alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        11,207,337
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      43,224
<MORTGAGE>                                      62,402
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              12,281,740
<CASH>                                       1,144,333
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         211,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,206,275
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                              12,071,895
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,015
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,087,067
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,206,275
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            627,535
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              20,417
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  26,671
<BENEFITS>                                       3,075
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     62,117
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            36,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127,214
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,202
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    84,012
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

JACK E. ZIPF and MARY DARLENE ZIPF

,

Appellant s

,

v.

CRYSTAL SANDS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR

PROFIT CORPORATION

,

Appellee

.

No. 2D2 02 2

- 2934

May 10 , 20 2 4

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Kevin Bruning,

Judge.

Heather Cherepkai and Leland W. Wilson of Denali Law Group, P.A., Fort

Myers (withdrew after briefing), for Appellants.

Jack E. Zipf, pro se.

Mary Darlene Zipf, pro se.

Lissette G onzalez of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI

, LaROSE

, and SMITH

, JJ.

, Concur.

### 2

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
No. 52776.

#### Barth Feinberg, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 130170-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY  PERIOD  ENDED  JULY 5,  1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED   IN ITS   ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000876400
<NAME>                          STIMSONITE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-05-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.000
<CASH>                                            576
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  23,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                      448 
<INVENTORY>                                    12,996
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               39,804
<PP&E>                                         30,946
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 66,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,875
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           90
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,330 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   66,614
<SALES>                                        39,290 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               39,290
<CGS>                                          25,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,044 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                889
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,653
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,136
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,517
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,517
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.18
        


</TABLE>
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

DOCUSIGN, INC.,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

HEALTH APPLICATIONS, INC.,

 Defendant.

 C06-907 MJP

 MINUTE ORDER

 REASSIGNING CASE

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on

November 3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman, United

States District Judge. 

All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C06-907 MJP and bear

the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document.

Dated this 29th day of June, 2006

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00907-MJP Document 7 Filed 06/29/2006 Page 1 of 1

DocuSign Inc v. Health Applications Inc Doc. 7

Dockets.Justia.com
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 280 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 280

    Authorizing the 2000 District of Columbia Special Olympics Law 
      Enforcement Torch Run to be run through the Capitol Grounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2000

