alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRI CT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARK A. KORNMANN , et al. , : : Plaintiff s, : Civil Action No.: 14

- 01677 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 3 : JONATHAN JOHNSON , et al. , : : Defendant s . : ORDER G RANTING IN P ART AND D ENYING IN P ART P LAINTIFFS ’ M OTION TO D ISMISS AND FOR S ANCTIONS On October 8, 2014 , Defendant Jonathan Johnson filed a notice of r emoval from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

. See ECF No. 1

. On October 11, 2014, Pla intiffs Mark A. Kornmann and Calvin Gerald

- Kornmann filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or , in the alternative, to remand to the Superior Court , and for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

. See ECF No. 3. The response from Mr. Johnson, who is proceeding pro se , was due on October 27 , 2014

. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1) ; D.D.C. Civ. R. 7(b). On November 7, 2014, this Court opted not to treat Plaintiffs’ motion as conceded under Local Civil Rule 7(b) , but inste ad advised Mr. Johnson of his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules and ordered him to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion on or before December 8, 2014

. See ECF No. 4; Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ; Fox

v. Strickland , 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam). The Court explained that if Mr. Johnson failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court may treat the motion as conceded,grant the motion, remand this action to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and impose monetary sanctions. See ECF No. 4. December 8, 2014, has now passed, and Mr. Johnson has not responded to Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court therefore treats as conceded Plaint iffs’ argument that this Court lacks subject

- matter jurisdiction, on grounds that the parties are not completely diverse

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Notwithstanding Mr. Johnson’s failure to respond, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions under R ule 11

. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. While the Court does not look favorably upon Mr. Johnson’s removal of this action two days after entry of judgment in the Superior Court , see Pls.’ Ex. A, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating that the “ext reme punishment” of Rule 1 1 sanctions is warranted here, Naegele v. Albers , 355 F. Supp. 2d 129, 144 (D.D.C. 2005). Additionally , the Court recognizes that Mr. Johnson “ is a pro se [defendant] who lacks the training possessed by a licensed attorney .” Dorsey v. Am. Express Co. , 680 F. Supp. 2d 250 , 255 (D.D.C. 2010). The Court thus exercises its discretion to deny Plaintiffs’ request for Rule 11 sanctions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to remand to the Superior
Cour t and for sanctions (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART . I t is hereby ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Small Claims Branch of the Superior
Cou rt of the District of Columbia. SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2014 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

48) ll-E-8 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:04 AM Sheet 48 of 264 
P.2 

#-•£- 2 

CONTACT REPORT FORM 

PES PROJECT NO. N204 

Date Company 

7/15/93 Ashland Chemical 

Description 

Contact 

Frank Cassis (213) 724-2440 

Dr. Cassis is a marketing consultant who has represented the industry's 

interests in California for some time, especially with regard to the 

State's regulations. He likes the CARB RACT/BARCT guidance ("everything 

is in terms of positive controls"); rules for the San Diego, Bay Area, and 

San Joaquin Districts reflect this guidance. Dr. Cassis stated that the 

industry could meet a 45 percent monomer limit for specialty resins, which 

is below the 50 percent figure in the guidance. The South Coast AQMD's 

Rule 1162, developed in 1987, is somewhat different from the CARB 

guidance, and is currently undergoing revision. Whereas the rule exempts 

gelcoats, Dr. Cassis said that a limit of 45 percent styrene could in fact 

be met for gelcoats at this time. 

Dr. Cassis cited Gold Shield Fiberglass (200 employees) as a company that 

is progressive in adopting emission reduction measures. Since Rule 1162 

became effective, styrene exposures at the facility have dropped from 

about 100 ppm to less than 50 ppm. PES sent a screening survey to this 

company and is awaiting the response before contacting. 

Rule 1162 allows compliance through use of a closed mold system that will 

limit weight loss to less than 4 percent (a figure that correlates to 

losses from LSE resins). In practice, processes that generally satisfy 

this provision include compression molding, RTM, bag molding, and 

pultrusion (a "semi-closed" process). 

Some facilities have substituted alternatives to styrene monomer, but this 

technique has a "niche" use; it is not practical for all applications. It 

often produces unacceptable adverse effects on workability and the 

properties of the composite. 

The static (lab) emissions test used in California measures the 

effectiveness of suppression. Resin suppliers must run the test and 

include certification (yellow label on drum) with the resin. Fabricators 

also must run the test in some cases. 

California represents about 10 percent of the 

50 percent are "small" molders. South Coast has 

roughly 250 permitted sources, and California has about 500. Dr. Cassis 

concluded that the national population is approximately 5,000 facilities. 

