alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman

Orson Swindle

Thomas B. Leary

Pamela Jones Harbour

Jon Leibowitz

___________________________________________

 )

In the Matter of )

 )

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V., )

a foreign corporation, )

 )

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, ) Docket No. 9300

a corporation, )

 )

PITT-DES MOINES, INC., )

a corporation. )

___________________________________________)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR

FURTHER BRIEFING ON SPECIFIC REMEDY ISSUES

On May 10, 2005, the Commission issued a Decision and Order that required within 10

days of service Respondents Chicago Bridge & Iron Company and Chicago Bridge & Iron

Company N.V. to file a brief addressing specific remedy issues. On May 19, 2005, Respondents

filed a Motion to Extend Time for Further Briefing on Specific Remedy Issues (“Motion”). On

May 20, 2005, Complaint Counsel filed a Response indicating that they do not object to

Respondents’ Motion. 

 The Commission has decided to grant Respondents’ request for additional time and

allow Respondents up to 20 days to file their brief. As a matter of equity, Complaint Counsel

will be afforded equal time to file their response brief. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT Respondents’ Motion is GRANTED. Respondents shall file

their brief pursuant to the May 10, 2005 Decision and Order on or before June 6, 2005; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Complaint Counsel respond to Respondents’ brief 
2

within 20 days of service or, in the alternative, give the Commission notice within that 20-day

time period that no response will be filed. 

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

ISSUED: May 25, 2005
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Shirley Jane McCAUSLAND, Relator, v. Honorable Ellen J. Morphonios ROWE, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-1371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 3, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1973.

*217Eugene Spellman, Denis Dean, Miami, for relator.

Richard E. Gernstein, State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for respondent.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On the suggestion of the relator Shirley Jane McCausland, a rule nisi in prohibition was issued to the respondent, a Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida. The suggestion alleged that the relator was about to be tried for a crime from which she had been discharged because of the rule laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed. 435 (1970). A response has been filed, as have briefs directed to the issue of whether the facts revealed by the suggestion and the response are such as to constitute a bar to relator’s trial because of her prior guilty plea in a municipal court to a related offense.

The misdemeanor to which relator pleaded guilty was alleged to have occurred on September 15, 1972. The crime with which relator is now charged is alleged to have been committed on another day. We hold that it does not now appear that relator’s trial in the Criminal Court of Record is barred by the holding in the cited case. Therefore the writ is quashed and the suggestion is dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF TRIMARK HOLDINGS, INC.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

NAME OF SUBSIDIARY*                                JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
<S>                                                <C>
1.    TRIMARK TELEVISION, INC.                              Delaware

2.    TRIMARK PICTURES, INC.                                California

3.    CHEAP DATE, INC.                                      California

4.    PURPLE TREE PRODUCTIONS, INC.                         California

5.    LOVING GUN PRODUCTIONS, INC.                          California

6.    TRIMARK MUSIC                                         California

7.    WRITERS ON THE WAVE                                   California

8.    TRIMARK INTERACTIVE                                   California

9.    CINEMANOW, INC.                                       California
</TABLE>

-----------------
*All subsidiaries are wholly owned, directly or indirectly by Trimark Holdings,
Inc. other than Trimark Interactive and CinemaNow, Inc., which are majority
owned subsidiaries.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

November 10, 2014

Robert Brookshire

State of Texas

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 fine Respondent, Made in the USA 

Brand, LLC. You do not propose any revisions to the draft complaint or the consent agreement.