Mr. Franks of New Jersey submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Authorizing the 2000 District of Columbia Special Olympics Law 
      Enforcement Torch Run to be run through the Capitol Grounds.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF D.C. SPECIAL OLYMPICS LAW 
              ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    On June 2, 2000, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate, the 2000 District of Columbia Special 
Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred to as 
the ``event'') may be run through the Capitol Grounds as part of the 
journey of the Special Olympics torch to the District of Columbia 
Special Olympics summer games at Gallaudet University in the District 
of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 
U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, advertisements, displays, 
and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions 
applicable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event.
                                 <all>
```
Before Chief Judge Rao,

January 31, 1967

No. R67/22.

#### Pacific Wood Products Company (James G. Wiley Co.) *v.*United States,

reappraisements R63/12295 and R63/12298 (Los Angeles).

, In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those in *Authentic Furniture Products*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 438, Reap. Dec. 10614), *908th.e court found and held that 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, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the wood furniture or parts thereof involved herein and that said value is represented by the invoice unit values, net packed.
#### Alfred T. Lilley, Assignee of Samuel Porter, Appellant, *vs.*H. Kelsea, Assignor to Self and Henry Dunklee, Appellee. Interference.

(Before Morsell, J., District of Columbia,

January, 1858.

Statément of the Case.

The invention in controversy in this case is the same as that involved in the case of Hill *v.*Dunklee *(ante*p. 475). The decision turned solely upon questions of fact, and is omitted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose RAMIREZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-41044.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Ramirez-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. As Ramirez-Garcia concedes, his argument that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) are unconstitutional is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

Ramirez-Garcia argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme, citing *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He acknowledges that the argument is reviewed for plain error but contends that prejudice should be presumed.

Plain error is the correct standard of review. *See United States v. Malveaux,*411 F.3d 558, 560 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). The district court committed error that is plain when it sentenced Ramirez-Garcia under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556); *United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.2005). Ramirez-Garcia, however, fails to meet his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. *See Valenzeuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34; *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. 55026.

#### Belmar Watch Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 158702-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the appraisement of the merchandise and the liquidation of the entries were made in the same manner, under facts and circumstances the same in all material respects, as the appraisement and liquidation in *The Gruen Watch Company*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 101, C. D. 1216). In accordance with stipulation and following the cited authority the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. It was further held that a legal liquidation should be had which would form the basis for a protest in which, should they so desire, the importers may litigate any questions presented by such action under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
Page 1 of 2

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

OF THE

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20551

DIVISION OF SUPERVISION

AND REGULATION

SR 20-24

November 2, 2020

TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISION

 AT EACH FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

SUBJECT: Interagency Paper on Sound Practices to Strengthen Operational Resilience

Applicability: The attached interagency guidance applies to federal savings associations, 

national banks, state member banks, state nonmember banks, savings associations, U.S. bank 

holding companies, and savings and loan holding companies that have average total consolidated 

assets greater than or equal to (a) $250 billion or (b) $100 billion and have $75 billion or more in 

average cross-jurisdictional activity, average weighted short-term wholesale funding, average 

nonbank assets, or average off-balance-sheet exposure.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the agencies) have issued the 

attached interagency paper, “Sound Practices to Strengthen Operational Resilience” (sound 

practices).1 To help large and complex domestic firms address unforeseen challenges to their 

operational resilience, the sound practices are drawn from existing regulations, guidance, and 

statements as well as common industry standards that address operational risk management, 

business continuity management, third-party risk management, cybersecurity risk management, 

and recovery and resolution planning. The guidance in the sound practices does not amend, 

expand, or alter the agencies’ existing regulations or guidance.

Although it is important for all firms to strengthen their operational resilience, the sound 

practices are directed to the largest and most complex domestic firms. As detailed in the 

attached Explanatory Note, firms in recent years have experienced significant challenges from a 

wide range of disruptive events, including technology-based failures, cyber incidents, pandemics, 

and natural disasters. Such events, combined with a growing reliance on third-party service 

providers, expose firms to a range of operational risks. 

1 See October 30, 2020, Board press release at 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20201030a.htm.
Page 2 of 2

Reserve Banks are asked to distribute this letter to the supervised institutions in their 

districts and to appropriate supervisory staff. Questions regarding this letter may be sent via the 

Board’s public website.2

Michael S. Gibson

Director

Attachment:

• Sound Practices to Strengthen Operational Resilience

• Explanatory Note

2 See, http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/contactus/feedback.aspx
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

DAH Chris Makarov Nov 13, 2012 to Feb Other. List below. 

15, 2013 

Other/Additional Information: Details about previous ADs and SBs that are related to this one. 

10
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

CELERINO CARRASCO JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

 v.

 

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CORP., et al CASE NUMBER: C06-5084RJB

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury

has rendered its verdict.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or

heard and a decision has been rendered.

The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, Dkt #37, is ADOPTED. This case is

DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to file any documents received from plaintiff after judgment is entered, but the

court will not consider them. The clerk is further directed to file in this case the document captioned "Supersiding

Objections and Appeal Against Order Dismissed," which has been filed as Dkt #20 in Case No. C06-5104, and

"Supersiding Objections of Appeal and Against Order of Dismissal," which has been filed as Dkt #21 in Case No.

C06-5104RJB, and to process these documents as a Notice of Appeal in ths case (C06-5084RJB). 

 March 13, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

/s/ Dara L. Kaleel_______________________ 

By Dara L. Kaleel, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05084-RJB Document 40 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 72507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23184]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4699-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


California; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of California (FEMA-4699-DR), dated April 3, 2023, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 1, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of California is hereby amended to include snow 
assistance under the Public Assistance program for the following areas 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of 
April 3, 2023.

    Inyo and Los Angeles Counties for snow assistance under the 
Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during 
or proximate the incident period (already designated for Public 
Assistance).

    San Bernardino County for snow assistance under the Public 
Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or 
proximate the incident period (already designated for Individual 
Assistance and Public Assistance).
    San Mateo County for Public Assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23184 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Case No. 10,308.

#### NORTH v. CLARK.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 93.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May, 1827.

Otee op Letters of Administration.

The plaintiff is bound to give oyer of his letters •of administration whenever demanded before the expiration of the rule to plead.

At the last term, Mr. Wallach, for plaintiffs, •suggested the death of North, and, in open court directed the appearance of the administrators to be entered, which was done. Aft-erwards, at the same term, Mr. Morfit, for ■defendant, prayed oyer of the letters of administration, and pleaded that the plaintiffs never were administrators. At this term, Mr. Wallach objected to the plea, saying that it was too late, after the plaintiffs had been permitted to appear, and relied on the case •of Wilson v. Codman, 3 Cranch [7 TJ. S.] 193.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

CRANCH, Chief Judge.

In the case of Wilson v. Codman [supra], Marshall, C. J., in delivering the opinion of the court says; “They (the words of the judiciary act of 1789; 1 Stat. 73) contemplate the coming in of the executor as a voluntary act. Prom the language of the act, this may be done instanter. Unquestionably he must show himself to be executor, unless the fact be admitted by the parties; and the defendant may insist on the production of his letters testamentary, before he shall be permitted to prosecute. But if the order for his admission, as a party, be made, it is too late to contest the fact of his being an executor. If the court has unguardedly permitted a person to prosecute, who has not given satisfactory evidence of his right to do so, it possesses the means of preventing any mischief from the inadvertence, and will undoubtedly employ those means.” Those means, we suppose, are to strike out the appearance of the plaintiff, upon motion made during the same term, and to permit the defendant to pray ■oyer of the letters of administration, and plead that the plaintiff is not administrator. This plea he has a right to plead, and it is a good plea in bar, and not in abatement. 1 Saund. 274, note 3; 1 Chit. Pl.484. We think the plaintiff is bound to give oyer of his letters of administration, whenever demanded, before the expiration of the rule to plead, notwithstanding the dictum in Roberts v. Arthur, 2 Salk. 497, where it is said that, “upon the profert of a deed, it remains in court all that term, but no longer, unless it be controverted; but letters testamentary, or of administration, do not remain in court; for the party may have occasion to produce them elsewhere.” We know of no rule which requires oyer to be prayed for before the defendant is bound to plead. The rule day is substituted for a day in the term, and, we think, is to be considered as a day in the term. In the present case, however, the defendant did not wait for the rule to plead, but prayed oyer almost instanter. We think his plea is in due time, and ought to be received.