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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

November 10, 2014

Quitter

Commonwealth of Virginia

Re: In the Matter of Made in the USA Brand, LLC

File No. 142 3121, Docket No. C-4497

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent agreement in 

the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has considered your comment and placed it on the 

public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. §

4.9(b)(6)(ii).

In your comment, you request that the Commission add more specific information to the consent 

agreement. In particular, you write that the agreement should contain more requirements regarding how 

Made in the USA Brand, LLC should verify its claims, and additional definitions of “made in USA” and 

“accreditation standard.”

The consent agreement in this matter is tailored to prevent Respondent from making future 

representations unless those representations are true, not misleading, and substantiated by competent and 

reliable evidence. Specifically, the agreement prevents Respondent from misrepresenting that it has 

independently or objectively evaluated that entities meet its accreditation standard, and from making 

unsubstantiated country-of-origin claims.

The definition of “accreditation standard” set forth in the agreement does not specifically 

reference “made in USA” or U.S.-origin claims in order to allow for enforcement even if Respondent

creates an accreditation standard not related to U.S.-origin claims. However, to the extent that 

Respondent uses its accreditation standard to validate U.S.-origin claims, that standard must confirm that 

certified entities make non-deceptive claims consistent with the Commission’s Enforcement Policy 

Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, which provides that marketers should not make unqualified made in 

USA claims unless their products are all or virtually all made in the USA.

Therefore, after considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the relief set 

forth in the consent agreement is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the 

complaint. At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by 

issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification. The final Decision and Order and 

other relevant materials are available on the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the 

Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work, and we thank you again for your 

comment.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

ORLANDO DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, and 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, 

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, 

Plaintiffs, 

FILED 

2016 JUN -8 PM 2: 17 

M/UOLt 1;, , . ·. 

ORL.f.i.f-10.:, , ,_ 

v. Case No: 6:16-cv-982-0rl-41TBS 

LIFE MANAGEMENT SERVICES OF 

ORANGE COUNTY, LLC, et al., 

· Defendants. 

[Filed Under Seal] 

ORDER 

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs Federal Trade Commission and State of 

Florida's Ex Parte Motion to Seal Entire File and Docket Temporarily (Doc. S-6). In consideration 

thereof, it is ORDERED that, good cause having been shown, the motion is GRANTED, and the 

docket sheet and all pleadings and papers filed in the above-captioned matter shall be sealed. The 

seal shall lift automatically without further order of the Court on Monday, June 13, 2016, at 3:00 

p.m., Eastern Time, unless either Plaintiff moves to continue the seal before it is automatically 

lifted, in which case the seal shall remain in place until this Court rules on such a motion. This 

Order shall only be construed to prohibit disclosure of any of the sealed information by the Office 

of the Clerk of the Court. This Order shall not be construed to prohibit service or other disclosure 

by Plaintiffs and Court-appointed Receiver, or those acting on either Plaintiffs or Receiver's 

behalf. 

Page 1 of2 
Also before the Court is Plaintiff State of Florida's Ex Parte Motion for Waiver of Security 

Requirement (Doc. S-7) and Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Memorandum in Excess 

of Page Limitation (Doc. S-8). The former is GRANTED, as to be reflected in the Temporary 

Restraining Order. The latter, good cause having been shown, is also GRANTED. 

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 8, 2016. 

Page 2 of2 

CARLOS E. MENDOZA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD E
#### Frank GLUSMAN and Elaine Glusman, his wife, and Sol Maisel, Trustee, Appellants, v. ROMAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-646.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 10, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Edward J. FOSS, Ind. and as Administrator of the Estate of his minor son, Martin Foss v. NEW ORLEANS TERMINAL CO. et al.

No. 61184.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1978.

In re: Edward J. Foss and Martin Foss applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 351 So.2d 193.

