alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 45134.

#### Protests 971426-G, etc., of M. Pressner & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingek, J.

It was stipulated that the dime savings banks in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 42749. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
Before the Second Division,

May 26, 1945

No. 50217.

#### Protests 555777-G, etc., of Brown & Kruger et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

RONALD THOMAS, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:12-cv-0538 

 JUDGE SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge King 

WARDEN LEBANON CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION, 

 Defendant. 

 ORDER 

On April 22, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that this action be dismissed. The parties were specifically 

advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of 

their failure to do so. There has nevertheless been no objection to the Report and 

Recommendation. 

 The Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This case is 

hereby DISMISSED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:12-cv-00538-GCS-NMK Doc #: 19 Filed: 07/01/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 10.52  ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT  This Addendum (the Addendum) is entered into as of January 1, 2011, by and among MARYLAND RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC., a Maryland limited liability company (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) and KATIN RADIATION THERAPY, P.A., a Maryland professional corporation (the PA).  This Addendum amends Section 3.1 of the Administrative Services Agreement dated October 31, 1998 between the parties (the Agreement) to adjust the monthly Service Fee of $3,666.67 paid in 2010 to a monthly Service Fee of $3,250.00, and replaces the Addendum of that same Section dated January 1, 2010.  From and after the date hereof, Section 3.1 shall read as follows:  3.1. Service Fee.  For the services to be provided hereunder by MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the PA shall pay to MANAGEMENT SERVICES a monthly Service Fee of $3,250.00  The parties agree that the Service Fee represents the fair market value of the services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES hereunder and that the parties shall meet annually to reevaluate the value of services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES and shall establish the fair market value thereof for purposes of this Section 3.1.   Accepted:
MARYLAND   RADIATION THERAPYMANAGEMENT   SERVICES, INC.By:
/s/   Kerrin E. GillespieKerrin   E. GillespieVice   PresidentAccepted:
KATIN   RADIATION THERAPY, P.A.By:
/s/   Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.Daniel   E. Dosoretz, M.D.Vice   President
----

| 1.   | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement and the Administrator under the Administration Agreement dated as of November 1, 2010 among the Issuer, CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Administrator (the "Administrator"), and the Indenture Trustee. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | This Officer's Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Section 3.9 of the Indenture. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on November 10, 2010 and ending on February 28, 2011 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | A review of the activities of the Issuer during the period beginning on November 10, 2010 and ending on February 28, 2011 and of the Issuer's performance under the Indenture was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Issuer has complied in all material respects with all conditions and covenants under the Indenture throughout such period. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|   | /s/ Keith D. Browning    |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Keith D. Browning        |
|   | Executive Vice President |
P.1 

OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

23) ll-C-20 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:44 PM Sheet 23 of 79 
P.2 

*& ST9: 3L-C-75& 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | rSMR<7 S U IN 11 bU S I A1 BJS UJ W V lltu n ratii'N IA L rivw i 

% -VMAZ. ' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

\ PRO**-0 

AUG -4198 7 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. Jim J. Tozzi 

Multinational Business Services, Inc. 

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Mr. Tozzi: 

In your letter dated June 26, 1987, you expressed the view 

that EPA's consideration of Federal onboard vapor recovery 

regulations is contributing to the ozone non-attainment 

problem. While I welcome your comments on the complex issue of 

how best to control refueling emissions, I find your position 

in this instance somewhat difficult to understand. 

I guestion the basic premise that all the states currently 

without Stage II controls, as listed in the attachment to your 

letter, are committed to, aggressively pursuing, or are likely 

to adopt such controls in a timely manner. We know that 

Washington, DC and most of California have Stage II programs; 

St. Louis, Missouri is in the process of installing Stage II 

eguipment; and the New York City area is taking the initial 

steps to institute a program. Beyond this, our review of the 

State Implementation Plans for many of the areas you reference 

does not necessarily show a commitment to implement Stage II. 

Further, we find it very likely that local resistance could 

significantly delay the implementation of Stage II controls in 

many areas. 

You also recommended that the President's Domestic Policy 

Council be allowed to decide the issue of refueling emissions 

control to ensure the involvement of all interested Federal 

agencies. We have already consulted extensively with other 

Federal agencies, and the comment period of any future 

rulemaking will provide additional opportunity for comment by 

all interested parties. 
P.3 

- 2 -

Thank you for your interest in this matter of great 

importance. Your letter is being placed in EPA's public docket 

(A-87-11) to ensure your comments are fully considered in any 

future regulatory action on the issue of refueling emissions 

control. 

Sincerely, 

Lee M. Thomas
# C_2008137EN.01000502.xml

| 4.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5131 — Rewe/Fegro-Selgros)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 137/03)

On 16 May 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5131. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5131. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 66 (Friday, April 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6492]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 
20549.

