dear Mr. Cooper:

The General Counsel, acting pursuant to delegated authority, and after

consultation with the Director ofthe Division of Supervision and Regulation, has

approved your request pursuant to section 19 ofthe Federal Deposit Insurance Act1 to

become an institution-affiliated party of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Company (“State Farm”), Bloomington, Illinois, a savings and loan holding company

(“SLHC”). This approval is limited to your being an institution-affiliated party of State

Farm, including by working for State Farm or working for or operating an independently

owned agency that sells State Farm insurance products or products for State Farm’s

wholly owned subsidiary, State Farm Bank, f.s.b. (“State Farm Bank”), Bloomington,

Illinois. If you seek to work for another SLHC or bank holding company (“BHC”), or to

work for or operate an independently owned agency that sells products for another SLHC

or BHC, you must obtain the Board’s approval prior to working for such SLHC or BHC

or working for or operating such agency.

1 12 U.S.C. § 1829.

This action is based on all the facts ofrecord and the representations made

by you to the Board in connection with your request. Any change in the facts presented

could result in a different conclusion and should be reported immediately to Board staff.

This action is also based on the commitments provided by you in support of your request.

The commitments are conditions imposed in writing in connection with the Board’s

decision and, as such, may be enforced in proceedings under applicable law. This action

is also conditioned specifically on your receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals

related to your proposal and compliance with any terms and conditions that may be

imposed in connection with such approvals. Additionally, if you are convicted of, or

enter into a pretrial diversion program for, a crime involving dishonesty, breach oftrust,
or money laundering in the future, you must again seek approval to work for any SLHC

or BHC, or to work for or operate any independently owned agency that sells products for

an SLHC or a BHC, including any agency that sells State Farm or State Farm Bank

products.

Sincerely,

Ann E. Misback

Secretary ofthe Board
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000875194
<NAME> CATHERINES STORES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000             JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              MAY-2-1999             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999             JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,135                  15,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,504                   2,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     49,357                  49,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,364                  75,364
<PP&E>                                          78,813                  78,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                (43,125)                (43,125)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,427                 134,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,293                  43,293
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        41,735                  41,735
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,427                 134,427
<SALES>                                         78,334                 158,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,334                 158,633
<CGS>                                           49,557                 102,836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,557                 102,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,511                  41,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  92                     195
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,174                  13,913
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,273                   5,565
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,901                   8,348
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,901                   8,348
<EPS-BASIC>                                    $0.71                   $1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.68                   $1.16


</TABLE>
What is EPA’s Action?

EPA is amending the Clean Air Act

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) permit for the McElmo Creek

Unit Facility to:

 Add pollution limits and other terms

and conditions as required by

a federal

Consent Decree (United States v. Mobil

Exploration and Producing U.S. Inc.) for

the existing Main Flare at the site.

 Remove and update other permit

requirements resulting from the shut

down and removal of other

equipment.Other than the replacement of

a fixed

speed fan with

a variable speed fan to

provide better pollution control at theMain Flare, this permit action does notauthorize any new construction or

modification of existing equipment at

the site.

What is the 

The Main Flare is 

to burn waste gas

at the McElmo Cr

McElmo Creek Un

includes field ope

compression plan

 The field operat

approximately 90 

petroleum crude 

 The gas compre

support crude oil 

oilfield. It consist

other support eqFlare.The McElmo Creefour oilfield units 

oilfield on the Na

in southeastern U
What are the air qua

The proposed amendments to 

not cause or contribute to a v

National Ambient Air Quality 

expected to adversely impact 

designated federal Class I are

and wilderness areas) within 

What is BACT for the Main Flare?

The pollution limits and other terms and conditions

that will be added into the permit include the following

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) limitationsand conditions to minimize flaring.

 Emissions from the Main Flare must not exceed 60

tons per year (tpy) sulfur dioxide, 13.4 tpy nitrogen

oxides, 73 tpy carbon monoxide, and 95.4 tpy volatile

organic compounds

 Operate the Main Flare using air‐assist technology

 Ensure that the net heating value for dilution is

greater than or equal to 24.4 BTU/ft2

 Operate and maintain Main Flare in accordance with

the federal flare standards in 40 CFR § 60.18

 Follow other operations and maintenance, root

cause, and corrective action requirements
Exhibit 32.1**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**          In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of State National Bancshares, Inc. (the“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tom C. Nichols., Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.      STATE NATIONAL BANCSHARES, INC.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 12, 2024

In t he 

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

No. 05

- 23

- 01234

- CV

GRACIELA VILLARREAL , Appellant

V. ALBERTO VILLARREAL

- U RBINA , Appellee

On Appeal from the 469th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 469

- 53418

- 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Carlyle, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Carlyle
Before the Court is appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1( a)(1).

231234f.p05 /Cory L. Carlyle/ / CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE– 2

– 

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

JUDGMENT

GRACIELA VILLARREAL, Appellant

No. 05

- 23

- 01234

- CV V.

