alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 
 ORIGINAL 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

GRACOINC., ) 

a corporation, and ) 

) DOCKET NO. 9350 

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., ) 

a corporation, and ) 

) 

ITW FINISHING LLC, ) 

a limited liability company, ) 

Respondents. ) 

--------------------------------~) 

ORDER GRANTING COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S MOTION 

TO PLACE THE UNREDACTED COMPLAINT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD 

On January 13, 2012, Complaint Counsel filed a Motion to Place the Unredacted 

Complaint on the Public Record ("Motion"). Complaint Counsel represents that 

Respondents Illinois Tool Works Inc. and ITW Finishing LLC (collectively "ITW") do 

not oppose disclosing the redacted material received from ITW, but that Respondent 

Graco Inc. ("Graco") does. Graco initially filed an Opposition to the Motion on January 

23,2012. 

On January 26,2012, Judge Robert L. Wilkins, U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, granted a motion filed by the Federal Trade Commission to unseal a 

virtually identical version ofthis Complaint in the related district court proceeding before 

Judge Wilkins. On January 30,2012, Graco filed a Withdrawal ofRespondent Graco 

Inc.'s Memorandum ofLaw in Response to Complaint Counsel's Motion to Place the 

Unredacted Complaint on the Public Record ("Withdrawal"). In the Withdrawal, Graco 

states, "[i]n light ofthe ruling ofthe United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia, Respondent Graco Inc. will not continue to oppose the motion to place the 

unredacted complaint on the public record and hereby withdraws its Memorandum of 

Law in Response to Complaint Counsel's Motion to Place the Unredacted Complaint on 

the Public Record." 

Accordingly, Complaint Counsel's Motion to Place the Unredacted Complaint on 
the Public Record is hereby GRANTED. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chapp 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: January 31,2012 

2
FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20580

CASE NAME FILE/DOCKET NUMBER

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in the above 

proceeding the appearance of

□ counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below)

□ counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

□ counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES)

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone 

number of each counsel or representative entering an 

appearance in the above proceeding,

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

this Notice of Appearance is being filed.

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 5. DATE SIGNED

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission

Room H-113

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

McWANE, INC., et.al.

Heather Choi

Baker Botts LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-639-7859

(Joseph A. Ostoyich) D09351 8/8/2012

MCWANE INC.

2900 Highway 280

Ste. 300

Birmingham, AL 35223

Phone: 205-414-3100

08 08 2012
#### Francis Michael NOONE, Appellant, v. Elizabeth F. NOONE, Appellee.

No. 70-1204.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATIION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,422
<SECURITIES>                                     8,546
<RECEIVABLES>                                      638
<ALLOWANCES>                                       459
<INVENTORY>                                        375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,089
<PP&E>                                             729
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,107
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,662
<SALES>                                          4,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,591
<CGS>                                            1,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,441)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.03)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 22, 2018.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia*                     (William Spaniel, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521. Comments can also be sent electronically to                     *Comments.applications@phil.frb.org:*

                    1.                     *Roger L. Dirlam, Honesdale, Pennsylvania, as custodian for Marlee Brooks Dirlam, Honesdale, Pennsylvania, and Drew Benson Dirlam, Honesdale, Pennsylvania, as trustee for the Trust for Marlee Brooks Dirlam and the Trust for Drew Benson Dirlam and Dirlam Brothers Lumber Co. Inc., Honesdale, Pennsylvania, and individually;*                     to retain voting shares of Honat Bancorp, Inc., Honesdale, Pennsylvania, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of The Honesdale National Bank, Honesdale, Pennsylvania.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 1, 2018.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-12132 Filed 6-5-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7230 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, Northeast Corner of US Route 9 South 

and Main Street in the Township of Middle, County of Cape May, 

New Jersey, as the ‘‘George Henry White Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2020 

Mr. VAN DREW introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, Northeast Corner 

of US Route 9 South and Main Street in the Township 

of Middle, County of Cape May, New Jersey, as the 

‘‘George Henry White Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GEORGE HENRY WHITE POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, 

7 Northeast Corner of US Route 9 South and Main Street 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7230 IH

1 in the Township of Middle, County of Cape May, New Jer2 sey, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George Henry 

3 White Post Office Building’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

6 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

7 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George Henry White 

8 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Charles MITCHELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. K-372.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 19, 1969.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James Robert Yon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00297

- CR RICHARD LAREDO JR. , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 15,584

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Laredo Jr. was convicted by a jury of the offenses of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. See T EX

.
P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2016); see also id. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2016). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. Laredo’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motio n asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record andLaredo. v. State Page 2

that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see
Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); accord Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it lacks any

basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, as well as appellant’s pro se response, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accord ingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Laredo is granted.

JOHN E. NEILL JusticeLaredo. v. State Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 16, 2020 Do not publish [CRPM]
EXHIBIT 23.2




            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of our
reports dated November 14, 1996, included in the U.S. Long Distance
Corp.'s Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1996 and to all
references to our firm, included in this Registration Statement.


