alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jerry ROBINSON, Complainant/Appellant, v. Adele B. HEMPHILL, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 45527.

Supreme Court' of Mississippi.

Dec. 8, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1970.

Sullivan & Sullivan, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

Brewer, Deaton & Evans, Greenwood, for appellee.

PATTERSON, Justice.

This appeal arises from a decree of the Chancery Court of Carroll County which overruled a motion of the appellant to set aside an order of dismissal of the suit and to reinstate the same for a trial on the merits.

The bill of complaint was dismissed on appellee’s motion because the complainant had failed to answer interrogatories propounded by the defendant within thirty days after service thereof as provided by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 1712 (1956). Appellant contends that he was not required to answer the interrogatories since he had not been served with notice of their filing by a sheriff or other legal officer as *828required by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 1876 (1956).

The issue before the Court is whether Section 1712 (concerning interrogatories) contemplates notice of filing provided by Section 1876 which is as follows :

> All notices provided for by law appertaining to actions, suits, or proceedings of any kind in any court shall be served and returned by the sheriff or any constable of the county, or the marshal of any city, town, or village therein in which such notices are to be served, to whom such notices may be delivered for that purpose.

The failure to respond to interrogatories, either by a complainant or a defendant, is highly penal in that it requires a dismissal of the complaint or the striking of an answer. In the event the bill of complaint is dismissed, the dismissal is the equivalent of an adjudication of the issues involved or a judgment on the merits which precludes the parties from relitigating the same issues in another suit. Cedar Rapids National Bank v. Berry & Murray, 98 Miss. 123, 53 So. 393 (1910).

We are of the opinion that the issue before the Court is controlled by Merchants’ Grocery Co. v. Merchants’ Trust & Banking Co., 119 Miss. 99, 80 So. 494 (1919), wherein we held Section 3941, Mississippi Code 1906 (now Section 1876, Miss.Code 1942 Ann. 1956), to be applicable to the statute appertaining to interrogatories. Since the notice was not served by the sheriff or other legal officer, the dismissal of the bill of complaint was erroneous and the cause must be reversed and the bill of complaint reinstated.

Reversed and cause reinstated.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and INZER, SMITH, and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Harold BETTS v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 60938.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1977.

In re: Harold Betts applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Denied. Moot.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

ECM BioFilms, Inc., 

a corporation, also d/b/a 

Enviroplastics International, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

DOCKET NO. 9358 

PUBLIC 

APR 1 7 Z014 

?"95i9 

SECRETAR" 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO RESCHEDULE 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND ADJUST SCHEDULING DATES 

On April16, 2014, Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") Complaint Counsel and 

Respondent ECM BioFilms, Inc. ("Respondent") filed a Joint Motion to Reschedule Pretrial 

Conference and Adjust Scheduling Dates ("Joint Motion"). 

The Joint Motion states that counsel representing Respondent is unavailable on July 31, 

2014, the date scheduled for the Final Prehearing Conference in this matter, because 

Respondent's counsel must appear on that date in the United States District Court for the District 

of Utah in Salt Lake City, on a different matter. The Joint Motion further states that this 

scheduling conflict is irreconcilable and that, therefore, there is good cause to revise the date of 

the Final Prehearing Conference, as well as certain surrounding dates currently provided under 

the Second Revised Scheduling Order, issued on April10, 2014. 

Specifically, the parties propose to: (1) extend the date for filing Complaint Counsel's 

pretrial brief from July 21, 2014 to July 23 , 2014; (2) revise the date for filing final stipulations 

oflaw, facts, and authenticity, from July 30, 2014 to July 28, 2014; (3) revise the date of the 

Final Prehearing Conference from July 31 , 2014 to July 29, 2014; and (4) extend the date for 

filing Respondent's pretrial brief from July 28, 2014 to July 30, 2014. 

Based on the scheduling conflict described in the Joint Motion, good cause exists to 

reschedule the date of the Final Prehearing Conference, and to revise the surrounding dates, as 

requested by the parties. See 16 C.F.R. § 3.21(c)(2) ("The Administrative Law Judge may, upon 

a showing of good cause, grant a motion to extend any deadline or time specified in this 

scheduling order other than the date of the evidentiary hearing"). Moreover, revising the dates as 

requested will not affect the hearing date, or the ability to conclude the hearing and render an 

initial decision, in a timely manner. ld. 
Accordingly, tor all the foregoing reasons, the Joint Motion is GRANTED, and it is 

hereby ORDERED, that the Second Revised Scheduling Order is revised, as follows: 

July 23, 2014: Complaint Counsel files pretrial brief. 

July 28, 2014: Final stipulations of law, facts, and authenticity are filed. 

July 29, 2014: Final Prehearing Conference to begin at 10 a.m. 

July 30, 2014: Respondent's Counsel flies pretrial brief. 