ALBERTO VILLARREAL

URBINA, Appellee On Appeal from the 469th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 469

- 53418

- 2023. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Reichek and Miskel participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 12 th day of February

, 2024

.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 annual report on Form 20-F of Pixelplus Co., Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2008 and
amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A on the date hereof (the Report), Seo Kyu Lee, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 24, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Seo Kyu Lee        
|Name:  |  | Seo Kyu Lee            
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer



121
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2014

CONNIE PEDERSON a/k/a CONNIE L. PEDERSON,

Appellant,

v.

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D13-4593

[September 3, 2014]

On Confession of Error

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

312012CA000200.

Leo W. Desmond, Vero Beach, for appellant.

Alexandra de Alejo of Gray Robinson, P.A., Miami, and David S. Hendrix

of Gray Robinson, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

A homeowner appeals a final judgment of foreclosure. The bank has 

filed a Confession of Error based upon Lurtz v. Bank of New York Mellon,

39 Fla. L. Weekly D524 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 12, 2014). We therefore reverse 

and remand the case for further proceedings. We do not express “any 

opinion as to the extent of the error.” Gulf Power Co. v. Illinois-Florida Land 

Co., 132 So. 109, 110 (Fla. 1931). 

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 12, 2015*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.110 Private Depository Institutions 1** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 52 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 52

   Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the need to address 
                  immediately the current milk crisis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 11, 1997

  Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
Jeffords, and Mr. Leahy) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                  ordered to lie over, under the rule

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the need to address 
                  immediately the current milk crisis.

Whereas during the last few months farm milk prices have experienced substantial 
        volatility, dropping precipitously from $15.37 per hundredweight in 
        September 1996 to $11.34 per hundredweight in December 1996 while 
        simultaneously there have been record high costs for cattle feed;
Whereas there is a strong sense of financial crisis in the dairy industry;
Whereas many dairy farmers have looked to the Federal Government for relief 
        because minimum milk prices under the Milk Marketing Orders are 
        established by the Department of Agriculture;
Whereas the price of cheese at the National Cheese Exchange in Green Bay, 
        Wisconsin, influences milk prices paid to farmers because of its use in 
        the Department of Agriculture's Basic Formula Price under Federal Milk 
        Marketing Orders;
Whereas less than 1 percent of the cheese produced in the United States is sold 
        on the National Cheese Exchange and the Exchange acts as a reference 
        price for as much as 95 percent of the commercial bulk cheese sales in 
        the Nation;
Whereas there has been some concern among dairy producers that the prices at the 
        National Cheese Exchange may have been manipulated downward, benefiting 
        processors at the expense of dairy farmers; and
Whereas it is in the national interest to ensure that market prices for milk, 
        cheese, and other dairy products are determined by a fair and 
        competitive marketplace: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate of the United States 
that the Secretary of Agriculture should act immediately pursuant to 
his legal authority to modify the Basic Formula Price for dairy by 
replacing the National Cheese Exchange as a factor to be considered in 
setting the Basic Formula Price and to establish in its place an 
equivalent pricing mechanism more reflective of the actual market 
conditions for cheese and other dairy products nationally.
                                 <all>
```
No. P68/56.

protests 64/21819, etc. (New York).

#### Frankel Associates, Inc. *v.*United States,

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of rattancore sleighs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Imported Merchandise Company*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 554, C.D. 2702), and that the items of merchandise marked “B” consist of rattancore “wheel barrels” similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Imported Merchandise Company*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 313, Abstract 68437), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-KSB
OF NEW DIRECTIONS MANUFACTURING, INC. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,089,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    313,905
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,385,946
<PP&E>                                         583,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                 148,863
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,104,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,249,208
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,052
<OTHER-SE>                                     634,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,104,483
<SALES>                                      6,702,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,702,353
<CGS>                                        5,613,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,613,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,280,264
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                34,252
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,248,036)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (34,796)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,213,240)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,213,240)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 255 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 255

  Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding Federal spending on 
   veterans programs and allocation of funds received by the Federal 
  Government for claims arising from smoking-related illnesses or an 
              increased risk of smoking-related illnesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2000

 Mr. Traficant (for himself and Mr. Bilirakis) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding Federal spending on 
   veterans programs and allocation of funds received by the Federal 
  Government for claims arising from smoking-related illnesses or an 
              increased risk of smoking-related illnesses.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) Federal spending on veterans programs for each of the 
        next ten fiscal years should be increased by at least the rate 
        of inflation;
            (2) at least 20 percent of any funds received by the 
        Federal Government for claims arising from smoking-related 
        illnesses or an increased risk of smoking-related illnesses 
        should be used for veterans health programs; and
            (3) all funds received by the Federal Government for claims 
        brought on behalf of veterans and arising from smoking-related 
        illnesses or an increased risk of smoking-related illnesses 
        should be used for veterans health programs.
                                 <all>
```
No. 68/70.

protests 61/13626, etc. (San Francisco).

#### James S. Baker (Imports) Co., Inc., and Ted L. Rausch et al. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of sledge hammers and sledge heads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *James S. Baker (Imports) Co.*and *Ted L. Rausch et al.*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 553, C.D. 3048), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.