alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MDL Docket No. 1869

Misc. No. 07-489 (PLF/JMF/AK)

ORDER

In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, the following is, hereby, 

ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents [#340] is 1

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is further, hereby, 

ORDERED that BNSF produce for an in camera review the five AAR-related

documents to which plaintiffs object to the application of the attorney-client privilege. The

documents should be produced to chambers within five days of this Order. It is further, hereby, 

ORDERED that UP produce for an in camera review the one document (PRIV-M-772)

to which plaintiffs object to the application of the attorney-client privilege based on the subject

matter (“client communication to attorney re attorney directed memorandum re telephone call

with BNSF and request for attorney advice re revisions to memorandum”). The documents

should be produced to chambers within five days of this Order. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents prepared in connection with

IN RE: RAIL FREIGHT FUEL

SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This document relates to:

ALL DIRECT PURCHASER CASES

 The motion to compel was filed under seal. Pursuant to the protection order in this case,

1

plaintiffs also filed a public version of the motion. Both the sealed motion and the public version

bear their own docket number. This opinion will refer to the docket number of the public filings

of all documents. 
STB proceedings and designated as protected by work-product privilege is DENIED. 

Defendants will not have to produce these documents. It is further, hereby, 

ORDERED that BNSF will produce for an in camera review those documents related to

the STB hearings which BNSF withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege only, including:

BNSF_LOG0000786-787, BNSF_LOG0000788-789, BNSF_LOG0002184,

BNSF_LOG0002238, BNSF_LOG0002273-274, BNSF_LOG0010048-049,

BNSF_LOG0010071, BNSF_LOG0010455-056, BNSF_LOG0011328, BNSF_LOG0011337,

and BNSF_LOG0011338. The documents should be produced to chambers within five days of

this Order. 

SO ORDERED. 

__________________________________________

JOHN M. FACCIOLA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
251 La. 741

#### Mrs. Louis SUSSDORFF v. Emile JACKSON, Cortland Keith Caliup and St. Louis Fire and Marine Insurance Co.

No. 49030.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Louis Sussdorff applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 203 So.2d 901.

Writ refused. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.

YARRUT, J., recused.
**EXHIBIT 31.1(A)****Certifications required by Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**     I, Dr. Lionel L. Reilly, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) forthe registration, and we have:     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based onsuch evaluation; and     (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: June 14, 2006.   /s/ Dr. Lionel L. Reilly   Dr. Lionel L. Reilly, President and        Chief Executive Officer
#### DELRAY AUTO SALES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Cordell W. SHORT, for the Use and Benefit of Cincinnati Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-75.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

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

**No. 09**  **- 8157** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KEVIN WASHINGTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Di strict of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:05

- cr - 00251

- H

- 1; 5:08

- cv - 00371

- H )

Submitted : July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chi ef Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismis s ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kevin Washington , Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Ke vin Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrat ing 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 d enies 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 constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independe ntly reviewed the record and conclude that Washington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Washington’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Washington’s motion for appointment of counsel. We disp ense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35500-35501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15949]


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

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION


Millennium Challenge Corporation Advisory Council Notice of Open 
Meeting; Correction

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.

ACTION: Renewal of the MCC Advisory Council and call for nominations 
for 2018-2020 term; correction.

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

[[Page 35501]]

SUMMARY: The Millennium Challenge Corporation published a document in 
the Federal Register of July 13, 2018, concerning refiling of the 
charter for the MCC Advisory Council and soliciting representative 
nominations for the 2018-2020 term. The document contained incorrect 
terminology in the subject and action lines, and an incorrect date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information 
can be emailed to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b3638383a1f0d120814090238140e151812173b161818551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5a8a6a6a481938c968a979ca68a908b868c89a5888686cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a> or mailed to Millennium 
Challenge Corporation, Attn: Beth Roberts, Designated Federal Officer, 
MCC Advisory Council, 1099 14th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 
20005. Requests for additional information may also be obtained by 
contacting Beth Roberts at 202-521-3600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of July 13, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-15053, on 
page 32689 in the third column, Subject and Action lines, correct the 
subject ``Millennium Challenge Corporation Advisory Council Notice of 
Open Meeting'' to read: Renewal of the MCC Advisory Council and Call 
for Nominations for 2018-2020 Term, and correct the ``Action'' caption 
to read:

ACTION: Notice. On page 32690 in the first column, correct the 
``Dates'' caption to read:

DATES: Nominations for Advisory Council members must be received on or 
before 5 p.m. EDT on August 17, 2018. Further information about the 
nomination process is included below.
    MCC plans to host the first meeting of the 2018-2020 term of the 
MCC Advisory Council in Fall 2018. The Council will meet at least two 
times a year in Washington, DC, or via video/teleconferencing.

    Dated: July 19, 2018.
Jeanne M. Hauch,
Vice President and General Counsel, Millennium Challenge Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2018-15949 Filed 7-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,402,470
<SECURITIES>                                   250,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,744,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                   163,633
<INVENTORY>                                  6,426,907
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,097,832
<PP&E>                                      12,757,445
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,477,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,155,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,454,640
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,587
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,004,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,155,362
<SALES>                                      8,805,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,805,570
<CGS>                                        7,562,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,562,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (22,083)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               163,633
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                124,640
<INCOME-TAX>                                    45,271
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,369
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
#### James Earl SHIVERS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 9202.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1973.

*303C. Calvin Adams, Jr., Tallulah, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert L. Royer, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.