                                   Arthur Andersen LLP


San Antonio, Texas
July 14, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7424 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7424

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the amount which may 
  be paid to members of the Selected Reserve under the education loan 
               repayment program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 30, 2020

Ms. Haaland (for herself, Mrs. Bustos, and Mr. Palazzo) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the amount which may 
  be paid to members of the Selected Reserve under the education loan 
               repayment program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Selected Reserve Education Loan 
Repayment Program Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM FOR MEMBERS OF 
              SELECTED RESERVE.

    (a) Modification of Maximum Repayment Amount.--Section 16301(b) of 
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``15 percent or 
$500'' and inserting ``20 percent or $1,000''.
    (b) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
Act and shall apply with respect to loan repayment under section 16301 
of title 10, United States Code, for eligible years of service 
completed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4283]


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

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

February 14, 1997.
    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), has 
submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in 
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of these individual ICRs, with 
applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the 
Corporation for National and Community Service Office of Evaluation, 
Chuck Helfer, (202) 606-5000, Extension 248.
    Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and 
Community Service, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 
Washington, D.C., 20503. (202) 395-7316, on or before March 24, 1997.
    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
    Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Corporation, including whether the information will have practical 
utility;
    Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and
    Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who 
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submissions of responses.
    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.
    Title: LSAHE Participant Outcome Survey.
    OMB Number: New form.
    Affected Public: College students in institutions supported by the 
LSAHE program.
    Number of Respondents: 2,000.
    Estimated Time Per Respondent: 25 minutes.
    Total Burden Hours: 833.
    Total Annualized capital/startup costs: 0.
    Total Annual Cost (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing 
services): $5,000.
    Description: The Corporation for National and Community Service 
seeks approval of a new form to evaluate the impact of the LSAHE 
program on student participants.

    Dated: February 14, 1997.
Lance Potter,
Director, Office of Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 97-4283 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1945

_____________________________
K ELVIN D UANE C RENSHAW , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Thomas V. Dannheisser , Judge

. December 19, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , W ETHERELL , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jason Cromey and Heather Wallace Adcock of Cromey Law, P.A., Pensacola
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Frank X. Moehrle, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### Flex-O-Vit USA, Inc., Respondent, v Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[722 NYS2d 671]

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover for fire damage sustained to its manufacturing plant on or about July 4, 1995. Supreme Court erred in granting that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking to quash the notice of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (defendant) to take the deposition of the representative of National Fire Adjustment Co., Inc. (NFA) who investigated the fire immediately after its occurrence and made an investigation report to General Accident, plaintiff’s fire insurer and subrogee. “[T]he fact that [General Accident] originally hired the expert to investigate piaintiff[‘s] fire insurance claim rather than to provide expert testimony at trial neither deprives him of his status as an expert nor relieves [defendant] of the burden of showing special circumstances warranting the deposition” *(Russo v Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*256 AD2d 1164). Here, defendant established the requisite special circumstances. Defendant established that the fire debris was removed and rebuilding was under way by the time this action was commenced on July *2,*1996 and that neither defendants nor third-party defendant had access to the premises in the aftermath of the fire. Those circumstances are sufficient to warrant the deposition of the NFA representative, limited to that person’s factual observations and procedures and excluding any inquiry regarding expert opinion *(see,*CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]; *Hartford v Black & Decker,*221 AD2d 986, *981986-987; *Tedesco v Dry-Vac Sales,*203 AD2d 873; *cf., Adams Light. Corp. v First Cent. Ins. Co.,*230 AD2d 757).

The court further erred in granting that part of plaintiffs motion seeking to quash the subpoena duces tecum directing production of the fire investigation file of NFA and in denying defendant’s cross motion to compel production of the cause and origin investigation file of a General Accident employee who was at the scene immediately following the fire. Those documents are discoverable pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) (1), and plaintiff failed to establish that they were prepared solely for the purpose of litigation and thus immune from disclosure under the qualified privilege afforded by CPLR 3101 (d) (2) *(see, Carden v Allstate Ins. Co.,*105 AD2d 1048; *Zampatori v United Parcel Serv.,*94 AD2d 974, 975; *Hawley v Travelers Indem. Co.,*90 AD2d 684).

We therefore modify the order by denying those parts of plaintiffs motion seeking to quash the deposition notice and subpoena duces tecum served upon NFA and by granting defendant’s cross motion to compel production of the file of the General Accident employee. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fahey, J. — Discovery.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Lawton, JJ.
No. 10990.

#### Eyler *v.*The State of Ohio.

Decided June 23, 1908.

Error to the Circuit Court of Greene county.

*Mr. H. C. Armstrong,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. William F. Orr,*prosecuting attorney, and *Messrs. Maxwell & Maxwell,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed on the insufficiency of affidavit and defendant discharged.

Price, C. J., Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### Reno Lawrence DEFRANCES and Susan Kay Defrances, Appellants, v. Roberta P. KNOWLES, Appellee.

No. 40988.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 12, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3585]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration


Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards 
Committee; Recharter

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces the 
rechartering of the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety 
Standards Committee (TEPRSSC), by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs or 
designee. This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act of October 6, 1972 (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

DATES: The new charter for this committee will extend to December 24, 
1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna M. Combs, Committee Management 
Office (HFA-306), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4820.

    Dated: February 5, 1997.
Michael A. Friedman,
Deputy Commissioner for Operations.
[FR Doc. 97-3585 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F