Except as set forth herein, all dates and other provisions in the Second Revised 

Scheduling Order are unchanged. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: April 17, 2014 

2
Dear Mr. McGraw,

The Collings Foundation , a non - profit 501C3 education Foundation is holder of exemption letter 6540L, which provides exemption from 91.315, 91.319(a), 119.5(g) and 119.21(a) of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), w hich permits the Collings Foundation to operate our Boeing B - 17, Consolidated B - 24, Nort h American B - 25, Grumman TBM, Bell UH - 1 , McDonnell Douglas F -4 , McDonnell Douglas TA4J and Fieseler Co. Fi - 156 Storch for the purpose of carrying passengers on local flights for compensation or hire. On behalf of the Collings Foundation I am submitting a petition to the FAA for renewal and extension of our existing exemption letter 6540L, which expires on May 31, 2012. The Collings Foundation has held exemption letter 6540 since November 8, 1996 and has provided many people the opportunity to fly on board historic aircraft. Many of these riders have been WWII , Korea and Vietnam veterans, their children and grandchildren. Safety of flight is of critical importance to all Collings Foundation fl ight operations, we have over 22 years and thousands of flight hours of experience with the “Wings of Freedom” T our (B - 17, B - 24 and B 25) and 12 years of experience with the “Vietnam Memorial Flight” (F -4, TA- 4 and UH - 1) without a single accident or injury to either passengers or viewers. The Collings Foundation has over 75,000 members, all with an interest and passion for keeping these icons flying and touring around for all to see. Warmest Regards, /s/ Rob Collings
United States of America 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Division of Advertising Practices 

July 29, 2021 

Via Electronic Mail (lbrett@bbbnp.org)

Laura Brett, Esq. 

Vice President 

National Advertising Division 

112 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor 

New York, NY 10016 

Re: Advertising by The Coldest Water, LLC 

Dear Ms. Brett: 

On June 30, 2021, the National Advertising Division referred to the Federal Trade 

Commission an NAD self-monitoring inquiry regarding social media advertising by The Coldest 

Water, LLC for its insulated water bottles. Despite several attempts to reach The Coldest Water, 

NAD received no response to its inquiry. Accordingly, you referred this matter to the Federal 

Trade Commission for our review. 

After we alerted The Coldest Water to NAD’s referral to the FTC, the company agreed to 

engage with NAD. We understand from recent communications with your staff that The Coldest 

Water is actively cooperating with NAD. 

Accordingly, it appears no additional FTC action is warranted at this time. Our decision 

is not to be construed as a determination that a violation has not occurred. The Commission 

reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require. The FTC fully 

supports NAD’s self-regulatory process, and we sincerely appreciate your referral and the 

opportunity to continue to assist in supporting NAD. 

Very truly yours, 

Carolyn L. Hann 

Chief of Staff for Advertising Practices
#### Sylvia SALAS and Ramon Salas, Individually and as Guardian of Sylvia Salas, a minor, Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-792.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1973.

Gaine & Gaine, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellants.

Richard E. Hardwick, Coral Gables, Sam Daniels, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on April 27, 1971 (247 So.2d 528) affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed December 13, 1972 (272 So.2d 1) and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause with instructions.

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued on May 26, 1971 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed herein on April 27, 1971 is vacated the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the judgment of the circuit court appealed from herein is reversed and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, F.A.R. 32 F.S. A.).
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-07707, No. 333-29549, and No. 333-59633) pertaining to the
Cell Genesys, Inc. 1989 Incentive Stock Plan, the 1992 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, and the 1998 Incentive Stock Plan, of our report dated January 26, 1999
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cell Genesys, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.



| |                      
| | ---------------------
| | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 30, 1999

---
Sheinberg, Samuel I.

From: Sheinberg, Samuel |

Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 12:20 PM
To:

Ce:

Subject: RE: Acquired UPE question

What you suggest is fine.

Thank you,
Sam

From:
Sent: Monday, June 7, 709: -U5:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

To:
Subject: Acquire question

Buyer and Seller intend to makes HSR filings based off an executed letter of intent. At some point prior to closing, Seller
(which is its own UPE) will form Newco for the purpose of contributing certain assets and liabilities of Seller. It is
anticipated that the equity of Newco will be distributed to equityholders of Seller, none of whom will acquire control of
Newco. Buyer will then acquire all of the equity interests of Newco in exchange for cash and minority interests in a parent
company of Buyer.

Since Newco is not yet formed, could you confirm that it would be appropriate for Seller to be listed as the acquiring
person’s UPE (and to execute the filing on behalf of the acquiring person), with an explanation that Newco may become
its own UPE prior to closing?
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Eugene GIBSON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54283.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 15, 1974.

In re: Eugene Gibson, applying for Remedial Writs.

Writ denied. Considering the sworn statements of accused of September 6, 1962 attached to return of the Respondent and filed in this Court we find no merit in petitioner’s application.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion an evi-dentiary hearing must be had to determine the double jeopardy issue. The majority here considers matters not of record, and not made part of application to reject writ. These *ex*parte matters cannot be considered. Relator is entitled to confront the witnesses under his allegations. Double jeopardy can only be determined after a factual hearing.

