alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Northwest Sacramento Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Northwest Sacramento Provincial Advisory Committee will 
meet on December 5, 1997 at the conference room in the Mendocino 
National Forest Supervisors Office, 825 N. Humboldt Avenue, Willows, 
California. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:30 
p.m. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Clear Creek Watershed 
Analysis Status, Community Proposal, and Grant Submittal; (2) Province 
Vegetation Mapping; (3) Effectiveness Monitoring Status; and (4) public 
comment periods. All PAC meetings are open to the public. Interested 
citizens are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Hammond, USDA, Klamath National Forest, at 1312 Fairlane Road, 
Yreka, California 96097; telephone 916-842-6131, (FTS) 700-467-1360.

    Dated: November 17, 1997.
Kathy L. Hammond,
PAC Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 97-30764 Filed 11-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```
#### Jerome Wesley WALLACE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1213.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 27, 1973.

Pollack, Yocom & Haggard, Alvin E. Entin, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Falcon v. State, Fla. 1969, 226 So.2d 399; State v. Padilla, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 309.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              85
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        769
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,321
<PP&E>                                           3,461
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,537
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,437
<BONDS>                                          1,915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        148
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                         534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,209
<SALES>                                          2,218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,218
<CGS>                                            1,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    261
<INCOME-TAX>                                        87
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       160
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of John Deere Capital Corporation**

 

I, Andrew Traeger, Vice President and Controller of John Deere Capital Corporation, certify:

 

A review of the activities of John Deere Capital Corporation (“JDCC”) for the period from November 1, 2011 through October 31, 2012 (the “Reporting Period”) and of JDCC’s performance under the Sale & Servicing Agreement dated as of April 22, 2010 among JDCC, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2010 has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge, based on such review JDCC has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 
| Date:   January 8, 2013 | John   Deere Capital Corporation |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                         |                             |
|                         |                             |   |
|                         |                             |   |
|                         |                             |   |
|                         | By                               | /s/   *Andrew Traeger* |   |
|                         |                             |   |
|                         |                             | Andrew   Traeger |
|                         |                             |   |
|                         |                             | Vice   President and Controller |

 

----
#### Agnes LAIRD, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI et al., Appellees.

No. 73-41.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 24, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 1973.

Agnes Laird, in pro. per.

Alan H. Rothstein, City Atty., and R. Harris Turner, Asst. City Atty., Stuart Simon, County Atty., and Robert A. Ginsburg, Asst. County Atty., Gus Efthimiou, Jr., Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Arnold v. Shumpert, Fla. 1968, 217 So.2d 116, and 8 Fla.Jur. Courts § 222 (1956) and Mullen v. Mullen, Fla. App.1960, 122 So.2d 488.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-12-00155- CV
City of Bee Cave, Texas, A ppellan t

v. AusPr o Enterprises, L.P ., Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 250 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 1-0 0389 2, H ONO RAB LE TIM SULAK , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The parties have filed a “Ru le 11 Ag ree ment” stating that they have agree d to an extension of deadlines in this appea l, as well as s ev er al other cause s in the trial court, pending settlement discussions. We there fore abate this appea l and order the parties to file a status repor t or, if they have se ttled their dispute, a motion to dism iss the appea l no later than O ctober 19, 2012.

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and H enson Abated Filed: August 14, 2012
#### Alexander KUPUS, Petitioner, v. E. Wilson PURDY, Sheriff, Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 42847.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 28, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 266 So.2d 59.

CARLTON, and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
#### Melvin BROWN and Joan Anderson, Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40514.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 15, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 507.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Arthur A. SCHAREIN, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent.

No. 02-3270.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 1, 2002.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, and to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
In the Senate of the United States, 

February 14, 2022. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2497) entitled ‘‘An Act to establish the Amache 

National Historic Site in the State of Colorado as a Unit of 

the National Park System, and for other purposes.’’, do pass 

with the following 

AMENDMENTS: 

1 Ω1æIn section 3, strike subsection (f) and insert the fol2 lowing: 

3 (f) LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary 

4 may acquire land or interests in land located within the 

5 boundary of the Camp Amache National Historic Land6 mark, as generally depicted on the Map, only by donation. 

7 Ω2æOn page 4, line 13, strike øparagraph (1)¿ and insert 

8 subsection (f). 
2 

† HR 2497 EAS 

1 Ω3æOn page 6, line 17, strike ø(1) The town of Granada, 

2 Colorado, shall maintain responsibility for the operation 

3 and maintenance¿ and insert. 

