alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49723-49724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25156]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission to OMB for Review; Comment Request

September 16, 1997.
    The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-0054.
    Form Number: IRS Form 1000.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Ownership Certificate.
    Description: Form 1000 is used by citizens, resident individuals, 
fiduciaries, partnerships and nonresident partnerships in connection 
with interest on bonds of a domestic, resident foreign, or nonresident 
foreign corporation containing a tax-free covenant and issued before 
January 1, 1934. IRS uses the information to verify that the correct 
amount of tax was withheld.
    Respondents: Bureau or other for-profit, Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 1,500.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper: 3 hours, 22 
minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 5,040 hours.
    OMB Number: 1545-0975.
    Form Number: IRS Form 5500-EZ.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Annual Return of One-Participant (Owners and Their Spouses) 
Retirement Plan.
    Description: Form 5500-EZ is an annual return filed by a one-
participant or one-participant and spouse pension plan. The IRS uses 
this data to

[[Page 49724]]

determine if the plan appears to be operating properly as required 
under the law or whether the plan should be audited.
    Respondents: Bureau or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 193,299.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:

    Recordkeeping--11 hr., 43 min.
    Learning about the law or the form--1 hr., 22 min.
    Preparing the form--2 hr., 32 min.
    Copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS--16 min.

    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 3,073,454 hours.

Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-25156 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION






	 
	 
	 	 
	 	 

	Axtion Foods, Inc.
 4025 Camino Del Rio South

Suite 300

San Diego, CA 92108

(760) 436-3124 fax (760) 942-4896	 	Purchase Order	 	 	113
	 	 	 	 	 	 	INVOICE
	

	Manufacturer	 	Date	 	 	1/3/02
	Name    Protein Research (attn:  Daniel Aarons)	 	Order No.	 	 	 
	Address    2353 Industrial Parkway West	 	Rep	 	 	 
	City    Hayward State CA Zip 94545-5005	 	FOB	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	TOTAL
	

 	

2000-4000 Axtion (nutty chocolate) bars with wrappers	
 	
$	

3,500
	

 	

Shipping Instructions: Please ship consignment to:	
 	
 	

 
	 	Axtion Foods (attn: Julia Reynolds)	 	 	 	 	 
	 	4025 Camino Del Rio South	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Suite 300	 	 	 	 	 
	 	San Diego, CA 92108	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	Payment Details	 	Subtotal	 	$	3,500.00
	 	 	 	Shipping & Handling	 	$	0.00
	 	/ /    Cash	 	 	 	 	 
	 	/x/    Check	 	TOTAL	 	$	3,500.00
	 	/ /    Credit Card	 	 	 	 	 
	

Name	

	
 	

Office Use Only	
 	
 	

 
	

CC#	

	
 	

Delivery on or about 1/11/02	
 	
 	

 
	

Expires	

	
 	

COD CHECK	
 	
 	

 
	

Thank You and Good Health!
	

Paid check number 1036 01/03/02
#### FERNCREST MINING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. H. F. MASON EQUIPMENT CORP., a Florida corporation, and Northwest Engineering Company, a corporation, Appellees.

Nos. 2215, 2216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 22, 1969.

Joseph A. Varón, of Varón, Stahl & Perlin, Hollywood, for appellant.

E. Snow Martin, of Martin & Martin, Lakeland, for appellee H. F. Mason Equipment Corp.

Ronald Fitzgerald and Norman C. Roett-ger, Jr., of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Northwest Engineering Co.

*355MCDONALD, PARKER LEE, Associate Judge.

Appellant filed a suit against the appel-lees claiming a breach of express warranty, implied warranty and negligent design of dragline machinery, related equipment and materials which had been sold and serviced by Mason and designed and manufactured by Northwest.

The trial judge granted a summary judgment for the appellees. His basis for doing so was stated in his order:

> “In view of the undisputed fact that FERNCREST knew that the crane was insufficient, retained it nonetheless, used it, and allowed damages to accumulate for a period of nearly three years, the Court finds as a matter of law that the plaintiff did not within a reasonable time avail itself of the remedies furnished to it by the law, and that by operation of the law it acquiesced in the quality and performance of the crane.”

