alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Shirley Garrett, Respondent, v Vincent Garrett, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 514]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals, by permission, from so much of a temporary order of protection of the Family Court, Rockland County (Stanger, J.), dated February 15, 1994, as directed him to "complete all necessary paper work to permit the petitioner to receive the naturalization papers to which she is entitled”.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the branch of the petition which was to compel the appellant to complete the paperwork to permit the petitioner to receive her naturalization papers is denied.

The apparent intent of the Family Court was to compel the appellant to file an "immediate relative” petition on behalf of the petitioner in order to regularize her immigration status *(see,*Immigration and Nationality, 8 USC § 1154). Under Federal law, the appellant may, but has no duty to, file such a document (Immigration and Nationality, 8 USC § 1154). His unwillingness to file an immediate relative petition can in no *341way be deemed a family offense so as to warrant the granting of final or interim relief pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 *(see,*Family Ct Act §§ 812, 828, 842). Accordingly, the order should be reversed insofar as appealed from. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
SCALE 1:24,000

NORTH BROOKFIELD QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-I

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the North Brookfield Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by Janet R. Stone

2013

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1967.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Massachusetts

Geological Survey.

Geology mapped by F.D. Larsen in 1982 (unpublished). Some

bedrock outcrop areas and some postglacial units were mapped

using 2005 orthophoto images.

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 15 of 24)

(WA

R

E)

(PA

X

TO

N)

(EAST BROOKFIELD)

(BARRE)

72°0'0"W

72°0'0"W

72°7'30"W

72°7'30"W

42°22'30"N

42°22'30"N

42°15'0"N

42°15'0"N

Stone, J.R., compiler, 2013, Surficial geologic map

of the Mount Grace-Ashburnham-Monson-Webster

24-quadrangle area in central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-I

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/I.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (MassGIS),

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
No. 46769

#### Protest 67772-K of Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

An examination of the record failed to disclose anything that would warrant the court in disturbing the action of the collector,, which was held presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
(Reap. Dec. 10458)

#### Mitsubishi International Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 892697.

(Decided February 27, 1963)

*William, Whynman*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for reap-praisement has been submitted for decision by counsel for the parties upon stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402a (d), 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 footwear, imported from Japan, here involved, and that such value was $0,617 per pair, less the items marked A in a circle, in red ink, on page 4 of the invoice.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit








Exhibit #10.3
     THIRD AMENDMENT
TO
CAMDEN NATIONAL CORPORATION
2012 EQUITY AND INCENTIVE PLAN
		
	A.
	The Camden National Corporation 2012 Equity and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as follows:


1.Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting such section in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:
“The maximum number of shares of Stock reserved and available for issuance under the Plan shall be 1,200,000 shares, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 3(b); provided that not more than 600,000 shares shall be issued in the form of Unrestricted Stock Awards, Restricted Stock Awards, or Performance Share Awards. For purposes of this limitation, the shares of Stock underlying any Awards (including any awards granted pursuant to the Company’s 2003 Stock Option and Incentive Plan) which are forfeited, canceled, held back upon exercise of an Option or settlement of an Award to cover the exercise price or tax withholding, reacquired by the Company, satisfied without the issuance of Stock or otherwise terminated (other than by exercise) shall be added back to the shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan. In addition, the maximum number of shares that may be issued under this Plan pursuant to the exercise of Incentive Stock Options shall be 1,200,000. Subject to such overall limitations, shares of Stock may be issued up to such maximum numbers pursuant to any type or types of Award; provided, however, that Stock Options or Stock Appreciation Rights with respect to no more than 45,000 shares of Stock may be granted to any one individual grantee during any one calendar year period. The shares available for issuance under the Plan may be authorized but unissued shares of Stock or shares of Stock reacquired by the Company and held in its treasury.”
		
	B.
	Except as otherwise so amended, the Plan is confirmed in all other respects.


C.The effective date of this Amendment is as of September 30, 2016.
Executed this 30th day of September, 2016 by a duly authorized officer of Camden National Corporation.


CAMDEN NATIONAL CORPORATION
By:    
	
	
	/s/ John W. Holmes

	John W. Holmes

	Director
EXHIBIT 31.1

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14(A) AND 15D-14(A),AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Roger L. Fidler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Global Agri-Med Technologies, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)):

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

         Date: November 21, 2005

/s/ Roger L. Fidler------------------------------------Roger L. Fidler,Chief Executive Officer
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 Granting Def’ts’ First Request for EOT (Gamberg, Harnden, Jimenez)

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

JAMES E. FLYNN

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

MARIA G. CHAN, State Bar No. 192130

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 323-1940

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Gamberg, Harnden 

and Jimenez

SA2005302079

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GODFREY L. EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. JIMENEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-04-2705 DFL KJM P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ FIRST REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE A RESPONSIVE

PLEADING

The first request for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading made by

defendants Gamberg, Harnden and Jimenez has been considered by the Court, and good cause

appearing, defendants’ request is granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the responsive pleading of defendants Gamberg,

Harnden and Jimenez is due no later than January 18, 2006.

DATED: December 20, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02705-JAM -KJM Document 14 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 50509.

