alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

September 18, 2014

Don Waterbury

California

RE: In the Matter of Service Corporation International and Stewart Enterprises, Inc., 

Docket No. C-4423

Dear Mr. Waterbury:

Thank you for the comment, which you submitted electronically on July 3, 2014, in connection with Service Corporation International’s (“SCI”) Petition for Approval of Proposed Divestiture to Heritage Family Funeral Services, Inc., and Heritage Family Cemetery, Inc. The 

Commission placed both the petition and your comment on the public record and has given your 

comment careful consideration.

In your comment, you stated that you are sure the FTC vetted the subject and are confident that all things are legal and correct. Thank you for your confidence in the Commission’s 

ability to evaluate a proposed buyer’s financial and competitive viability, and whether the proposed divestiture will likely remedy the competitive concerns alleged in the Commission’s complaint in the relevant market.

It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work on antitrust and consumer protection issues, and we appreciate your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
# 1 Pesticide Application Workshop Pudding River Watershed

Pesticide Monitoring: 2005-2007 Findings Kevin Masterson Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (503) 229-5983, ext. 260 OCTOBER 2007 

# Pesticide Monitoring Overview
• What are we

sampling for? – Organophosphate

(OP) insecticides and triazine herbicides 

# • Why sample for

these? – Current use products – OP pesticides very

toxic to aquatic life Fenvalerate + Esfenvalerate Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban, Dursban) Pyriproxyfen Malathion Oxygen Analog Imidan Malathion Diazinon Methylparathion Azinphos-methyl Oxygen Analog Atrazine Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Simazine Phosmet Oxygen Analog Dimethoate Chlorpyrifos oxon Ethoprop (Mocap)



# Spring 2005 & 2006 Pesticide Monitoring Activity • Monitoring time frames and frequency

– Spring Æ March – June (weekly)

– Fall Æ September – November (3 x) 

# • 2005-2007 monitoring data comparison

considerations

– “Grab” samples at times when application is

likely to occur

– Results for 2007 include spring, but not fall

samples Pudding Watershed Pesticide Monitoring Locations



# Pesticide Monitoring Locations

Pudding River
• At Hwy 99E (Aurora) 

## Little Pudding River
• At Rambler Road 

## South Fork Bochsler Creek
• At Hwy 214 

## Silver Creek
• At Brush Creek Road 

## Abiqua Creek
• At Gallon House Bridge 

## Zollner Creek
• At Hwy 214 • At USGS Gauge Station



## • 

# Where were pesticide detections found?

- Zollner & Boschler Creek Sites : Very high number

- Little Pudding : Moderately high number

- Pudding River : Lower number - Abiqua & Silver : No detections Pudding Watershed: Pesticide Detection Frequency

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8AtrazineChlorpyrifosDiazinonDimethoateGuthion(Azinphosmethyl)Ethoprop(Prophos)SimazineDetection Frequency 2005 2006 2007

# 2 Pudding Watershed: Median Pesticide Concentrations

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350AtrazineChlorpyrifosDiazinonDimethoateGuthion(Azinphosmethyl)Ethoprop(Prophos)SimazineMedian (ug/L) 2005 2006 2007 Chloryprifos Acute WQS (0.083 ug/l) Azinphos-methyl WQS (0.01 ug/l ) Chlorpyrifos Chronic WQS (0.041 ug/l) Pudding Watershed: Maximum Pesticide Concentrations 4.5 3.5 13 1.8

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400AtrazineChlorpyrifosDiazinonDimethoateGuthion(Azinphosmethyl)Ethoprop(Prophos)SimazineMaximum Concentration (ug/L) 2005 2006 2007 Azinphos-methyl WQS (0.01 ug/l ) Chloryprifos Acute WQS (0.083 ug/l) Chlorpyrifos Chronic WQS (0.041)



# Pudding Pesticide Monitoring: Take Home Messages • Multiple detections of chlorpyrifos over the

chronic water quality standard, and median concentration of the detections has been very close to standard • Guthion (azinphos-methyl) has not been detected

since 2005 (!) • No diazinon detections in 2005, but 10 or more

detections in each of the subsequent years • Moderate fluctuations in detection frequency and

concentrations of most pesticides, but no discernable trends yet
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7597

BARBARA LEONE CORBIN, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

BARBARA J. WHEELER, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:09-cv-00270-sgw-mfu) 

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Barbara Leone Corbin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Barbara Leone Corbin seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Corbin has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
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 companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 2, 2018.