Such a finding is sufficient to bar an action for rescission. It would also bar an action for damages if no notice of defects were given the seller. 28 Fla.Jur., Sales, § 229. The record discloses however, that the buyer contends that he complained of the equipment purchased, discussed it with the defendant and changes and adjustments were made over a prolonged period of time. There is clearly an issue of fact of whether notice of defects was given to the seller and thereby a protest of the quality of the item purchased.

It is true that the delay in instituting the suit, keeping the equipment and having repairs and adjustments made, may have barred an action for rescission since the parties cannot be placed in the same position. Lang v. Horne, 1945, 156 Fla. 605, 23 So.2d 848. This does not preclude an action for damages. See McKay v. Lane, 1853, 5 Fla. 268; Hancock v. Tucker, 1859, 8 Fla. 435, 436.

The trial judge erred in granting the summary judgment.

The trial judge also granted a judgment for the defendant on a counterclaim for goods sold and delivered. In the event the plaintiff recovers a verdict against the defendants-appellees, it would be entitled to set-off of the counterclaim of the appellees. Therefore, the judgment for the appellees on their counterclaim is reversed.

The cause is reversed for further proceedings.

CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN, J., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANGEL PENA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-56408

D.C. Nos. 2:08-cv-01337-DDP

 2:04-cr-00837-DDP

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Federal prisoner Angel Pena appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

FILED

APR 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
We note that on August 13, 2008, the district court issued an order ***

granting a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on this issue, which it filed under

docket # 04-cr-00837-DDP. Subsequently, on September 9, 2009, the district court

issued a second order denying a COA on the same issue, filed under docket # 08-

cv-01337-DDP. To the extent necessary, we sua sponte grant a COA with respect

to the same issues set forth in the district court’s August 13, 2008, order. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); see also 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e).

2 08-56408

28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Pena contends that his 120-month sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), because the drug quantity was not admitted or proven to a

jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We previously addressed and rejected this *** 

contention in Pena’s direct appeal, see United States v. Pena, 223 Fed.Appx. 589,

590 (9th Cir. 2007), and therefore Pena may not re-litigate it in a § 2255 motion. 

See United States v. Hayes, 231 F.3d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000); see also United

States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). 

To the extent that Pena is raising additional arguments, we construe them as

a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is

denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05

(9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM JOSEPH BURRIS, : Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-2032

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

:

RALPHO TWP. POLICE :

DEPARTMENT, : (Magistrate Judge Schwab)

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

January 21, 2015

 The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the

thorough December 11, 2014, report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Susan E. Schwab. ECF No. 6.

 Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Schwab’s thorough

analysis, and Plaintiff did not object to the report and recommendation, the Court

will not rehash her sound reasoning and will adopt the report and recommendation

in its entirety. 

1

Case 4:14-cv-02032-MWB Document 7 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1.

1. United States Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab’s Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. December 11, 2014, ECF No.

6.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as

amendment would be futile. October 21, 2014, ECF. No. 1. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the case file. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

 United States District Judge

2

Case 4:14-cv-02032-MWB Document 7 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2758 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2758

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 101 South 8th Street in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, as the ``Lieutenant 
                William D. Lebo Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2023

  Mr. Casey (for himself and Mr. Fetterman) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 101 South 8th Street in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, as the ``Lieutenant 
                William D. Lebo Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT WILLIAM D. LEBO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 101 South 8th Street in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Lieutenant William D. Lebo Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant 
William D. Lebo Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2150

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of Interior to convey certain Bureau

of Land Management Land to the City of Eugene, Oregon.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eugene Land Convey5 ance Act’’.
 †

2

S 2150 ES

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

2 In this Act:

3 (1) CITY.—The term ‘‘City’’ means the city of

4 Eugene, Oregon.

5 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

6 the Secretary of the Interior.

7 SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

9 (c), the Secretary shall convey to the City, without consid10 eration and subject to all valid existing rights, all right,

11 title, and interest of the United States in and to the land

12 described in subsection (b)(1) for the purposes of—

13 (1) establishing a wildlife viewing area; and

14 (2) the construction and operation of an envi15 ronmental education center.

16 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—

17 (1) IN GENERAL.—The land referred to in sub18 section (a) is the parcel of approximately 12 acres

19 of land under the administrative jurisdiction of the

20 Bureau of Land Management in Lane County, Or21 egon, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘West Eugene

22 Wetlands Land Transfer’’ and dated April 11, 2005.

23 (2) SURVEY.—

24 (A) IN GENERAL.—The legal description of

25 the land described in paragraph (1) may be
†

3

S 2150 ES

1 based on the survey of the land completed in

2 1979.