#### Protests 67425-K, etc., of Folkard & Lawrence, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New .York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained-to this extent.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13296-13297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

[CBP Dec. 07-06]


Re-Accreditation and Re-Approval of Camin Cargo Control Inc., as 
a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of re-approval of Camin Cargo Control Inc., of Chelsea, 
Massachusetts, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 
151.13, Camin Cargo Control Inc., 471 Eastern Avenue, Chelsea, 
Massachusetts 02150, has been re-approved to gauge petroleum and 
petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils, and to test 
petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance 
with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13. Anyone wishing to 
employ this entity to conduct laboratory analysis or gauger services 
should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it 
is accredited or approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. 
Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific tests or gauger 
services this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be 
directed to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection by calling 
(202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_ svcs/org--and--
operations.xml.

DATES: The re-approval of Camin Cargo Control Inc., as a commercial 
gauger and laboratory became effective on August 22, 2006. The next 
triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2009.

[[Page 13297]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene J. Bondoc, Ph.D, or Randall 
Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, 
Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

    Dated: March 15, 2007.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director Laboratories and Scientific Services.
 [FR Doc. E7-5098 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
#### Elíseo Reyes, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 2]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered May 2, 1994, which granted plaintiffs motion to amend his notice of claim to reflect the correct address of the building where he was allegedly injured, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 27, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion for "renewal/reargument” after deeming it one for reargument only, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The incorrect description of the building in question as 3121 instead of 3125 Park Avenue, not challenged as anything other than a typographical error, did not cause defendant any prejudice (General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]). First, the highly transient nature of the alleged defect, debris and grease on a stairwell, would have made it impossible for defendant to investigate the defect even if the notice of claim, which was served 46 days after the incident, had given the correct address of the building *(see, Baez v New York City Hous. Auth.,*182 AD2d 554). Second, defendant owned the entire block of buildings from 3115 to 3125 Park Avenue and knew that there was no building in the block designated as 3121. "[N]umerous cases have upheld notices under circumstances in which the municipal defendant, with a modicum of effort, could have determined the location of the defective condition alleged to have caused injury to the plaintiff.” *(Lord v New York City Hous. Auth.,*184 AD2d 406, 407.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 Kronos Worldwide,  Inc. (the Company)
on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2005 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harold C.
Simmons,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  and I, Gregory M. Swalwell,
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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Harold C. Simmons
--------------------------
Harold C. Simmons
   Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Gregory M. Swalwell
--------------------------
Gregory M. Swalwell
   Chief Financial Officer


November 3, 2005


Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3782

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Dairron Robinson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: July 10, 2024 Filed: July 15, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Dairron Robinson appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel has moved to withdraw

1 The Honorable Matthew T. Schelp, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that it is “nearly inconceivable” that district court abused its discretion in not varying further when it varied below Guidelines range). We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
No. 64200.

protest 270089-K (New York).

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise does not contain ethyl alcohol and that the issue is similar to that in *United States*v. *Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc.*(46 C.C.P.A. 115, C.A.D. 711), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order entered April 1, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01319-CV

DANA AND CHRISTOPHER SHEARIN, Appellants

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 004-01581-2014

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Claudia Webb’s March 30, 2015 fourth request for an 

extension of time to file the record, which was originally due February 3, 2015. We GRANT the 

request and ORDER the record be filed no later than April 7, 2015. We caution Ms. Webb that 

if the record is not filed by April 7th, we may order she not sit as a court reporter until the record 

is filed. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1985-1986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-500]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Meeting of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Executive Panel

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The CNO Executive Panel will form consensus advice for the 
final report on the findings and recommendations of the Middle East 
Subcommittee to the CNO. The meeting

[[Page 1986]]

will consist of discussions of potential future operating environments 
and force posture implications.

DATES: The meeting will be held on February 2, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 12 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Center for Naval Analysis 
Corporation Boardroom at 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-
1846.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR David Di Tallo, CNO Executive 
Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311, 703-681-4908.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), these matters constitute 
classified information that is specifically authorized by Executive 
Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are, in 
fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. 
Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that 
the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be 
closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed 
in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

    Dated: January 9, 2007.
M.A. Harvison,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Office.
[FR Doc. E7-500 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### In the Matter of Maureen McAllister, Appellant, v Michael Dowling et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 395]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to enjoin the respondents from reducing her monthly food stamp benefits pending an administrative appeal, and to direct the respondents to pay her costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), entered April 27, 1994, as denied her application for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner’s application for an award of attorney’s fees *444was properly denied. “To be considered a prevailing party, the petitioner must have shown that her suit, regardless of whether she prevailed in a judgment, caused the State or its agency to change their respective positions or to take certain actions” *(Matter of Pannhorst v Sabol,*212 AD2d 794, 795; *see, Kansas Health Care Assn, v Kansas Dept, of Social & Rehabilitation Serv.,*31 F3d 1052,1053). This is largely a factual determination, and the findings of the trial court will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous *(see, Pullman-Standard, v Swint,*456 US 273, 293; *Gerena- Valentin v Koch,*739 F2d 755, 759). Under the circumstances, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit *(see,*CPLR 408). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Before the Second Division,

December 16, 1954

No. 58596.

protest 196766-K (New York).

#### Rietmann Pilcer Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of. locks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Packaged Hardware Corp.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1588), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.