alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis B. DUGAS et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2729.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

June 12, 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 1969.

Mestayer & Simon, by Ray F. Mestayer, New Iberia, for defendants-appellants.

Shotwell, Brown & Sperry, by Burt Sperry, Monroe, Earl H. Willis, St. Mar-tinville, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SAVOY, CULPEPPER and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the consolidated case of Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company v. Walet, La.App., 225 So.2d 76, in which a separate decision is being rendered by us this date, the judgment appealed in the present case is amended and affirmed.

It is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that the trial court’s judgment is amended such that Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company is ordered to pay to Defendants Louis B. Dugas and Verna Mae L. Dugas, the sum of Sixty-nine hundred ninety-two and 70/100 ($6992.70) Dollars, together with interest of 5% per annum from August 9, 1968 until paid, which is adjudged to be the value of the right of way and damages resulting from the construction of the pipeline together with expenses found to be a direct consequence of construction of the pipeline; specifically reserving to defendants their claim for damages to their 1968 crop located outside the right of way but within a “cut” crossed by the pipeline.

All court costs are to be paid by Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company.

Amended and affirmed.

HOOD, J.,

dissents for reasons which are assigned in 225 So.2d 76.

ON REHEARING

En Banc.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the consolidated case of Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company v. Walet, La.App., 225 So.2d 76, in which a separate decision is being rendered by us this date, the judgment appealed in the present case is amended and affirmed.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment rendered herein be vacated and set aside, and that the trial *92court’s judgment is amended such that Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company is ordered to pay to defendants, Louis B. Dugas and Verna Mae L. Dugas, the sum of Six thousand, fifty-five and 50/100 ($6,055.50) Dollars, together with interest of five per cent (5'%) per annum from August 9, 1958, until paid, which is adjudged to be the value of the right of way and damages resulting from the construction of the pipeline together with expenses found to be a direct consequence of construction of the pipeline; specifically reserving to defendants their claim for damages to their 1968 crop located outside the right of way but within a “cut” crossed by the pipeline. All costs are to be paid by Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company.

With these amendments, the application for rehearing is denied. We reserve to Defendants-Appellants the right to apply for rehearing on this amended decree.

Original decree amended, rehearing denied. Rights reserved to defendants-appellants to apply for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1613 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1613

 To amend the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 to extend the 
            termination date for mandatory price reporting.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 6, 2005

  Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Harkin) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 to extend the 
            termination date for mandatory price reporting.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF MANDATORY PRICE REPORTING.

    Section 942 of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 
(Public Law 106-78; 7 U.S.C. 1635 note) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2005'' and inserting ``September 30, 2006''.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1007

ERIC E. MILLER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF VIRGINIA; ARLINGTON COUNTY ’ S JURISPRUDENCE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , Senior District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv - 00456

- HEH )

Submitted : May 23, 2019 Decided: May 28, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Eric E. Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric E. Miller seeks to appeal the dis trict court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action

. The district court informed Miller that he was free to file an
amended complaint. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc. , 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that this court lacks jurisdiction over appeals “in cases in which the district court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to plead sufficient facts in the complaint . . . because the plaintiff could amend the complaint to cure the pleading deficiency”). Because the d istrict court left open the possibility for Miller to amend his complaint , the court’s order is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdictio n . Goode , 807 F.3d at
630. In Goode , we remanded to the district court with instructions to allow amendment of the complaint. Id. Here, however, the district court , after closing the action, denied
Miller’s motion to amend his complaint . Accordingly , we direct on remand that the district court, in its discretion, either afford Miller an opportunity to file an amended complaint or dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable order. We grant Miller’s motion to seal and 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.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED
# DLA Troop Support and Distribution connection highlighted in tour

/ Published Dec. 15, 2017
PHILADELPHIA, 
Employees with the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support saw a clearer picture of how they work with DLA Distribution during a tour of the Eastern Distribution Center in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, Dec. 12.

The Culture Improvement Team from DLA Troop Support’s Industrial Hardware supply chain facilitated the tour for 27 IH employees in response to requests in the 2016 DLA Culture Survey. 

EDC strategic planning specialist Ron Hunziker said the tour helped employees enhance their understanding of how DLA processes are linked.

Hunziker believes that giving faces and context to Distribution’s operation improves DLA processes and leads to more collaborative solutions.

“They see some of our struggles ... they tend to work better with us as a result,” Hunziker said. 

To Tiffany Watkins, a resolution specialist and IH CIT member, the trip provided insight into how Troop Support contracting efforts yield tangible parts that DLA Distribution delivers to the warfighter. 

Watkins, who works with part numbers and delivery status codes to resolve purchase request discrepancies, was excited to see her work translated into physical objects and processes. It assured her of her work’s purpose, she said. 

“Those numbers and codes that we see, we actually see them physically (here),” said Watkins. “That helps bring it into perspective.”
Based on the trip’s success, the IH CIT is planning another visit to the EDC, the Department of Defense’s largest distribution facility, for 2018. For information on upcoming IH CIT events, contact team chairperson Joseph Evans.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 171 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23418]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-471-000]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

August 28, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 26, 1997, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 462 to be 
effective September 25, 1997.
    Texas Eastern asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply 
with the Commission's Order No. 636-C, Ordering Paragraph (B) which 
requires any pipeline with a right-of-first-refusal tariff provision 
containing a contract term cap longer than five years to revise its 
tariff consistent with the revised cap of five years adopted in Order 
No. 636-C.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of this filing were served on firm 
customers of Texas Eastern and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23418 Filed 9-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edward L. COLLINS.

No. 61070.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 31, 1978.