Dr. Cassis felt that 

industry. From 35 to
Before the Second Division,

April 17, 1950

No. 54246.

#### M. Pressner & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 77444-K and 104669-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial plaintiff’s contentions were limited solely to the metal pencil sharpeners indicated as items 807, 1612, and 1613 enumerated on the invoices. It was stipulated that the pencil sharpeners in question consist of articles chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes; that said articles were composed in chief value of a base metal which is neither aluminum, iron, nor steel, or enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses, and not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; and that these articles are similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Abstract 41633, which record was incorporated herein. Upon the evidence presented the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to items 807, 1612, and 1613.
Case No. 8,050.

#### LANE v. DYER.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 349.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1822.

Pbomissouy Note — Consideration — Bond to Convey Land, Having no Title.

A bond to convey land is a good consideration for a promissory note for the purchase-money, although the payee of the note, who had given the bond of conveyance, had not the legal title and could not convey it when the note became payable. The indorsee of the note who has the legal title to the land and the pow*1081er to convey it, may sustain an action against the maker, without tendering a title.

This was an action by the administrator of the indorsee of the defendant’s promissory note, payable to the order of Richard Fon-est and Richard Cutts, and by them indorsed to the plaintiff’s intestate. The note was given for part of the purchase-money of a city lot to which the payees Forrest and Cutts had no title at law', but had given their bond to convey it to the defendant upon his payment of the purchase-money. It was agreed that Lane, the indorsee, knew that the note was given for the purchase of that lot, and, being the city commissioner, had power to convey it; the title being in the United States; and would have conveyed it if the purchase-money had been paid.

Mr. Ashton, for defendant,

contended that the note was void for want of consideration, as the payees had no title, and cited Chit Bills. 92, 93; Moggridge v. Jones, 14 Bast, 486, 3 Campb. 38; Basten v. Butter, 7 East 479, 485; Duncan v. Scott, 1 Campb. 100.

Mr. Forrest and Mr. Jones, contra.

The bond of conveyance was a sufficient consideration; and the plaintiff’s intestate had power to convey and would have conveyed the legal title upon payment of the money.

1

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

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)

said that the bond was a good con-sidexation for the note, and that as the defendant had never tendered the money and demanded a title, there was no failure of consideration. Verdict for plaintiff.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02851

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 02851\02851_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02851\02851_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 02851\02851_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02851\02851_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02851\02851_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02851\02851_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02851\02851_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

02851\Certification Statement Plant ID 02851.pdf Plant certification statement

x 02851\Follow up\02851_Follow up_1.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 02851\Follow up\02851_Follow Up_2.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 02851\Follow up\ICRFollow up-02851.doc Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 02851\Supplemental Documents\02851_Ash pond flow diagram for ICR.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02851\Supplemental Documents\02851_coal pile runoff pond flow diagram for ICR.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02851\Supplemental Documents\02851_ICR waste water balance diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02851\Supplemental Documents\02851_Plant Proper including ash pond marked up.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02851\Supplemental Documents\02851_Plant Proper to Lowell Dam.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02851\Supplemental Documents\02851_RIVERTON PLANT AERIAL WITH INFO copy.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
Exhibit 99.1

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





     To my knowledge,  this Report on Form 10-Q for the thirteen and thirty-nine
weeks ended September 28, 2002,  fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  and the  information
contained  in  this  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of Tasty Baking Company.


                                       By:  /S/ Charles P. Pizzi
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:  Charles P. Pizzi
                                            Title: President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer



                                       By:  /S/ John M. Pettine
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:  John M. Pettine
                                            Title: Executive Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


Date:  November 8, 2002
# C_2008259EN.01000602.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 259/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5155 — Mondi/Loparex Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 259/05)

On 20 August 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 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 32008M5155. 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 32008M5155. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 432 

To authorize testimony of a Member of the Senate in E.M. Gunderson 

v. Neil G. Galatz. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2006 

Mr. FRIST submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony of a Member of the Senate in E.M. 

Gunderson v. Neil G. Galatz. 

Whereas, in E.M. Gunderson v. Neil G. Galatz, File No. 04– 

106, pending before the Fee Dispute Arbitration Committee of the State Bar of Nevada, the petitioner has requested an affidavit from Senator Harry Reid; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent Members of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their 

official responsibilities; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the SenVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:25 Apr 11, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR432.ATS SR432

cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

SRES 432 ATS 

ate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; 

Whereas, by rule VI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no 

Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Senator Harry Reid is authorized to 

2 testify in the case of E.M. Gunderson v. Neil G. Galatz, 

3 except when his attendance at the Senate is necessary for 

4 the performance of his legislative duties and except con5 cerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted. 