The Commission is committed to preventing consumer deception, and believes the 

proposed order will accomplish this objective. In particular, Part I of the proposed order 

prohibits Respondent from representing that a covered entity meets Respondent’s accreditation 

standard, unless: (1) Respondent or its designee independently and objectively evaluates that the 

entity meets the standard; or (2) Respondent clearly discloses on the face of its logo and in all of 

its promotional materials that certified entities meet the standard through self-certification. Part 

II of the proposed order prohibits Respondent from making any country-of-origin claim about 

any product in its marketing materials unless: (1) the claim is true, not misleading, and 

Respondent has competent and reliable evidence substantiating the representation; or (2) for 

representations made through use of Respondent’s certification mark, Respondent clearly 

discloses that certified entities meet the standard through self-certification. Finally, Part III of 

the proposed order prohibits Respondent from providing others with the means and 

instrumentalities to make the claims prohibited in Parts I and II.

The FTC Act does not allow the agency to obtain fines for initial violations. Our primary 

goal in cases such as this one is to stop deceptive advertising by putting the Respondent under 

order. If, in the future, Respondent violates its order, the Federal Trade Commission could 

pursue civil penalties.
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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50605 Conference Calendar

MICHAEL KYLE BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KEN ODEN, Travis County Prosecutor; AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT; STAN KNEE, Stan Knee - Austin Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CV-250-SS

- - - - - - - - - - April 10, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael Kyle Brooks appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court concluded that Brooks’s claims against judges, prosecutors, and police officers were barred by immunity, and that Brooks’s apparent attempt to relitigate the propriety of his underlying conviction or obtain damages for prosecutorial misconduct was barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994). The court therefore dismissed the complaint. This wasNo. 00-50605 -2-
not error. See Black v. Warren , 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998). Brooks’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Brooks is cautioned that the filing of further frivolous lawsuits, pleadings, or other documents in this court will result in the imposition of sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 4.3







Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated March 11, 2014, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-193540) of Smart Trust, High
20 Dividend Strategy Trust, Series 7.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


Grant
Thornton LLP


Chicago, Illinois


March 11, 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO ORPHANS’ COURT 

PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

:

No. 811 

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7

th day of November, 2019, the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Toole, 

Jr., Allegheny County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Orphans’ Court Procedural 

Rules Committee for a term of three years, commencing January 1, 2020.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 757 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

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.

    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 ``Downwinders Compensation Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT.

    Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
U.S.C. 2210 note; Public Law 101-426) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) by striking ``that portion of''; and
                    (B) by striking ``that consists of townships 13 
                through 16 at ranges 63 through 71''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``all acreage in any 
        county all or part of which is located in'' before ``that 
        part''.
                                 <all>
```
- 796 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

296 Nebraska Report

STATE v. SCHIESSER

Cite as 296 Neb. 796

State of Nebraska, appellee, v.

Michael R. Schiesser, appe

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 2, 2017. No. S-16-115.

Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, 

Inbody, Riedmann, and Bishop, Judges, on appeal thereto

the District Court for Lancaster County, Lori A. Maret, Judg

Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed.

John S. Berry, of Berry Law Firm, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Melissa R. Vincent, 

and, on brief, George R. Love for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel,

Kelch, and Funke,

Per Curiam

Having reviewed the briefs and record and having heard 

oral arguments, we conclude on further review that the decision of the Nebraska Court of Appeals in State v. Schiesser, 24 

Neb. App. 407, 888 N.W.2d 736 (2016), is correct, and accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals which 

affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Affirmed

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

08/25/2017 12:12 AM CDT
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51397 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERIC EDUARDO ZEPEDA-SOTO, also known as Eric Eduardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant.

Consolidated w/ No. 06-51504 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERIC EDUARDO ZEPEDA, also known as Eric Ecuardo Zepeda, Defendant-Appellant.

Consolidated w/ No. 06-51505 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERIC EDUARDO ZEPEDA,No. 06-51397 c/w No. 06-51504 and No. 06-51505

-2-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-743-ALL USDC No. 3:95-CR-26-ALL USDC No. 3:06-CR-1265-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgments in these Criminal Cases, the defendant raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court
are AFFIRMED.
No. 10271.

#### Powell *v.*McCormick.

Decided March 31, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Hancock county.

*Mr. John*Sheridan, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John H. Straman*and *Messrs. Bailey & Bailey,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Sitauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.7.1


 


LIST OF INDEMNITEES


 


Each of the individuals identified below is party to an indemnification
agreement with Baxano Surgical, Inc. in the form included as Exhibit 10.7 to Baxano’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013:


 


Ken Reali


Joseph Slattery


Timothy M. Shannon


Michael Carusi


Jeffrey Fischgrund


Russell Hirsch


Paul LaViolette


Jonathan Osgood


Richard Randall


James Shapiro


David Simpson


Mark Stautberg


Rod Young


Stephen Ainsworth


Rick Feiler


Stephanie Fitts


Dwayne Montgomery


Mukesh Ramchandani


Greg D. Slusser


Greg Welsh


Matthew Pickens
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7353 

To provide that a project eligible for reimbursement under the Secure and 

Trusted Communications Act of 2019 shall not constitute an undertaking 

under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code, or a major Federal 

action for the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. GUTHRIE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that a project eligible for reimbursement under 

the Secure and Trusted Communications Act of 2019 

shall not constitute an undertaking under section 300320 

of title 54, United States Code, or a major Federal 

action for the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7353 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Timely Replacement 

3 Under Secure and Trusted for Early and Dependable 

4 Broadband Networks Act’’ or the ‘‘TRUSTED Broadband 

5 Networks Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF NEPA AND NHPA TO COVERED 

7 EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES. 

8 (a) COVERED PROJECT DEFINED.—In this section, 

9 the term ‘‘covered project’’ means a project for which the 

10 Commission approves a reimbursement under section 4 of 

11 the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 

12 2019 (47 U.S.C. 1603). 

13 (b) NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION.— 

14 (1) IN GENERAL.—A covered project shall be 

15 categorically excluded from the requirement to pre16 pare an environmental assessment or an environ17 mental impact statement under section 102 of the 

18 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

19 U.S.C. 4332). 

20 (2) RELATION TO EXTRAORDINARY CIR21 CUMSTANCES PROCEDURES.—The use of the cat22 egorical exclusion under paragraph (1) shall not be 

23 considered to include extraordinary circumstances 

24 under section 220.6 of title 36, Code of Federal 

25 Regulations, or section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7353 IH

1 Federal Regulations (or any successor to such regu2 lations). 

3 (c) NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT EX4 EMPTION.—A covered project shall not be considered an 

5 undertaking under section 300320 of title 54, United 

6 States Code. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 2 2019

No. 04-19-00547-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.L.P., et al., Children

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-00010

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OFJURSDICTION. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellants.

It is so ORDERED on October 2, 2019.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of October, 2019.

_____________________________

Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 26456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12242]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1535-000]


Montauk Energy Storage Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Montauk Energy Storage Center, LLC`s application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is June 21, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90d6d5c2d3dffefcf9fef5c3e5e0e0ffe2e4d0f6f5e2f3bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ca8c8f988985a4a6a3a4af99bfbabaa5b8be8aacafb8a9e4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 1, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12242 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Byron J. VILLWOCK, Appellant, v. George W. ANDERSON et al., Appellees.

No. 70-650.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 26, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; George E. Adams, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EX-10.8



 EXHIBIT 10.8 
 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary Sheet 
  

					
	 Annual Retainer
	  	$	39,655	  
		
	 Type of Meeting
	  	Amount Paid per Meeting	 
	 Board Meeting
	  	$	 3,965	  
	 Special Meeting
	  	$	 3,965	  
	 Telephonic Board Meeting
	  	$	 1,130	  
	 Compensation & Nominating Committee Meeting
	  	$	 1,700	  
	 Audit Committee Meeting
	  	$	 3,400	  
	 Executive Committee Meeting
	  	$	 3,965	  
	 Additional Fee for Chairperson (except Audit)
	  	$	 1,700	  
	 Additional Fee for Audit Committee Chairperson
	  	$	 2,265	  
		  	  
	  
	 


  
 66