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

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,115]

Hoke, Inc.; Berlin, CT; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 15, 2007 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers of Hoke, Inc., Berlin, Connecticut.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by a duplicate petition 
(TA-W-61,106) instituted on March 15, 2007 that is the subject of an 
ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been 
issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts; 
therefore the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of March 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-5850 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8695 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8695

    To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to create a unique 
identification number for registered lobbyists, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2024

  Ms. Porter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to create a unique 
identification number for registered lobbyists, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lobbying Disclosure Modernization 
Act''.

SEC. 2. UPDATES TO THE LOBBYING DISCLOSURE SYSTEM.

    (a) Website.--
            (1) Filing.--The second sentence of section 5(e) of the 
        Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604(e)) is amended 
        to read as follows: ``The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 
        of the House of Representatives shall jointly use one publicly 
        available website for receipt and recording of filings under 
        this Act.''.
            (2) Storage.--Section 6(a)(9) of the Lobbying Disclosure 
        Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605(a)(9)) by striking ``over the 
        Internet,'' and inserting ``over the Internet on a website 
        jointly maintained by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 
        of the House of Representatives,''.
    (b) Unique Identifier.--Section 6(a)(3) of the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
            (2) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon the end of 
        subparagraph (B); and
            (3) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following:
                    ``(C) a system that assigns a unique identification 
                number for each lobbyist for whom a registration or 
                report is filed under this Act and discloses such 
                identifier to the public as structured data as part of 
                the lobbying disclosure downloads;''.
    (c) Deadline.--The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives shall have one year from the date of enactment 
of this Act to fulfill the requirements of the amendments made under 
this section.
                                 <all>
```
#### Commonwealth, *v.*Pent.

Submitted March 17, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*547April 23, 1969:

*Richard L. McOandless,*for appellant.

*Robert F. Hawk,*Assistant District Attorney, and *John H. Brydon,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Order affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CLARENCE E. GEAVLEY, Jr., Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

9 USCMA 120, 25 CMR 382

*121No. 10,914

Decided April 4, 1958

*Miss Madeline DeFina, Major Frank. C. Stetson,*and *First Lieutenant Neil Flanagin*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *First Lieutenant John E. Riecker*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

The accused, in spite of his plea of not guilty, was convicted by general court-martial of desertion from December 7, 1954, until apprehended on May 1, 1957. After the prosecution had presented its ease and the defense had rested without offering any evidence, the trial counsel, in addressing the court in closing argument, made the following comment:

> “. . . I would like to say only that the accused is charged with desertion, and that the intent to stay away permanently may be inferred from his long absence. That in itself is sufficient to warrant the court in returning a verdict of guilty as charged.”

The law officer in instructing the court did not refer to this principle which was held erroneous in United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 CMR 382. The court-martial, however, was given the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, for its perusal in closed session over the specific objection by defense counsel.

A similar situation was held prejudicial by a unanimous Court in the ease of United States v DeMaris, 8 USCMA 750, 25 CMR 254; accord, United States v Henthorne, 8 USCMA 752, 25 CMR 256. For the reasons stated in those opinions, the accused’s conviction of desertion must be set aside. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for reference to a board of review. The board, in its discretion, may approve the lesser offense of absence without leave and reassess the sentence, or it may order a rehearing on the principal offense.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7234

JOHNNY DWAYNE ADAMS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DR. OFOUGHT; MEDICAL DEPARTMENT AT SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA 

REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY; RICK NIECE, Charge Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior

District Judge. (7:12-cv-00462-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: January 30, 2015 Decided: February 9, 2015

Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Dwayne Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, 

Jennifer Dillow Royer, GUYNN & DILLON, P.C., Salem, Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Dwayne Adams appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, finding 

that Adams failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Adams v. Ofought, No. 7:12-cv-00462-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. 

Aug. 4, 2014). We deny the motion to appoint counsel. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Hirschbach & Smith, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6320.

Entry No. 740729, etc.

Invoices dated Hawick, Scotland, January 28, 1942, etc.

Certified January 30, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 27, 1942, etc.

(Decided August 12, 1946)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff,

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

The issues involved in these appeals for reappraisement of wool wearing apparel are- concededly the same as those decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*32 C. C. P. A. 187, C. A. D. 305, the record in which case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties.

The incorporated case found cost of production, section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (f)), to be the proper basis for appraisement, and held that the so-called British purchase tax described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act. 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48,” was not an item to be included in the “usual general expenses” contemplated within subdivision (2) of section 492 (f), *supra,*and therefore not to be calculated in determining such statutory value.

On the agreement of counsel — set forth in the stipulation of submission — that the several elements entering into the statutory cost of production of the merchandise in question is equal to the appraised values thereof, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, I hold such values to be the cost of production, section 402 (f), *supra,*which I find to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### ALONZO ALFORD *v.*HENRY BERKELE and Others. DAVID THORNTON, Receiver, Respondent. WINCHESTER REPEATING ARMS COMPANY, a Judgment Creditor, Appellant.

Beceiver— *of a firm, may be appointed without notice to a non-resident partner.*