Writ denied, for the reasons assigned by the concurring opinion in the Court of Appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-28-1996                     
<CASH>                                        1,853
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                36,249
<ALLOWANCES>                                    756
<INVENTORY>                                  21,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             61,644   
<PP&E>                                       76,027 
<DEPRECIATION>                               20,535                                      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              129,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        40,414     
<BONDS>                                           0 
<COMMON>                                      1,176
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   44,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                129,597
<SALES>                                     112,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            112,354
<CGS>                                        80,508
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                80,508       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             22,318
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1,688  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               7,840
<INCOME-TAX>                                  2,563    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           5,277
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  5,277
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .45
        

</TABLE>
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 17

- 00149

- CR
CARLOS OMAR CASILLAS AKA CARLOS OMAR CASILLAS PADILLA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 1725960

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Carlos Omar Casillas, aka Carlos Omar Casillas Padilla, was convicted by the 8 th Judicial District Court of Hopkins County in this case of possession of child pornography 1 and assessed punishment of ten years ’ imprisonment
. This case was tried with seven companion cases, which are the subject of other appeals pending before this Court. 2 Casillas filed a single, consolidated brief covering all eight appeals in which he contends (1) that his trial counsel gave him ineffectiv e assistance of counsel and (2) that the trial court erred in assessing a criminal technology fee. The argument raised in this appeal is based exclusively on the argument brought before this Court in the companion appeal styled Casillas v. State , cause number 06

- 17

- 00 147

- CR. In our opinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found that (1) Casillas has not shown that his trial counsel gave him ineffective assistance and (2) the trial court was authorized to assess costs for a criminal technology fee. For the reasons set out in that opinion, we overrule Casillas’ issues
as they appl y to this appeal.

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 43.26(a) (West 2016).
2 In his companion cases, 06

- 17

- 001 47

- CR, 06

- 17

- 00148

- CR, 06

- 17

- 00150

- CR, 06

- 17

- 00151

- CR , 06

- 17

- 00152

- CR , 06

- 17

- 00153

- CR , and 06

- 17

- 00154

- CR , Casillas appeals from his convictions for seven additional counts of possession of child pornography.3

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: November 3, 2017 Date Decided: November 8 , 2017 Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4548]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-383-003]


CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance Tariff Filing

February 19, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 13, 1997, CNG Transmission Corporation 
(CNG), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective 
date of November 1, 1996:

2nd Substitute 2nd Revised Sheet No. 369
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 378
Original Sheet No. 378A

    CNG states that the purpose of this filing is to revise CNG's 
proposed tariff provisions with regard to Negotiated Rates, as directed 
by the Commission's January 29, 1997, ``Order on Compliance Filing.''
    CNG states that copies of its filing have been mailed to CNG's 
customers and interested state commissions, and to parties to the 
captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4548 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 757 

To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act for purposes of making 

claims under such Act based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2019 

Mr. GOSAR (for himself and Mr. BIGGS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act for 

purposes of making claims under such Act based on 

exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Downwinders Com5 pensation Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 757 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE 

2 COMPENSATION ACT. 

3 Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Com4 pensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note; Public Law 101– 

5 426) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (B)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘that portion of’’; and 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘that consists of townships 

9 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 71’’; and 

10 (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘all acre11 age in any county all or part of which is located in’’ 

12 before ‘‘that part’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 10346.

#### Hieatt *v.*Simpson et al.

Decided June 23, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. W. T. Porter,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Worthington & Strong*and *Messrs. Outcalt & Foraker,*for defendants in error.

On rehearing.

Former judgment modified as per journal entry.

And now, on this 23d day of June, 1908, the parties appear by counsel and this cause is reheard upon the transcript of the record of the Circuit Court of Hamilton county, and on the application of the defendants in error heretofore made to the court for a modification of the journal entry made in this case on the 15 th day of October, 1907, entered at page 21 of Journal Number 22 of this court, and of the mandate to the circuit court predicated thereon.

On consideration whereof it is considered and adjudged by the court that the said journal entry be modified in this, to-wit: That the portion thereof finding and adjudging that plaintiff in error is entitled to the relief prayed for and directing the circuit court to render final judgment be set aside.