John M. Blanchard, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
TS-CDBA22

Attachment #7

Pt. 2, Sec. B, 1a 

Processing Information on the New Chemical Substance at Industrial Sites Controlled 

by Others
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeCustomer SupportTrainingDetails

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# LESO - Law Enforcement Support Office

The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) facilitates a law enforcement support program, which allows for the transfer of excess Department of Defense property that might otherwise be destroyed to law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories. Requisitions cover the gamut of items used by America's military -- clothing and office supplies, tools, medical and rescue equipment, vehicles, rifles and others small arms.

## Learn more about the

**Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) Training**

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

LESOLaw Enforcement Support Office
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲

▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the
requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other purpose.

The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of CCF Holding Company (the issuer), hereby certifies as follows:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the issuer (the Report), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

Dated this 28th day of March, 2008.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|/s/ Mary Jo Rogers                     
|Mary Jo Rogers, Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has
been provided to the issuer and will be retained by the issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Bebuzee Limited


 


Company number 08289019


 


WRITTEN RESOLUTION


 


Pursurant to Companies Act 2006 Section 201(1)[a]


 


Circulation date: September 2014


 


In accordance with the Companies Act 2006 Section 281(1)[a]
we, the undersigned being the members of the company entitled at the date hereof to attend and vote at general meetinghs of
the company, hereby confirm that the following special resolution shall for all purposes have effect as if they had been
passed by the company in general meeting. Accordingly we hereby resolve:


 


THAT the issued share capital of 200 ordinary shares of 1.00
each be split into 300,000,000 ordinary shares of 0.000006667 pence.


 


Signed: /s/Joe Onyero


By: Joe Onyero


Date: 18/09/2014


 


 


 


Signed: /s/Paul Hedges


By: Paul Hedges


 Date:  18/9/14


 


Signed: /s/ Marta C. Camara Velosa


By:  Marta C. Camara Velosa


Date: 29/09/14


 


Signed


Sajda Andleeb


date:


 


 


 


Members should signify their agreement to the resolution by
signing and dating above.


The resolution will lapse if not passed within 28 days of
circulation
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2297 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2297

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to make any substance containing 
                    hydrocodone a schedule II drug.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 18, 2012

Mr. Manchin (for himself, Mr. Kirk, and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to make any substance containing 
                    hydrocodone a schedule II drug.

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

SECTION 1. HYDROCODONE AMENDMENT.

    Schedule III(d) in section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
U.S.C. 812) is amended by--
            (1) striking paragraphs (3) and (4); and
            (2) redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8) as 
        paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 21.1


                      HEALTHPLAN SERVICES CORPORATION (DE)


                                  SUBSIDIARIES


   HEALTHPLAN SERVICES, INC. (FL)
       (d/b/a HCI HEALTHPLAN SERVICES; HCI HEALTHPLAN SERVICES, INC.;
       HPS SELECT BROKERAGE SERVICES; HARRINGTON BENEFIT SERVICES;
       R. E. HARRINGTON)
            AMERICAN BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATORS, INC. (CA)
            CENTRA HEALTHPLAN LLC (DE)
            EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SERVICES, INC. (LA)
            GROUP BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. (MA)
            HARRINGTON SOUTHWEST, INC. (MO) (1/3)
            HEALTHPLAN SERVICES INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. (MA)
            HEALTHPLAN SERVICES INSURANCE AGENCY OF ILLINOIS, INC. (IL)
            MONTGOMERY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (PA)
            PROHEALTH, INC. (DE)
                (d/b/a HARRINGTON PROHEALTH OR PROHEALTH COMPCARE IN SEVERAL
                 STATES)
            REH AGENCY OF MISSOURI, INC. (MO)
            RETAIL CARD L.L.C. (DE) (50%)
            SOUTHERN NEVADA ADMINISTRATORS, INC. (NV)
   HEATHCARE INFORMATICS CORPORATION (FL)
   NATIONAL PREFERRED PROVIDER NETWORK, INC. (NY)
   NATIONAL NETWORK SERVICES, INC. (NY)
   QUALITY MEDICAL ADMINISTRATORS, INC. (NY)
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Balchem Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis J.
Fitzpatrick, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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.

/s/ Francis J. Fitzpatrick
Francis J. Fitzpatrick
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
August 9, 2007

This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-Q pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



                                       39
j····· r," ' I . ·-

~ ·~ t \_.·: 

• • r t, r~·. • J -. ·-~ .,_ 11 l 

\.1 ._ . j ' ,;\ ·-, '~ 1SERVED: MARCH 7, 2013 

. ,~·· 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TRANS STATES AIRLINES LLC 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0907 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a Complaint on August 29, 

2012. On August 24, 2012, Trans States Airlines, LLC ("Respondent") had filed a Request for 

Hearing. On March 7, 2013, Complainant requested that its Complaint be withdrawn, citing 

settlement. 

14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or 

a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge 

shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Request to Withdraw Complaint having been read and 

considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Complainant's Request to Withdraw Complaint be and is hereby granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachments - Service List 

(L-Wc.~t Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0907 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Mr. Richard A Leach, CEO 

Trans States Airlines, LLC, Respondent 

11495 Navaid Road, Suite 303 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

David J. A. Hayes III, Respondent's Counsel 

Vice-President & General Counsel 

Trans States Holdings, Inc. 

11495 Navaid Road 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

TEL: 314-222-4316 

FAX: 314-222-4311 

David B. Kessler, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, ACE-7 

Central Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Room 506, DOT Building 

901 Locust 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3763 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2 
FDMS No. FAA-2012-0907 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Staff Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

3
STEVEN E. BEAVER

,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

,
Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITIO N THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0340

Opinion filed May 7, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.
Steven E. Beaver, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Shirley W. Durham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee; Jennifer Parker, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED as moot. S ee Ward v. State , 770 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)

(dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus as moot where the t rial court had ruled on

the pleading pending below)

.

WOLF, THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.