                    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to                     *Comments.applications@stls.frb.org:*

                    1.                     *Stifel Financial Corp., St. Louis, Missouri;*                     to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Business Bancshares, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire The Business Bank, Clayton, Missouri.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 4, 2018.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-12302 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-738

____________

ORLANDO NOA,

Petitioner,

vs.

FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION,

Respondent.

[July 5, 2018]

CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Third District 

Court of Appeal in Noa v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass’n, 215 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2017), based on express and direct conflict. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. 

Const. After further consideration, we conclude that jurisdiction was 

improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby discharge jurisdiction and dismiss 

this review proceeding.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and 

LAWSON, JJ., concur.

LEWIS, J., dissents.
- 2 -

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 

IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Direct 

Conflict of Decisions 

Third District - Case No. 3D16-1367

(Miami-Dade County)

Paul B. Feltman of Alvarez, Feltman & DaSilva, P.L., Coral Gables, Florida,

for Petitioner

Hinda Klein of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, Florida, 

for Respondent
<page>                                      EXHIBIT 32.02


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 Annual Report of Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund III L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Kevin
Perry, Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation,
the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) 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 Partnership.


By: /s/ Kevin Perry

Name: 	 Kevin Perry
Title:	 Chief Financial Officer

Date:	 March 31, 2005
#### WORONER PRODUCTIONS, INC., Appellant, v. TOURIST DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Florida, a political autonomous body of the City of Miami Beach, Appellee.

No. 71-269.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1972.

*39Whitman, Wolfe & Glick, Miami, for appellant.

McCarthy, Steel, Hector *&*Davis, Miami, Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant sued the appellee for an alleged breach of contract wherein the ap-pellee had agreed to sponsor by the purchase of advertising a series of radio programs which the appellant was promoting. Appellant claimed damages in the amount of the full contract price. The cause went to the jury upon the issue of the existence of the contract and the issue of appellant’s damages. The jury returned a verdict for the appellant for one-half of the full contract price. After trial the trial judge entered an order granting judgment for the defendant, appellee, in accordance with its motion for directed verdict. We affirm.

The trial judge based his order upon a holding first that the purported contract never came into being and second that even if the existence of the contract had been established there was no proof of any damages. On this appeal, the appellant urges error upon each of the grounds assigned by the trial judge. Having examined the record in the light of the arguments presented, we hold that the trial judge was clearly correct in his conclusion that the appellant as plaintiff totally failed to prove recoverable damages. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to discuss the complicated facts incident to the trial judge’s conclusion that a contract was not established.

The record on this appeal establishes without conflict that if a contract came into being that there was an immediate and anticipatory breach on the day following the making of the contract. When such a breach occurs the plaintiff must elect as the proper measure of damages; (1) loss of profits upon the contract, or (2) those damages that will put him in the same position as he was immediately prior to making the contract. Sundie v. Lindsay, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 152. If the plaintiff elects to seek loss of profits as damages for breach of a contract the loss must be proven so that it can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. Myrick v. Miller, Fla.App.1971, 256 So.2d 255 (released Dec. 7, 1971); Restatement of Contracts §§ 333, 338 (1932). The trial judge relied upon and cited the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in Sullivan v. McMillan, 26 Fla. 543, 8 So. 450 (1890) for this statement of the law. We agree with this holding and affirm.

Affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135198 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 135198 COA: 271676 Wayne CC: 06-004204-01 RAYMOND LOZELL BANKSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 13, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.

s1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 8, 2008

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SFP PIPELINE HOLDINGS, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,292
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,253
<BONDS>                                        204,756
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (65,039)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   216,142
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,198
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,560
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,391
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,391
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Sl()-M)03()9-() 5

METROPOLITA N KNOXVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORIT Y Marc h 2 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 NewJerse yAve , S E Washington . D C 2059 0 Docke t DOT-OST-2010-aP ' Dea rSecretar

yLaHood : America n Airline s an d America n Eagl e Airline s have serve d th e Knoxville , Tennesse e are a fo r ove r7 5 years . Today , America n an d thei ronev^forl d allianc e partne rcarriers connect Knoxville' s world-clas s researc h an d developmen t centers wit h th e globa l community . I t i s wit h grea t pleasure tha t w e suppor t th e applicatio n fo rantitrus t immunityan d th e propose d join t busines s agreemen t file d byAmerica n Airline s an d Japa n Airlines . Th e propose d allianc e betwee n thes e two airline s i s vita l fo rth e oneworl d allianc e t o compet e effectivel ywit h th e Sta r an d SkyTea m alliances . Thi s increase d allianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o f th e Department' s Ope n Skie s polic y- firs t b ysolidifyin g U.S . - Japa n Ope n Skies , the n b y servin g a s a foundatio n fo rfurthe rliberalizatio n acros s Asia . Afte ra thoroug h review , w e encourag e th e Departmen t o fTransportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t woul d enabl e thes e oneworl d allianc e airline s t o wor k closel ytogethe rt o delive r highl ycompetitiv e ai rtransportatio n service s tha t wil l benefi t bot h ou rloca l travelers , a s wel l a s thos e visitin g ou rregion . Approva l fo rAA/JA L allianc e wil l have a positiv e impact o n ai rtrave l b y offerin g customers more service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an d wil l hel p t o ensure tha t customers continu e t o benefi t fro m th e competitio n afforde d bythre e competitiv e ai ralliances . W e urg e yo u t o quickl yapprov e thi s application . Sincerely , METROPOLITA N KNOXVILLE-AIRPOR TAUTHORIT Y James H . Evans , Jr . Vice-Presiden t Marketin g & Ai rServic e Devel6pmen t

McGheeTyso n Airpor t • P.O . Bo x1560 0 •Knoxville , T N 3790 1 •865/342-300 0 •FA X 865/342-305 0 •email : mcghee®tys.or g iS'fe sti l S!()-UH)3(W-05 !



### ^y' ' ' • i '-* • e o - a . % t o £3 •v # '-sai ' 

### I S o X C O 

# I X I 

### 2 o c ? a C O c 0 3 

### E 

# I s i o o C M O Q c " 

# i c I c C O ( 0 

# I o C O 

### O o 

# 8 i n 

## a :

z < 1 -

_ J O 0 . O L U

- £ L U

- J

— 1 > X 0 z 1 - a i O a . a : < > - H c ^ O X ( - < 

# lo g < v O M D o : o
#### HUDSON PULP AND PAPER COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. A. J. BRANNIN et al., Respondents.

No. 40804.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 29, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6184

In Re: STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:00-cv-00393-FWB)

Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 21, 2006

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Lorenzo Williams petitions for writ of mandamus

seeking an order directing the district court to act on Williams’

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition which was dismissed without

prejudice in 2001. We conclude that Williams is not entitled to

mandamus relief.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Courts are extremely reluctant to grant

a writ of mandamus. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.

1987). Mandamus relief is not a substitute for appeal. In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). To obtain

mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that:

(1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief

sought; (2) the responding party has a clear duty to do

the specific act requested; (3) the act requested is an

official act or duty; (4) there are no other adequate

means to attain the relief he desires; and (5) the

issuance of the writ will effect right and justice in the

circumstances.

In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation

and citation omitted).

Williams’ § 2254 petition was dismissed several years ago.

To the extent that Williams seeks relief from the district court’s

January 2003 order denying his motion to amend the 2001 petition,

he had another available remedy; namely, to appeal from the district
*At this point, any appeal filed by Williams would be futile

because the thirty-day appeal period has long since expired. Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

- 3 -

court’s order.* Additionally, Williams could follow the district

court’s directive in its January 2003 order and file a new § 2254

petition.

The relief sought by Williams is not available by way of

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED