alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13390]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Parts 100 and 110

[Notice 2018-12]


Internet Communication Disclaimers and Definition of ``Public 
Communication''

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission is adding a second day to the 
already-announced public hearing on the proposed rules for disclaimers 
on public communications on the internet.

DATES: The public hearing will be held on June 27-28, 2018, and will 
begin at 9:30 a.m. on June 27, continuing the next day.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held in the Commission's 12th floor 
hearing room at 1050 First St. NE, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, Acting 
Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Jessica Selinkoff, Attorney, (202) 
694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 26, 2018, the Commission published 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') proposing to revise its 
regulations at 11 CFR 100.26 and 110.11 regarding disclaimers on 
communications placed for a fee on the internet that contain express 
advocacy, solicit contributions, or are made by political committees. 
Internet Communication Disclaimers and Definition of ``Public 
Communication,'' 83 FR 12864 (Mar. 26, 2018). In the NPRM, the 
Commission announced that it would hold a hearing on June 27, 2018, and 
that anyone wishing to testify at the hearing must file timely written 
comments including a request to testify. Id. The deadline for comments 
was May 25, 2018, and the Commission received more timely-filed 
requests to testify than can be accommodated in a one-day hearing.
    Accordingly, the Commission is extending the hearing to a second 
day: June 28, 2018. Witnesses will be limited to those persons who 
included a request to testify in their timely comments on the NPRM.
    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such 
as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact Dayna Brown, Commission Secretary, at (202) 694-1040 at 
least 72 hours prior to the date of attendance. Individuals who cannot 
attend in person may view the hearing via webcast; on the hearing day, 
visit www.fec.gov for more information. The Commission will make 
transcripts of the hearing available on its website after the hearing.

    On behalf of the Commission,

    Dated: June 18, 2018.
Caroline C. Hunter,
Chair, Federal Election Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-13390 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
#### San Marco Realty Corp., Landlord, Respondent, *v.*Arin Spevack, Tenant, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

March 26, 1953.

*635
      *Irving Cyruli*for appellant.

*Jack Weiss*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The order of the Temporary State Housing Bent Commission made pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 33 of the State Bent and Eviction Begulations merely fixed a new maximum rent for the housing accommodations in question; it did not and could not alter the rent reserved in the written two-year lease which was still subsisting. Although the tenant consented to the landlord’s application to increase the maximum rent for the said dwelling space, he did not consent to any modification of the terms of the lease.

The final order and judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with $30 costs to tenant, and petition dismissed, with appropriate costs in the cou:pt below.

Walsh, Cuee and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Final order and judgment reversed, etc.
#### Herzman Scarfs, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Baar *&*Beards, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 3, 1952.

*450*Maurice Abrams, Robert D. Spille*and *Harold L. Stults*for plaintiff.

*Harry J. Halperin*and *John S. Dorf*for defendant.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

Motion for injunction *pendente lite*is denied. Plaintiff seeks to restrain defendant from committing alleged acts of unfair competition. The defendant, a competitor of plaintiff, has recently commenced to import from Japan and sell scarfs which are very similar in shape and design to plaintiff’s Japanese imported ballerina type design scarfs. Plaintiff’s scarfs bear a single label, “ Carol Stanley ”, and defendant’s scarfs bear both a label identifying them as “Top Hit ” fashions and also a black tag bearing in gold letters the words ‘ *‘*Top Hit ’ ’. Plaintiff makes no claim that it has a design patent for its scarfs nor does it claim that defendant has appropriated or simulated its trade name, trade-mark or label.

Neither the courts of this State nor the Federal courts are disposed to grant a monopoly to anyone without benefit of patent *(Tabor*v. *Hoffman,*118 N. Y. 30; *Swank, Inc.,*v. *Anson, Inc.,*196 F. 2d 330; *Mavco, Inc.,*v. *Hampden Sales Assn.,*273 App. Div. 297). There seems to be nothing unlawful in copying an unpatented article or design by another, provided the public is not deceived thereby into buying the article of the defendant in the belief that it is the article of that other *(Kaylon, Inc.,*v. *Collegiate Mfg. Co.,*255 App. Div. 209; *Mavco, Inc.,*v. *Hampden Sales Assn., supra; Kellogg Co.*v. *National Biscuit Co.,*305 U. S. 111).

An injunction would not be proper here — since plaintiff has no patent — unless plaintiff showed that a secondary meaning had attached to its design, or that there is (or there is a likelihood of) confusion, so that purchasers of defendant’s scarfs would believe that they came from the same source as plaintiff’s. “ To establish a secondary meaning it is necessary to show (1) that the design is a mark of distinction identifying its source and (2) that purchasers are moved to buy the article because of its source ”. *(Mavco, Inc.,*v. *Hampden Sales Assn., supra,*p. 302; see, also, *Crescent Tool Co.*v. *Kilborn & Bishop Co.,*247 F. 299, and *Briddell, Inc.,*v. *Alglobe Trading Corp.,*194 F. 2d 416.)

The present record is barren of any showing that the plaintiff’s scarf design has acquired a secondary meaning or that the public is deceived into buying the defendant’s scarf in the belief *451that it is that of the plaintiff’s. Indeed, this much was conceded by the plaintiff on the argument, with a reservation that such concession was limited to the application for a temporary injunction. At the time of the argument the defendant agreed to accept short notice of the note of issue and to an early disposition of the action on the merits. In the light of proof which it may have procured since the presentation of the instant application, the plaintiff may desire a prompt trial. If so, I am inclined to allow it *(Kaylon, Inc.,*v. *Collegiate Mfg. Co., supra,*p. 211). Settle order accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                   1,393,961,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      98,907,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                           245,393,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            18,532,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              4,444,509,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   2,787,680,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     2,828,283,000
<LOANS>                                 23,658,297,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                331,633,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          34,726,819,000
<DEPOSITS>                              27,252,022,000
<SHORT-TERM>                             3,706,789,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        419,331,000
<LONG-TERM>                                421,665,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   137,834,000
<OTHER-SE>                               2,789,178,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          34,726,819,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          1,024,471,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          221,923,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            28,806,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         1,275,200,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         530,092,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         616,729,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                      658,471,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               28,935,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           3,042,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            490,519,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            368,717,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 368,717,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               243,421,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.38
<LOANS-NON>                                167,343,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                42,402,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             4,084,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           304,223,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               41,112,000
<RECOVERIES>                                17,320,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          331,633,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       331,633,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    331,633,000
        

</TABLE>
Consent of Grant Thornton
LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We have
issued our report dated March 9, 2009,  with respect to the
financial statements included in the Annual Report of SCOLR Pharma, Inc. on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statements of SCOLR Pharma, Inc. on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-155369, 333-129275,
333-123316 and 333-113949), on Form S-2 (File No. 333-107906) and on Form S-8
(File No. 333-116922, File No. 333-40290, File No. 333-79343).
  /s/ GRANT
THORNTON LLP
 
 Seattle,
Washington
 March 9,
2009
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifiesthat this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information containedin the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the issuer.

Date:   May 10, 2007
|        | Michael T. Vesey                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Michael T. Vesey                       |
|   | President and Chief  Operating Officer |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 28268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13136]

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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 21, 2018.

PLACE:  Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All 
visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