6 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

7 represent Senator Harry Reid in connection with the testi8 mony authorized in section one of this resolution. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 8289)

#### Air Reduction Sales Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 882270.

(Decided February 4, 1954)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawreNce, Judge:

The merchandise covered by this appeal for a reappraisement consists of one Neon compressor and spare parts.

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that at the time of exportation of the said merchandise from France to the United States such and similar merchandise was being freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of France in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade at a price of 1,404,255 French francs, plus packing and other costs, charges, and expenses, incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, amounting to 14,000 francs, and that the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)) was not higher than said price.

Upon the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that said value is 1,404,255 French francs, plus packing and other costs, charges, and expenses, incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, in the amount of 14,000 francs.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 81 (Friday, April 27, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8043]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. 2006N-0416]


Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances; Removal of Essential Use 
Designations; Confirmation of Effective Date

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is confirming the 
effective date of April 23, 2007, for the direct final rule that 
appeared in the Federal Register of December 7, 2006 (71 FR 70870). The 
direct final rule amends the regulation to remove beclomethasone, 
dexamethasone, fluticasone, bitolterol, salmeterol, ergotamine 
tartrate, and ipratropium bromide, used in oral pressurized metered-
dose inhalers, from the list of essential uses of ozone-depleting 
substances. None of these products is currently being marketed. This 
document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule.

DATES: Effective date confirmed: April 23, 2007, except for the removal 
of Sec.  2.125(e)(4)(v) (21 CFR 2.125(e)(4)(v)), which is effective 
August 1, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Nguyen or Wayne H. Mitchell, 
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 7, 2006 
(71 FR 70870), FDA solicited comments concerning the direct final rule 
for a 75-day period ending February 20, 2007. FDA stated that the 
effective date of the direct final rule would be on April 23, 2007, 60 
days after the end of the comment period, unless any significant 
adverse comment was submitted to FDA during the comment period.
    FDA received no significant adverse comments within the comment 
period. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the 
Clean Air Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of 
Food and Drugs, after consultation with the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, notice is given that no objections or 
requests for a hearing were filed in response to the December 7, 2006, 
direct final rule. Accordingly, FDA is confirming that the amendment 
issued thereby is effective April 23, 2007, except for the removal of 
Sec.  2.125(e)(4)(v), which is effective August 1, 2007.

    Dated: April 17, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-8043 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
# Official Journal L 212/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.212.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 212 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5418 August 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.212.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 212

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5418 August 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision 2011/504/CFSP of 16 August 2011 amending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision 2011/504/CFSP of 16 August 2011 amending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 96-1602

___________

Jeffrey Jay Jones, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

United States of America, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: June 25, 1996 

 Filed: June 27, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Jeffrey Jay Jones pleaded guilty to drug and weapon charges

under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the district court1

departed upward from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, and

sentenced Jones to a total of 270 months imprisonment. We affirmed Jones's

convictions and sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Jones, 908

F.2d 365, 366-69 (8th Cir. 1990). Jones now appeals from the district

court's order denying his subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. After de

novo review, see Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348, 1351 (8th Cir.

1992), we affirm.
-2-

We conclude the district court properly rejected Jones's challenge

to the upward departure from the Guidelines range, because that claim was

raised and decided adversely to him on direct appeal. See Dall v. United

States, 957 F.2d 571, 572 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Jones also argues

that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the denial of

Jones's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Even assuming this claim--

which is raised for the first time on appeal--is properly before us, we

held on direct appeal that the district court was well within its

discretion in refusing to allow Jones to withdraw his pleas of guilty. See

Dyer v. United States, 23 F.3d 1424, 1426 (8th Cir. 1994) (no ineffective

assistance if claim defendant alleges counsel should have pursued is

meritless). Finally, because the record clearly shows that Jones was

carrying a firearm and drugs when he was arrested for the charges

underlying his convictions, we reject Jones's Bailey challenge to his

section 924(c) conviction. See Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501,

507-09 (1995) (defining "use" to preserve "carry" as alternative basis for

§ 924(c)(1) charge); United States v. White, 81 F.3d 80, 83 (8th Cir. 1996)

(to sustain conviction for "carrying" firearm under § 924(c), government

must prove defendant "bore the firearm on or about his person during and

in relation to a drug trafficking offense").

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.