Before LANDRY, TUCKER and PICKETT, JJ.

PICKETT, Judge.

The plaintiff, James Earl Shivers, Jr., instituted this action against the Louisiana Department of Revenue on July 1, 1971, seeking a judgment requiring the Louisiana Department of Revenue to issue him under the provisions of Louisiana R.S. 47:462, subd. A (3), a Class 3 license for his truck-tractor utilized to transport wood chips, and to recover the difference in the cost of contract carrier (Class 2) license previously purchased by him under protest and the value of a Class 3 license. From a judgment rejecting his demands, the plaintiff has appealed.

The judgment was signed and notice thereof mailed on Tuesday, May 23, 1972. Pursuant to the provisions of C.C.P. Article 1974, a motion for a new trial must be filed within three (3) days commencing from the date judgment is signed, except where notice of judgment is required, in which latter case, the three-day delay begins the day after the Clerk has mailed, or the sheriff has served, notice of judgment. In the case before us, the delays for applying for a new trial commenced on Wednesday, May 24, 1972, and expired on Friday, May 26, 1972. Plaintiff did not apply for a new trial until Thursday, June 1, 1972, which was untimely since the last day for applying for a new trial was Friday, May 26, 1972. Since a new trial was not timely applied for, the result is the same as if there had been no application for a new trial.

Consequently, the motion for a new trial and the denial thereof are both inoperable factors. In this instance, the delay for appeal commenced on Saturday, May 27, 1972, and expired on Friday, August 25, 1972. C.C.P. Article 2087. The appeal in this instance was taken July 26, 1972, which was timely, but the appeal bond was not filed until September 12, 1972, which was subsequent to the ninety-day appeal period which expired August 25, 1972. See Chambers v. Russell, La.App., 152 So.2d 349; Clements v. Kimble, La.App., 239 So.2d 704.

Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal, ex proprio motu, for the reason that same was not timely perfected and we are without jurisdiction in this court. Costs to be paid by plaintiff-appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Vaughan B. CONNELLY and M. Louise Connelly, his wife, Appellants, v. Joseph A. WINTERMANTEL, Appellee, and City of Miami, Intervenor.

No. 67-762.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 28, 1968.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1968.

Palermo & Connelly, Miami, for appellants.

Fogle & Fordham, Miami, for appellee.

Alan Rothstein, City Atty., and John G. Thomas, Asst. City Atty., for intervenor.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal attempts to set aside a judicial sale as the result of a foreclosure judgment.

It is not contended there was any irregularity in the sale; only that it is possible that a re-sale will result in a higher price. We find this to be an inadequate ground for ordering a re-sale. Ruff v. Guaranty Title & Trust Co., 99 Fla. 197, 126 So. 383; Certain Lands, etc. v. City of Coronado Beach, 128 Fla. 884, 175 So. 774; Northern Investment Corporation v. Coppock, 134 Fla. 168, 183 So. 635.

Affirmed.
### -79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5 38.0 38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/17 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.50 N 76.81 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■


## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●


## ★ ● ● ● ●
#### Sarah F. BASTARI a/k/a Sarah F. Bastari Jones v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50196.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 14, 1977.

Joe M. Buchanan, Indianola, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gil-foy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sunflower County; Arthur B. Clark, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., ROBERTSON, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 10475]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “The Progressive Revolution: Modern Art for a New India,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Asia Society Museum, New York, New York, from on or about September 15, 2018, until on or about January 20, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-10 of July 6, 2018.                

Jennifer Z. Galt,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-15716 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Earton David JONES, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 41242.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 8, 1971.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

DEKLE, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this Court on June 16, 1971, and response thereto filed July 12, 1971. Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A.

*571The basis asserted for the petition is that defendant was not represented by counsel at a preliminary hearing. This issue was presented to the Third District Court of Appeal and was decided adversely to the petitioner. Jones v. State, 248 So.2d 517 (3d DCA Fla. 1971). This Court will not reconsider on a petition for writ of *habeas corpus*those issues already considered and determined by another appellate court. Tafero v. State, 242 So.2d 470 (3d DCA Fla.1971); Carter v. State, 242 So.2d 737 (1st DCA Fla.1970); Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So.2d 577 (Fla.1967); Roberts v. State, 242 So.2d 191 (3d DCA Fla.1970). As between the state and this defendant, those issues already disposed of are *res judicata*in a collateral proceeding such as habeas corpus or under Criminal Procedure Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A. Neither is there a basis here for conflict certiorari.

Accordingly, the writ of habeas corpus should be and the same is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.2
 *** Certain information in this Exhibit has been omitted and filed
separately with the SEC. Confidential treatment has been requested with
respect to the omitted portions.
 2009 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
 th




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



nd
  th
  7




---



##### 



PVPL
    
    
    
    Pfizer Inc.By
    
    /s/ Steve Price

Steve Price
    
    
    
    By
    
    /s/ Clinton A. Lewis, Jr.

Clinton A. Lewis, Jr.President
    
    
    
    
    
    President, U. S. OperationsPfizer Animal HealthDate
    
    12/10/08
    
    
    
    Date
    
    12/11/08
 8
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William J. KOLEHMAINEN.

No. 61439.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

In re: William J. Kolehmainen, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for stay order. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ granted. Ruling on motion to suppress is vacated and set aside. See *State v. Rome,*La., 354 So.2d 504, as handed down on January 30, 1978.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J., would deny the writ.