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

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 114 (Friday, June 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33990-33991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[PUBLIC NOTICE: 8764]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Monet and the Seine: Impressions of a River''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of

[[Page 33991]]

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 
of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 
1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), 
Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of 
Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation 
of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the 
objects to be included in the exhibition ``Monet and the Seine: 
Impressions of a River,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Philbrook Museum of Art, Tulsa, Oklahoma, from 
on or about June 29, 2014, until on or about September 21, 2014, the 
Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Houston, Texas, from on or about October 
26, 2014, until on or about February 1, 2015, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 9, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-13901 Filed 6-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5494]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Part 402

[Regulation No. 2; Docket No. SSA-2007-0020]
RIN 0960-AG46


Technical Amendments To Correct Cross-References

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains three technical corrections to our 
regulations. We are changing three cross-references because they are 
currently incorrect.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective on March 29, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie A. Greenwald, Social 
Insurance Specialist, Office of Regulations, Social Security 
Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. Call 
(410) 966-7813 or TTY 1-800-325-0778 for information about these 
correcting amendments. For information on eligibility or filing for 
benefits, call our national toll-free numbers 1-(800)-772-1213 or TTY 
1-(800)-325-0778. You may also contact Social Security online at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are making corrections to our current 
regulations at 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2) which contain errors. The three 
cross-references in the last sentence of Sec.  402.35(b)(2) incorrectly 
show Sec. Sec.  404.984(b), 410.610c(b) and 416.1484(b). We are 
changing these to reflect the correct cross-references.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 96.001 Social 
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security--Retirement 
Insurance; 96.004 Social Security--Survivors Insurance and 96.006 
Supplemental Security Income.

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 402

    Administrative practice and procedure; Freedom of information.

    Dated: March 21, 2007.
Paul Kryglik,
Acting SSA Regulations Officer.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 402 of chapter III of 
title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected by making the 
following correcting amendments:

PART 402--AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION AND RECORDS TO THE PUBLIC

0
1. The authority citation for part 402 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 205, 702(a)(5), and 1106 of the Social Security 
Act; (42 U.S.C. 405, 902(a)(5), and 1306); 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a; 8 
U.S.C. 1360; 18 U.S.C. 1905; 26 U.S.C. 6103; 30 U.S.C. 923(b); 31 
U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235.


0
2. Section 402.35 is corrected by revising the last sentence of 
paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  402.35  Publication.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * * For a description of Social Security Acquiescence 
Rulings, see 20 CFR 404.985(c), 410.670c(b), and 416.1485(c) of this 
title.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-5494 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC SECTION 1350








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





CERTIFICATION
OF CUSTODIAN





In
connection with the Annual Report of Turner Valley Oil & Gas,
Inc.., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Christopher Paton-Gay, Sole Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my
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 operations of the
Company.





Dated:
March 31, 2008


Christopher
      Paton-GayChristopher
      Paton-Gaypresident/director/Sole
      Officer
Case Wo. 7,951.

#### KURTZ v. BECKER et al.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 671.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1840.

Pleading at Law — Action of Covenant — Action AGAINST Two — NoL. PkOS. AS TO ONE — Judgment against Other.

In covenant against two. if one plead infancy, and it be found for him. the plaintiff may enter a nolle prosequi against him, and have judgment against the other.

[Cited in 51undy v. Stevens, 61 Fed. 86.]

Covenant, against John H. Becker and John Dove. Becker pleaded infancy, and the jury found a verdict for him upon that issue. The plaintiff [Peter Kurtz] entered a nolle prosequi as to him, and obtained a verdict against Dove.

51r. Brent, for Dove,

moved in arrest of judgment; and cited Green v. Charnock, Cro. Eliz. 762.

5Ir. Bradley, for plaintiff,

cited Minor v. Mechanics’ Bank, 1 Pet. [26 U. S.] 73.

1

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

THE COURT

(nem. con.) overruled the motion, and ordered the judgment to be entered up against Dove.
Exhibit 32.9

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 operations of the Winton/Graham Series.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                  
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                    
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                     
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                         
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund                                                                                                             
|Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund                                                      

Date: May 12, 2010
#### Deborah H. Van Gorder, Appellant, v Wayne R. Van Gorder, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 687]

—White, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered November 9, 1994 in Ulster County, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion for a money judgment pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244.

In the stipulation of settlement of their matrimonial action that was subsequently incorporated, but not merged, in the judgment of divorce, defendant agreed to be responsible for all outstanding income tax liens and deliver the appropriate releases to plaintiff. She, in turn, agreed, within 30 days of the receipt of the releases, to pay defendant $15,000 in monthly installments of $160. She further agreed, within 60 days of the receipt of the releases, to pay the balances due on several of the parties’ joint credit cards. Defendant delivered the tax releases on May 13, 1994; plaintiff, however, failed to make any of the aforementioned payments. This led defendant to make this application, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244, for a money judgment which Supreme Court granted, prompting this appeal by plaintiff.