This court being of opinion that the construction of the will of William Hieatt, Sr., given by the circuit court is not the. true construction of said will, and hence that the judgment of the cir*447cuit court in favor of defendants in error ■ is erroneous and should be reversed.

It is considered and adjudged that said judgment of the Circuit Court of Hamilton county, be, and the same is, reversed for error in the particular above' stated. It is further adjudged that the mandate heretofore issued to said court be returned, and that this cause be remanded to said circuit court for further proceedings according to law. It is further ordered that plaintiff in error recover of defendants in error her costs herein. .

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
EX-10.08



 Exhibit 10.08 
  





 
 CHEGG, INC. 

3990 Freedom Circle 
 Santa Clara,
CA 95054 
 November 29, 2012 
 Andy Brown 

Dear Andy, 
 Pursuant to the offer letter dated
September 2, 2011, which was accepted by you on October 2, 2011 (the “Offer Letter”), Chegg, Inc. (the “Company”) agreed to provide you with, among other things, a lump sum payment equal to your then-current annual
base salary, payable no later than thirty days following your delivery of an executed release to the Company, if you resign your employment with the Company for Good Reason (as defined in the Offer Letter). In order to comply with Section 409A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, you and the Company now desire to amend the Offer Letter. Accordingly, by countersigning below, you agree that the Offer Letter is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “payable no later than
thirty (30) days following your execution of the Release and delivery of that Release to the Company” and replacing it with “payable within 60 days of the date that your employment terminates, provided the Release has been executed,
delivered to the Company and is effective on or prior to such date, and provided further that if the 60-day period spans two calendar years, payment will be made in the second calendar year.” Except as explicitly modified by this Amendment, all
terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,
  

CHEGG, INC.

		
	By:	 	/s/ Dan Rosensweig
		 	Dan Rosensweig, Chief Executive Officer


  

	
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
	
	/s/ Andy Brown
	 Andy Brown
  

11/29/12

	Date
#### In re Trust Under the WILL of Louis ALDER, Deceased. William A. Bromley, Appellant.

No. 72-372.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-448]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institutes of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases 
Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate a research grant 
application.
    Name of SEP: Training Grant in Academic Orthopedics (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Date of Meeting: January 6, 1997.
    Time: 10:00 a.m.-adjournment.
    Place of Meeting: Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Rm 5AS-25U, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20892-6500.
    Scientific Review Administrator: Tommy Broadwater, Ph.D., Chief, 
Grants Review Branch, NIAMS, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Rm 
5AS-25U, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-6500, Telephone: 301-594-4952.

    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. [93.846, 
Project Grants in Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases 
Research], National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 2, 1997.
Paula N. Hayes,
Acting Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-448 Filed 1-3-97; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 10782.

#### The Union Central Life Insurance Co. *v.*Hynicka, Treasurer.

Decided April 14, 1908.

Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati.

*Messrs. Maxwell & Ramsey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Ireton, Collins, Schoenle & Poor; Mr. Frank F. Dinsmore*and *Mr. Alfred B. Benedict,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Sitauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur. Davis, J., not participating.
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, Appellant, v. Charles L. McGINNIS, Appellee.

No. 72-651.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 12, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7398** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MUHAMMAD ABDUL RAHMAN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Dever, III , Chief District Judge. ( 7:08

- cr - 00126

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Muhammad Abdul Rahman, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Car olina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Muhammad Abdul Rahman seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifi cate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the m erits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutiona l right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rahman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal

c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-78043, No 333-31209, No. 333-05255) on Forms S-8 and registration
statement (No. 333-88531) on Form S-3 of Artesian Resources Corporation of our
report dated February 11, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets
of Artesian Resource Corporation as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2003, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Artesian Resources Corporation.

                                   /s/ KPMG LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 8, 2004
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Joe Lee ADAMS, Petitioner, v. Hon. Alfonso C. SEPE, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 41123.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 28, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 247 So.2d 540.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.