4 (1) EFFECT.—Nothing in this Act affects the au5 thority of the town of Granada, Colorado, with re6 spect to the operation and maintenance 

7 Ω4æOn page 7, line 1, strike ø(2) The Secretary shall pro8 vide the town of¿ and insert: 

9 (2) DETERMINATION.—The Secretary shall pro10 vide the town of 

11 Ω5æOn page 7, line 6, strike (3) to end of line 20 and 

12 insert: 

13 (3) NEW WATER INFRASTRUCTURE.—The Sec14 retary may permit the town of Granada, Colorado, to 

15 construct or install new water infrastructure, systems, 

16 or appurtenances— 

17 (A) consistent with applicable laws; 

18 (B) limited to the areas determined to be 

19 necessary under paragraph (2); and 

20 (C) in a manner that ensures the preserva21 tion, protection, and proper management of the 

22 National Historic Site. 

23 (4) ACCEPTANCE OF DONATED WATER INFRA24 STRUCTURE.—The Secretary may accept, for addition 

25 to and administration as part of the National His-
3 

† HR 2497 EAS 

1 toric Site, the donation of water infrastructure, sys2 tems, or appurtenances within the boundary of the 

3 National Historic Site, including associated water 

4 rights, if the water infrastructure, systems, or appur5 tenances are no longer used by the town of Granada, 

6 Colorado. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 2497 

AMENDMENTS
<PAGE> 32

                                                                   Exhibit 12


         AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
           Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                              (Unaudited)



                                                         Six Months Ended
                                                             June 30,
                                                        2004          2003
                                                      (dollars in thousands)

Earnings:
  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                             $324,626      $289,841
  Interest expense                                     280,353       276,444
  Implicit interest in rents                             9,249         9,277

Total earnings                                        $614,228      $575,562


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                    $280,353      $276,444
  Implicit interest in rents                             9,249         9,277

Total fixed charges                                   $289,602      $285,721


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        2.12          2.01
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

d0126 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

140238-9 

TAMMY K. BONNER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140238-9 

 COA: 288733; 291202 

Macomb Circuit Court Family 

RICHARD K. BONNER, Division: 2006-002201-DM 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
254 La. 766

#### Mrs. Lilian D. CACIBAUDA, individually and as Natural Tutrix and Administratrix of the Estate of the Minor, Joseph Anthony Cacibauda, Jr., et al. v. E. S. GAIENNIE, Jr., Alvin R. Adams, Charles L. Jarreau, L. R. Stevens, Walter L. Stone, Wayne Snelson and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company.

No. 49961.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: E. S. Gaiennie, Jr., et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Plaquemines. 222 So.2d 632.

Application denied. The judgment complained of is not final.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-122199 and 333-114739) and Form S-8 (File
No. 333-121140 and 333-105453) of Cash Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries of our
report dated March 5, 2005, which appears on page F-2 of this annual report on
Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December 31, 2004.


                                              /s/ VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 16, 2006
PAGE 1 of 2 EXPIRES: 1-1-22

SBA Form 1353.3 (4-93) MS Word Edition; previous editions obsolete

Must be accompanied by SBA Form 58

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

SBA Procedural Notice

TO: All SBA Employees and Paycheck Protection 

Program Lenders

SUBJECT: Modifications to SBA Forms 3506, 

3507 and 750 CA (for purposes of PPP only)

CONTROL NO.: 5000-20074

EFFECTIVE: January 6, 2021

The Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (“Economic Aid

Act”) was signed into law by the President on December 27, 2020, extending SBA’s authority to 

guarantee initial Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans through March 31, 2021 and 

providing SBA authority to guarantee PPP second draw loans through March 31, 2021

(collectively, referred to as “PPP Loans”).

Any Lender that was approved to make PPP Loans pursuant to a SBA Form 35061, 35072or 750 

CA3(when used solely for the purpose of Lenders participating in PPP) will be deemed by SBA 

to have agreed to the modified terms and conditions to such forms as described in this Notice if 

the Lender makes a PPP Loan on or after December 27, 2020. All such previously-approved

Lenders will not be expected to sign an updated version of the SBA Form; however, all new PPP 

Lenders will be required to sign the applicable revised SBA Form. 

This Notice modifies SBA Form 3506, SBA Form 3507, and SBA Form 750 CA (for purposes of 

PPP only) for previously-approved Lenders as follows:

- Extends the termination date set forth in Section 8 or Section 19 in each such form (as 

applicable) from “August 9, 2020” to “April 1, 2021.” Participating PPP Lenders with 

such agreements, as well as 7(a) Lenders authorized to make PPP Loans, may continue to 

make PPP Loans until 11:59 pm on March 31, 2021.

1 SBA Form 3506 (CARES Act Section 1102 Lender Agreement).

2 SBA Form 3507 (CARES Act Section 1102 Lender Agreement – Non-Bank and Non-Insured Depository 

Institution Lenders).

3 SBA Form 750 CA (U.S. Small Business Administration, Community Advantage Pilot Program Loan Guaranty 

Agreement, Deferred Participation).
PAGE 2 of 2 EXPIRES: 1-1-22

SBA Form 1353.3 (4-93) MS Word Edition; previous editions obsolete

Must be accompanied by SBA Form 58

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

- Modifies the statutory references in the forms to reflect the newly enacted Economic Aid 

Act, including sections 7(a)(36), 7(a)(37), and 7A of the Small Business Act.

- Modifies the forms (as applicable) to require the fixed rate of interest on PPP Loans to be 

calculated on a non-compounding, non-adjustable basis and conforms the forms to 

existing PPP eligibility requirements.

Revised SBA Forms 3506, 3507 and 750 CA for new Lenders have been issued and are available 

at www.sba.gov/ppp

If you have any questions, please contact Eddie Ledford at edward.ledford@sba.gov.

Susan E. Streich

Director, Office of Credit Risk Management
-77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

 39.0

 39.5

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/24

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.06 N 76.88 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★

●

●

● ●
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11067

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DAVID SAULSBERRY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRITNEY ELDER, 

a.k.a. FTN Bae,

Defendant- Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-62362-RS

USCA11 Case: 23-11067 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11067

____________________

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After reviewing the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional 

questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. David 

Saulsberry appeals from the district court’s March 6, 2023 order vacating the final judgment and granting a new trial. However, we 

lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the order is non-final and 

not subject to immediate review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; World Fuel 

Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining 

that “[a] final order is one that ends the litigation on the merits and 

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment” (quotation marks omitted)); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 

F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (same). 

The district court’s order granting a new trial makes clear 

that the litigation has not ended on the merits and is therefore not 

final. Geithner, 568 F.3d at 1348. Additionally, an order granting a 

new trial is an interlocutory order and generally appealable only 

after the verdict in the new trial, unless coupled with entry of judgment as a matter of law. See Deas v. PACCAR, Inc., 775 F.2d 1498, 

1503 (11th Cir. 1985) (providing that the grant of a new trial is an 

interlocutory order subject to appellate review only if coupled with 

a grant of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict); see 

also Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980) (explaining that the grant of a new trial is generally only appealable after 

USCA11 Case: 23-11067 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 2 of 3
23-11067 Opinion of the Court 3

the verdict in the new trial). Finally, the order is not appealable 

under the collateral order doctrine, as it is capable of review after 

an appeal from a subsequent final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 

744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (setting out the requirements for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine); 

see also Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985) 

(stating that the possibility of additional litigation expense is not 

alone sufficient to warrant review). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. 

USCA11 Case: 23-11067 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Eugene BOYD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-30282.

D.C. No. CR-98-00508-FR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Eugene Boyd appeals his conviction by guilty plea for one count of use and carrying of a firearm during commission of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1) and 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

First, Boyd contends that the district court erred in taking his guilty plea by failing to advise him of the nature of the § 924(c) and § 2 charge, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1). Because Boyd failed to raise the alleged Rule 11 error before the district court, our review is for plain error. *United States v. Vonn,*— U.S. --,-, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 1046, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002).

Even if the district court erred by not explaining aiding and abetting liability, Boyd’s substantial rights were not affected. *See United States v. Minore,*292 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir.2002). The superseding indictment, signed plea agreement, and Boyd’s admissions and his counsel’s comments at the plea proceeding make clear that he understood the nature of the charge. *See Vonn,*— U.S. at-, 122 S.Ct. at 1055 (citing *Bousley v. United States,*523 U.S. 614, 618, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998)).

Boyd’s additional contention that the district court erred by failing to define *867“firearm,” as the term is used in § 924(c), has no merit. The record reveals that Boyd understood the charge derived from the use of an actual firearm, within the meaning of § 924(c).

Next, Boyd contends that the factual basis was inadequate to sustain his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). *See*Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(f). We conclude that there was no plain error because the uncontested presentence report, in conjunction with Boyd’s admissions at the change of plea hearing and in the signed plea agreement, provided an adequate factual basis for the plea. *See United, States v. Alber,*56 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir.1995) (“To establish a factual basis for the plea, the court may consider all of the evidence before it at the time of judgment”).

Finally, Boyd argues that the district court erred in failing to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea to Count 2 of the superseding indictment. Because Boyd never moved to withdraw the guilty plea, we find no error.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.