Extension: Form S-8; OMB Control No. 3235-0066; SEC File No. 270-66.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for approval.
    Form S-8 (17 CFR 239.16b) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) is the primary registration statement used by 
qualified registrants to register securities issued in connection with 
employee benefit plans. We estimate that Form S-8 takes approximately 
24 hours per response to prepare and is filed by 3,847 respondents. We 
estimate that 50% of the 24 hours per response (12 hours per response) 
is prepared by the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 46,164 
hours (12 hours per response x 3,847 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o 
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or 
send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#edbdbfacb2a08c84818f8295ad9e888ec38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="035351425c4e626a6f616c7b437066602d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 29, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6492 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### R & R PIPELINE COMPANY, et al. v. Darron CLARK

CA 86-30

704 S.W.2d 647

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 5, 1986

*Warner & Smith,*by: *Wayne Harris,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant has filed a motion asking that this matter be remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Commission for the commission to consider a joint petition to settle the case.

We, therefore, remand the record in this case to the commission and if the joint petition is approved, this appeal may *128be dismissed and if the joint petition is not approved, this appeal may be processed to decision upon application for brief time.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 188 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 188

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
              LaFreniere v. Congress of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 1, 2005

     Mr. Frist (for himself and Mr. Reid) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
              LaFreniere v. Congress of the United States.

Whereas the United States Congress has been named as a defendant in the case of 
        LaFreniere v. Congress of the United States, Civ. No. 05-1368, pending 
        in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
        California;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C.  288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct 
        its counsel to defend in civil actions the Senate when there is placed 
        in issue the validity of any action taken by the Senate in its official 
        capacity; and
Whereas, pursuant to section 708(c) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 
        U.S.C.  288g(c), the Senate may direct its counsel to perform other 
        duties: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel, in conjunction with 
counsel for the House of Representatives, is authorized to represent 
the United States Congress in the case of LaFreniere v. Congress of the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 35.1

EXHIBIT 35.1  ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2010 (the Sale and Servicing Agreement) among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2010-3, as Issuer (the Issuer), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, CarMax Business Services, LLC, as
Servicer (the Servicer), and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Backup Servicer, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2014 and ending on February 28, 2015 and of the Servicers performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made
under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing
Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officers
Certificate this 22nd day of May, 2015.



CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC/s/ Thomas W. ReedyThomas W. ReedyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

September 12, 1941

No. 46303.

#### Protests 50834-K/90080, etc., of Judson-Sheldon Corp. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 45347 the claim at 30 percent under paragraph 214 was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:12-cr-001 (3)

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

ROTH FABRICATING INC., 

Defendant.

ORDER

On January 20, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant Roth Fabricating Inc.’s

guilty plea to Count One of the Information charging the Defendant with conspiracy to commit wire

fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Defendant, represented by counsel, waived it’s right to appear

on the matter before a District Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule

11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from

coercion, and had a basis in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of it’s right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:12-cr-00001-GCS-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 02/14/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Information. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of

conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:12-cr-00001-GCS-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 02/14/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 48040.

#### Protest 15134-K of Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

A sample of the fillet of cod was received in evidence but no sample was produced of the haddock. The “smoke-house man” of the importing concern testified on behalf of the importer and one witness was produced by the defendant; but the testimony of neither was very impressive, and it was stated by the court that the most favorable interpretation of the testimony offered by the plaintiff does not begin to meet the burden imposed upon it, and that to accept such a narrow view that because the merchandise was artificially smoked it does not come within the meaning of the word “smoked” in the tariff act would violate all reason in applying commonly accepted rules governing the interpretation of statutes. Following *United States*v. *Albrecht*(27 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 71) the protest was overruled and the decision of the collector affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOMMY L. HUDGENS AND

ANNA REBECCA HUDGENS,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:12-cr-64

Judge Peter C. Economus

ORDER

There being no objections, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (doc. # 33) that their plea agreements and Defendants Tommy L. Hudgens and 

Anna Rebecca Hudgens’s guilty pleas be accepted. The Court accepts Defendants’ pleas of 

guilty to the Information which charges four (4) counts of wire fraud, on which Defendants are

hereby adjudged guilty.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PETER C. ECONOMUS

/s/ Peter C. Economus _____________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:12-cr-00064-PCE-EPD Doc #: 35 Filed: 06/05/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2008237EN.01000302.xml

| 16.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4667 — Syral/Tate & Lyle Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 237/06)

On 23 August 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4667. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4667. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### Jay Willfred Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7563.

Entry No. 743934, etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, February 15, 1946, etc.

Certified February 15, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 8, 1946, etc.

*404(Decided March 10, 1948)

*Siegel, Madnell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

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

Johnson, Judge:

This proceeding has been submitted upon a stipulation wherein, the parties hereto have agreed that the issues involved in the reappraisements listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as in the case of *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. The record in that case was admitted as part of the record herein.

In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement of fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that the export values of the merchandise are the values found by the appraiser, less any additions on entry by the importers by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equaL the so-called British purchase tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case Wo. 6,464.

#### GITTINGS v. BURCH.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 97.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1813.

Appeal — New Evidence.

New evidence cannot be heard upon an appeal from the orphans’ court.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) was of opinion that upon an appeal from the orphans’ court, new evidence could not be heard.