Inasmuch as Domestic Relations Law § 244 encompasses arrears in any payments that should have been paid pursuant to a judgment or order, Supreme Court did not err in including the balances due on the parties’ joint credit card accounts in the judgment *(see, Paul v Paul,*200 AD2d 820, *lv dismissed*83 NY2d 953; *Lauter v Howe,*158 AD2d 393, 394). We need not address plaintiff’s concern that she will continue to be obligated to the credit card companies if defendant does not pay them in light of his assurance that he is doing so. In any event, plaintiff would not be without remedy if he failed to do so.

We will reduce the judgment by $100 as that sum represents motion costs awarded defendant in a prior order later reversed by this Court *(see, Van Gorder v Van Gorder,*213 AD2d 893).

Mercure, J. P., Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reducing the judgment to $9,744.60, and, as so modified, affirmed.
Before the Second Division,

September 27, 1945

No. 50526.

#### Protest 118572-K (A) of Jean R. Graef, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the merchandise consists of calendars similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Thorens, Inc.*(32 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 298), the protest was sustained as claimed.
No. 52348.

protests 491026-G, etc. (New York).

#### Syndicate Trading Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore spstained.
#### State, *ex rel.*H. V. Diamond, *et al.,*as Board of County Commissioners, Santa Rosa County, v. Fred P. Cone, as Governor, J. M. Lee, as Comptroller, W. V. Knott, as Treasurer, as and constituting the Board of Administration.

177 So. 878.

En Banc.

Opinion Filed October 6, 1937.

*John T. Wigginton,*for Petitioners;

*J. Velma Keen*and *A. Frank O’Kelley,*Jr., for Respondent, Lee.

*Pleus, Williams & Pleus,*as *Amici Curiae.*

Teeeell, J.

The facts in this case are in point with those in the companion case of State, *ex rel.*A. L. Wilson, *et al.,*as Board of County Commissioners of Gadsden County, v. Fred P. Cone, J. M. Lee, and W. V. Knott, *et al.,*as State Board of Administration, decided this date. The Act relied on, Chapter 17972, Acts of 1937, is the same type of Act and operates in the same manner as Chapter 17042, and Chapter 17034, Acts of 1935, relied on in the companion case of State, *ex rel.*J. R. Mayo, *et al.,*as Board of County Commissioners of Calhoun County, v. J. M. Lee, *et al.,*decided this date.

The basis of classification being similar, what we said in the foregoing styled cases and the case of State, *ex rel.*O. J. Harrell, *et al.,*as Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, v. Fred P. Cone, J. M. Lee, and W. V. Knott, *et al.,*as State Board of Administration, decided this date, is conclusive of all questions raised in this case.

The motion to quash the alternative writ is accordingly granted with leave to amend the alternative writ.

*220It is so ordered.

Whitfield and Chapman, J. J., concur.

.Ellis, C. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur specially.

Buford, J.

(concurring specially).—I concur in the judgment stated at the conclusion of the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Terrell, but it is my view that this case is in all respects like the case of State, *ex rel.*A. L. Wilson, *et al.,*v. Fred P. Cone, *et al.,*decided at this Term, and,’therefore, because of the reasons stated for the conclusion reached by me in that case, I think the alternative writ here should be quashed, with leave to the Relators to amend so as to come within the purview of the provisions of Chapter 15659, Acts of 1931, as to the balance due Santa Rosa County under the provisions of that Act, which the records in the office of the State Treasurer show to be in the sum of $82,047.32 as and when the same becomes available.

Ellis, C. J., and Brown, J., concur.
U.S. National Arboretum Plant Introduction

Floral and Nursery Plants Research Unit

U.S. National Arboretum, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 3501 New York Ave., N.E., Washington, DC 20002

Prunus 'Dream Catcher'

The U.S. National Arboretum presents Prunus 'Dream Catcher', a flowering

cherry introduction that is sure to catch you in its charming web. Delight in

single, clear medium pink flowers in early spring, dark green leaves without blemish

throughout the summer, yellowish orange fall color, and an upright, vase-shaped winter

silhouette. This dream of a tree is perfectly suited for smaller landscapes and will give

you pleasure through all four seasons.
U.S. National Arboretum Plant Introduction

Floral and Nursery Plants Research Unit

U.S. National Arboretum: www.ars-grin.gov/na/

'Dream Catcher' Hybrid Ornamental Flowering Cherry

November 1999

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Botanical Name: Prunus 'Dream Catcher'

(NA 61050; PI 583787)

Family: Rosaceae

Hardiness: U.S.D.A. Zones 6–8

Development: Open-pollinated seed of Prunus x incam 'Okame' was collected in

1978, germinated, grown, and planted for evaluation in field trials.