STATUS:  Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Board Briefing, Enterprise Solution 
Modernization Program Update.
    2. Board Briefing, NCUA Rules and Regulations, Member Business 
Loans.
    3. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Voluntary Mergers.
    4. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Chartering and Field of Membership.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the 
Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Gerard Poliquin,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-13136 Filed 6-14-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
```
#### Alfred E. GRIZZELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-447.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 12, 1971.

Alfred E. Grizzell, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 5.1

August ??,  2002

Captiva Software Corporation
   10145 Pacific Heights Blvd.
   San Diego, California 92121

Ladies and Gentlemen:

You have requested our opinion with respect to certain matters in connection
with the filing by Captiva Software Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), of a Registration Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration
Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission covering the offering of
up to two million two hundred twenty-six thousand eight hundred seventy three
(2,222,873) shares of the Company's Common Stock, $0.01 par value (the
"Shares"), pursuant to the Company's Amended and Restated Stock Option/Stock
Issuance Plan (the "Stock Plan") and 2002 Equity Incentive Plan (the "Equity
Plan").

In connection with this opinion, we have examined the Registration Statement,
the Stock Plan, the Equity Plan, the Company's Certificate of Incorporation and
Bylaws, and the originals or copies certified to our satisfaction of other
documents, records, certificates, memoranda and other instruments as we deem
necessary as a basis for this opinion. We have assumed the genuineness and
authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals, the conformity to
originals of all documents submitted to us as copies thereof, and the due
execution and delivery of all documents where due execution and delivery are a
prerequisite to the effectiveness thereof.

On the basis of the foregoing, and in reliance thereon, we are of the opinion
that the Shares, when sold and issued in accordance with the Stock Plan or the
Equity Plan, as applicable, the Registration Statement and the related
prospectus, will be validly issued, fully paid, and nonassessable (except as
shares of the Shares issued pursuant to certain deferred payment arrangements,
which will be fully paid and nonassessable when such deferred payments are made
in full).

We consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement.

Very truly yours,

Cooley Godward llp

By:______________________

Lance W. Bridges, Esq.

---
Americans 

can vote.

Wherever 

they are.

Do you want to vote absentee in the 2016 elections?

Here’s how to get started. 

CONTACT YOUR

VOTING ASSISTANCE OFFICER

NAME

EMAIL

LOCATION

PHONE FAX

O R

1-800-438-VOTE

CALL

vote@fvap.gov

EMAIL

FVAP.gov

VISIT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,119,531
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                     120,411
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,239,942
<CASH>                                          50,544
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              43,745
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          45,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,867,347
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,078,108
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            173,120
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       149,933
<OTHER-SE>                                     248,826
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,867,347
<PREMIUMS>                                     278,756
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             78,130
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              11,750
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   9,423
<BENEFITS>                                     178,274
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     82,394
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            10,175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 82,668
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,777
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             64,891
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,906
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.69
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 814,235
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            180,874
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              (2,600)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              50,303
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               118,227<F1>
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                823,979
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                          2,600
<FN>
<F1>"PAYMENTS PRIOR" includes $5,211,000 in respect of a foreign exchange
adjustment to the opening reserves.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2105

BELTRAN NYAMENJO NJOFANG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-224-694) Submitted: May 6, 2005 Decided: June 15, 2005 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ignatius Udeani, UDEANI & ASSOCIATES, Ltd., Bloomington, Minnesota, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Uttam Dhillon, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Njofang does not petition for review from that part of the order that denied protection under the Convention Against Torture. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Beltran Nyamenjo Njofang, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. * We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992)). We have reviewed the evidence of record, the immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order and find substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Njofang failed to establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 483 (same). Nor can Njofang show that he was entitled to withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000). “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding- 3 - of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny Njofang’s petition for review. 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
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01


                            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 Benihana Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended March 26, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel A. Schwartz,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

       1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
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
Company.


/s/ Joel A. Schwartz
----------------------------
Joel A. Schwartz
President and
Chief Executive Officer

June 23, 2006
#### Lillie Soto THORNTON, Appellant, v. Joseph T. THORNTON, Appellee.

No. T-188.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
#### Edward T. BOSMAN, Jr., Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 3, 1971.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
**ACTIONPOINT, INC.                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE                                (UNAUDITED)                 (In thousands, except per share amounts)**                                     Three Months Ended  Nine Months Ended                                        September 30,       September 30,                                    ------------------- -------------------                                       2000      1999      2000      1999                                    --------- --------- --------- ---------Net income (loss).................   ($1,974)      $42   ($8,863)     $354                                    ========= ========= ========= =========Shares used in basic EPS calculation......................     4,225     4,255     4,179     4,478Dilutive effect of stock options..........................        --         2        --         8                                    --------- --------- --------- ---------Shares used in diluted EPS calculation......................     4,225     4,257     4,179     4,486                                    ========= ========= ========= =========Basic EPS.........................    ($0.47)    $0.01    ($2.12)    $0.08Diluted EPS.......................    ($0.47)    $0.01    ($2.12)    $0.08                                    ========= ========= ========= =========
At September 30, 2000 and 1999, 2,971,931 and 2,625,044 options outstanding werenot included in the computation of diluted EPS.