3 (B) COST.—If the Secretary determines

4 that a new survey of the land is required, the

5 City shall be responsible for paying the cost of

6 the survey.

7 (c) REVERSION.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary determines

9 that the land conveyed under subsection (a) is not

10 being used for the purposes described in that

11 subsection—

12 (A) all right, title, and interest in and to

13 the land (including any improvements to the

14 land) shall, at the discretion of the Secretary,

15 revert to the United States; and

16 (B) the United States shall have the right

17 of immediate entry to the land.

18 (2) HEARING.—Any determination of the Sec19 retary under paragraph (1) shall be made on the

20 record after an opportunity for a hearing.

21 (d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The

22 Secretary may require such additional terms and condi23 tions for the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Sec-
†

4

S 2150 ES

1 retary determines to be appropriate to protect the inter2 ests of the United States.

Passed the Senate December 7, 2006.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2150

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of Interior to convey certain

of Eugene, Oregon.Bureau of Land Management Land to the City
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40915 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
RODNEY HADEN SWINDELL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:96-CR-32-1

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *Rodney Haden Swindell appeals his sentence from his guiltyplea convictions for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that the district court erred in failing to reduce his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We have carefully reviewed the arguments and the appellate record. We conclude that, in light of the standard of review, which accords great deference to the sentencing court’sNo. 97-40915 - 2 -

§ 3E1.1 determination, no error ensued. See United States v. Thomas , 120 F.3d 564, 574 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 721 (1998) AFFIRMED.
#### Thomas J. WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-77.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 20, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Doris E. Jenkins, Legal Asst., for appellee.

*465PER CURIAM.

Appellant was adjudged to be a mentally-disordered sex offender pursuant to Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1975), on November 10, 1975. After the committing court was notified that the treatment of the appellant had been completed, a hearing was held May 23, 1977, to determine whether the appellant met the criteria for release as specified in Section 917.20, Florida Statutes.1 We think the court erred in its determination that the department had exhausted all treatment for the appellant.

The testimony at the hearing clearly revealed that treatment which might be beneficial to the appellant was available within the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, although such treatment would require the transfer of the appellant to another facility. Thus the testimony showed that the department had not exhausted all treatment for the appellant, and therefore the appellant did not meet the statutory criteria for discharge. Under these circumstances, the trial court was required to recommit the appellant pursuant to Section 917.20, Florida Statutes.

Therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial court is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and SMITH, JJ., concur.

1

. The court by an order dated July 22, 1977, found the appellant met the criteria for release under Section 917.20, as amended by § 19 of Chapter 77-312, Laws of Florida, (effective July 1, 1977), because although the appellant remained a present threat to others, the Department had exhausted all treatment for the offender.
Case 4:05-cv-02226-JFM-JVW Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:05-cv-02226-JFM-JVW Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 8
Case 4:05-cv-02226-JFM-JVW Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 3 of 8
Case 4:05-cv-02226-JFM-JVW Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:05-cv-02226-JFM-JVW Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 5 of 8
Case 4:05-cv-02226-JFM-JVW Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 6 of 8
Case 4:05-cv-02226-JFM-JVW Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 7 of 8
Case 4:05-cv-02226-JFM-JVW Document 3 Filed 11/08/05 Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT 32.1


                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR

                      RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Pangea Petroleum Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
B. Pollock, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:


(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.


Date: August 18, 2006               By: /s/ Charles B. Pollock
                                        ----------------------
                                    Charles B. Pollock
                                    Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

 

**CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

This certification set forth below is hereby made solely for thepurpose of satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be relied upon or used for any otherpurposes.

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Ezenia! Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RogerN. Tuttle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date:March 26, 2008 | /s/ Roger N. Tuttle     |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                     | Roger N. Tuttle         |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of IKON Receivables, LLC and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0001077175
<NAME> IKON RECEIVABLES, LLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                              78,426
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                    1,405,223 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         0
<PP&E>                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,557,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    0
<BONDS>                          1,183,902
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                         370,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,557,541
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    39,641
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     2,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  19,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     17,687
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 17,687
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        17,687
<EPS-BASIC>                              0 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0 <F2>
<FN>
<F1>
Includes net investments in leases of $1,362,222 and other accounts
receivable.
<F2>
Not required as the registrant is a wholly-owned subsidiary.
</FN>


</TABLE>