DIXON, J.,

is of the opinion that the La. post conviction relief statutes require an evidentiary hearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7813 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7813

  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require disclosures of 
   foreign gifts by entities affiliated with institutions of higher 
                               education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2020

  Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require disclosures of 
   foreign gifts by entities affiliated with institutions of higher 
                               education.

    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 ``Academic Institution Research 
Integrity Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURES OF FOREIGN GIFTS REQUIRED FOR AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

    Section 117(h)(4) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1011f(h)(4)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as 
        clauses (i) through (iii), respectively, and adjusting the 
        margins accordingly;
            (2) by striking ``means any institution'' and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(A) means any institution'';
            (3) by striking ``and'' at the end and inserting ``or''; 
        and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) means any nonprofit foundation or other 
                entity affiliated with an institution described in 
                subparagraph (A), such as a research, an endowment, or 
                an alumni foundation; and''.
                                 <all>
```
|    |                                                                                                               |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Whole Foods Market, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|       |
|-------|
|       |  |
| Date: | January 26, 2015 |

|                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |
| /s/ Glenda Flanagan                                  |
| Glenda Flanagan                                      |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
<PAGE>

                      Consent of Independent Accountants
                      ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus
Development Corporation Amended and Restated Executive Stock Option Plan, the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus Development Corporation
Profit Sharing & Savings Plan & Trust, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of
the Catellus Development Corporation Long Term Incentive Compensation Plan,
Stock Purchase Program, Incentive Stock Compensation Plan and Stock Option Plan,
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus Development Corporation
1995 Stock Option Plan and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the
Catellus Development Corporation 1996 Performance Award Plan (Nos. 33-58143, 33-
38827, 33-42124, 333-01215 and 333-04293, respectively) of our report dated
February 4, 2000, appearing on Page F-2 of this Form 10-K. We also consent to
the incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement
Schedules, which appears on page S-1 of this Form 10-K.



/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers
March 28, 2000
San Francisco, CA
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10597 Summary Calendar

GARRY DAVID GALLARDO, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GEORGE E. KILLINGER, Warden, FCI Ft. Worth, TX., Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-328-A

- - - - - - - - - - November 26, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Garry Gallardo, # 41571-080, appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus, which he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Gallardo argues that the district court erred by dismissing his petition because the indictment under which he was convicted was defective and thereby divested the sentencing court of jurisdiction. Gallardo also argues that his § 2241 petition filed in the Northern District of Texas was the appropriateNo. 96-10597 - 2 - vehicle to present his requested remedy because the “convicting court” erroneously denied him permission to file a § 2255 motion in the Western District of Texas. We have reviewed the record and Gallardo’s briefs and find no reversible error. See Broussard v. Lippman , 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 452 U.S. 920 (1981). Because the appeal is without arguable merit, it is frivolous and, therefore, is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 99.1
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 Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-K for the year ended April 28, 2002, as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"),
I,  Bernard Goldstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1)     The  Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

(2)     The  information  contained  in the Annual Report fairly presents, in
all  material  respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

/s/  Bernard  Goldstein
-----------------------
Bernard  Goldstein
Chief  Executive  Officer
December  23,  2002
#### Daniel BEVER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-867.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT


     This Agreement is made and is effective this 18th
day of August, 1999, and amends an Employment Contract
between FIRST NORTHERN BANK & TRUST n/k/a NORTH COUNTRY
BANK & TRUST (the "Bank"), FIRST MANISTIQUE CORPORATION
n/k/a NORTH COUNTRY FINANCIAL CORPORATION (the
"Company") and SHERRY LITTLEJOHN ("Littlejohn") dated
May 22, 1996.

                        RECITAL

     The parties wish to amend the Employment Contract
in certain respects as described in this First
Amendment.  Accordingly, the Boards of Directors of the
Bank and the Company have approved this First Amendment
and authorized its execution and delivery on behalf of
the Bank and the Company.

                       AGREEMENT

     1.  Section 7(d) of the Employment Contract is
amended to add at the end thereof the following:

          "For purposes of this Section 7(d), any good
          faith determination by Littlejohn that there
          is Good Reason shall be conclusive.  Anything
          in this Agreement to the contrary
          notwithstanding, a voluntary termination of
          employment by Littlejohn for any reason or no
          reason during the ninety (90) day period
          commencing on the date six (6) months after
          the Change in Control shall be deemed to be a
          termination for Good Reason for purposes of
          this Agreement."

     2.  Except as amended hereby, the Employment
Contract is ratified and confirmed in all respects.

<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Amendment Agreement, effective as of the day first
written above.

                            NORTH COUNTRY BANK & TRUST


                            By:  /s/  Ronald G. Ford
                               ----------------------------------------
                            Its:  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



                            NORTH COUNTRY FINANCIAL CORPORATION


                            By:  /s/  Ronald G. Ford
                               ----------------------------------------
                            Its:  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



                              /s/  Sherry Littlejohn
                             ------------------------------------------
                             Sherry Littlejohn