In an action brought by one partner, against his copartners, to procure a dissolution of the partnership, the court may upon the application of the plaintiff and the appearance of the resident partners, appoint a receiver of the firm assets, without notice to one of the defendant partners, who is a non-resident. Section 713 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to such cases.

Appeal from au order made at a Special Term denying a motion of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company to vacate and set aside the appointment of David Thornton, as receiver of the firm of Alford, Ward, Davenport *&*Co.

The motion was made on the ground that the receiver was appointed without notice to defendant Ward, and on the ground of an alleged non-compliance with section 713 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

*George 8.*Hastings, for the appellant.

*Sidney 8. Harris,*for the respondent.

Barnard, P. J.:

We are of the opinion that section 713 of the Code is not applicable to this case. The plaintiff and defendants are partners. The partnership has no fixed term to run, but may be terminated *634at the will of the parties. They disagreed and cannot harmoniously settle up the business. The partnership owes debts, and the plaintiff has a greater interest in the partnership, by reason of putting in a larger portion of the capital, than the other members of the firm. The complaint stated that the defendant Wild was a non-resident of the State, and kept away to embarrass the business by his neglect. The plaintiff applied for a 'receiver. The defendants, other than Wild, appeared by counsel and opposed. A receiver was appointed without notice to Wild. If the case is not under section 713, Code, the objection that Wild was not served, is not good. It was always the rule of the Court of Chancery to appoint a receiver in like cases without notice to a non-resident partner. *(People*v. *Norton,*1 Paige, 17; *Verplanck*v. *Mercantile Ins. Co.,*2 id., 438; *Bloodgood*v. *Clark,*4 id., 574.)

. There was then, and there is now, no way to serve a notice of motion out of the State. Section 713, Code, provides for eases in addition to cases specially provided by law.- Section 1947, Code, specially gives power to the court to appoint a receiver in cases of partnership.

. The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concurred.

Order refusing to vacate order appointing a receiver affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8666 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize holding 

court for the Central Division of Utah in Moab and 

Monticello. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 8666 RFS

1 SECTION 1. JUDICIAL DISTRICT. 

2 Section 125 of title 28, United States Code, is 

3 amended by striking ‘‘and St. George’’ and inserting ‘‘St. 

4 George, Moab, and Monticello.’’ 

Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### John P. Read and others, *Appellants, v.*John A. Miller and others, *Respondents.*

— Judginent and order affirmed, on opinion of Daniels, J., at Special Term.
Goldman, Davis, Murr & Cooper. The Influence of 1, 2 and 4 Days of Atrazine Treatments on

the LH Surge in Ovariecto mized / Estradiol

- primed Rats: Preliminary Report to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Abstract

The herbicide atrazine has been found in female rodents to suppress the midcycle surge of pituitary luteinizing hormone (LH) that in response to input from the brain serves as the trigger for the final stages of ovarian follicular and oocytic develop ment t hat precede ovulation. Atrazine has also been reported to stimulate the secretion of both progesterone and corticosterone, suggesting that these increases may be a factor affecting the LH surge. Using an ovariectomized / estradiol

- primed animal model in order to control the circulating concentrations of estradiol and induce daily LH surge s , female rats were dosed by oral gavage for 1, 2, or 4 days with 0 or 100 mg/kg atrazine In response to multiple exposures, this concentration of atrazine had previousl y been established to block the sur ge . The experiments revealed two important findings. First, the effect of a single dose of atrazine in ovariectomized rats increased adrenal steroid secretion, and this treatment caused a statistically significant enhan cement in the LH surge, an effect consistent with an exposure to progesterone in the ho urs prior to the antici pated appearance of the rise in LH. Multiple doses were found to suppress the surge , which is likely a consequence of a more extended exposure to the adrenal steroids. This temporal aspect of a rise in these steroids on the LH surge has long been known and in the case of atrazine emphasizes the influence of the adrenals o n the relationship between the brain and pituitary in generation of the surge.
No. 53624.

protest 145568-K (New York).

#### Mrs. Carl White *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When the case was called for trial there was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff. An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
Before the Third Division,

May 8, 1961

No. 65598.

#### Peerless Importers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/25370 (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
#### John E. Styles, *Respondent, v.*John B. Fuller, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32**CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Christopher Naughton, the President and Chief Executive Officer ofMarshall Edwards, Inc. (the “Registrant”), and David R. Seaton, the Chief Financial Officer of theRegistrant, each hereby certifies that, to his or her knowledge:1. The Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006, towhich this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of the period covered by the PeriodicReport and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by the PeriodicReport.These certifications accompany the Form 10-Q to which they relate, are not deemed filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.Dated: February 6, 2007       /s/ CHRISTOPHER NAUGHTON Christopher Naughton   /s/ DAVID SEATON David R. Seaton  Chief Executive Officer   Chief Financial Officer  
39
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-040-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
No. 56525.

protests 169865-K, etc. (New York).

#### Amerex Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, 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 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)) for the registrant and have:



1. 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;
2. 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
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



1. The registrant's other certifying officer 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):



1. 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
2. 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.





|November 14, 2006 | /s/ John P. Manning    
|----------------- | -----------------------
|                  | John P. Manning        
|                  | Chief Executive Officer
|                  |
Before the Second Division,

July 21, 1943

No. 48576.

#### Protest 97346-K of Eurasia Import Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218), the claim at 25 percent was sustained.
TALRIS TERRELL BROWN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5943

___ __________________________/

Opinion filed March 2, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Calhoun County

. Allen L. Register , Judge

.

Talris Terrel l Brown, pro se , Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

R OBERTS , ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
No. 50547.

#### Protest 76583-K of Arthur M. Rosenberg Co. (Bridgeport).

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 protest was sustained to this extent.