Several selections from this population were made in 1984 by

Dr. Donald Egolf. One seedling, after further evaluation, was

named 'Dream Catcher'. It was officially released by Dr. Margaret

Pooler in March, 1999.

Significance: 'Dream Catcher' is an initial release from the flowering cherry

genetic improvement program at the U.S. National Arboretum.

Well-suited to nursery production, it offers year-round ornamental

features, high tolerance to insects and diseases, combined with ease

of propagation and rapid early growth.

Description: Height and Width: 25 feet tall with a crown spread of 15 feet.

Habit: Deciduous, moderate-sized, upright, vase-shaped tree.

Foliage: Dark green, pest-tolerant leaves throughout the summer;

autumn color yellow orange.

Flowers: Large, clear medium pink, single flowers in late March to

early April, about 1 week after the parent, Prunus x incam 'Okame'.

Fruit: A drupe. Small, red, quickly maturing to black, readily eaten

by birds.

Culture: Grows and flowers well in full sun in well-drained soil. Needs

adequate water in hot, dry situations in summer. Rooted cuttings

show vigorous early growth in nursery.

Propagation: Roots easily from softwood or semi-hardwood cuttings under mist

using 1000–3000 ppm IBA in talc or a 5-second quick dip, in 4–6

weeks.

Landscape Use: Specimen plant, group plantings in residential, park, or public areas

or flowering street tree.

Availability: Plants were distributed to cooperating nurseries in 1990 and 1992.

Limited quantities of finished trees available from wholesale

distributors. Rooted cuttings to be distributed to additional

propagation nurseries in 2000.
No. 55332.

#### Amptra Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 149127-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 49243.

#### Protests 994307-G, etc., of L. Bamberger & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v MARTIN ALFRED JOHNSON, Electrician’s Mate Second Class, U. S. Navy, Appellant

20 USCMA 290, 43 CMR 130

No. 23,598

January 22, 1971

*Lieutenant George F. McGunnigle, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Julge:

In this case, the military judge, in his efforts to comply with the requirements laid down by this Court in United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969), asked defense counsel whether *he*had “explained to the accused his rights concerning counsel.” Upon receiving an affirmative reply, he requested counsel to state the nature of this advice. Thereafter, the military judge did not *personally*question the accused, as required by *Donohew,*relative to his knowledge of “each of the elements of Article 38(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.” *Donohew,*supra, at page 152. His failure to do so is reversible error. United States v Bowman, 20 USCMA 119, 42 CMR 311 (1970); United States v Goodin, 20 USCMA 160, 42 CMR 352 (1970); *291United States v Mosley, 20 USCMA 185, 43 CMR 25 (1970). See also United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Scott, 19 USCMA 383, 41 CMR 383 (1970); United States v Carter, 20 USCMA 146, 42 CMR 338 (1970).

We find no fault with the extent of the advice given the accused by defense counsel and note that it was similar in content to that contained on the written form utilized for this purpose in *Bowman, Goodin,*and *Mosley,*all supra. But as we said of the form in *Bowman,*at page 122:

> “The exhibit is helpful in demonstrating that the accused was advised by his attorney prior to trial concerning his entitlement to counsel. But that was the law in force at the time of *Donohew.*The exhibit should not and cannot be a substitute for the in-court, on-the-record advice and determination of understanding and choice to be made by the law officer in all cases tried thirty days after March 7, 1969, the date of the *Donohew*opinion.”

The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered.

Judge Darden concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

I would affirm for the reasons set out in my dissent in United States v Bowman, 20 USCMA 119, 42 CMR 311 (1970), and United States v Carter, 20 USCMA 146, 42 CMR 338 (1970).
No. 45035.

#### Protests 544110-G, etc., of A. DeLuca & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

69–011 WASHINGTON : 1999

106th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 106–53

AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES

OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SUPREME

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE AS ADOPTED BY THE COURT, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2075

APRIL 29, 1999.—Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered

to be printed


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
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10282 Conference Calendar

GERALD DEMARSH Plaintiff-Appellant

v. CHARLES KUNKL E; PATRICK STARR; KATHLEEN MIRACLE; JASON CHRISTMAN Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CV-2006
Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gerald DeMarsh appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as frivolous and/or barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). DeMarsh filed a motion to expedite this appeal. He argues that the magistrate judge and the district court acted improperly and that he has a right toself-representation. Although we liberally construe prose briefs, seeHainesv. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10282

2 them. See Yohey v.Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). By failing to discuss the district court’s rationale for dismissing his complaint, DeMarsh has abandoned the issue, and it is the same as if he had not appealed thejudgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). This appeal is without merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 T H C IR
. R. 42.2. The motion to expedite the appeal is denied. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.