alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 10480]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Corot: Women,” 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 National Gallery of Art, Washington, District of Columbia, from on or about September 9, 2018, until on or about December 31, 2018, 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:

                        Elliot Chiu, 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, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Marie Therese Porter Royce,

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

[FR Doc. 2018-16007 Filed 7-25-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-34653 and 333-84387) pertaining to the Congoleum Corporation
1995 Stock Option Plan and the Non-Qualified, Non-Employee Directors Stock
Option Plan of our report dated March 5, 2004, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Congoleum Corporation included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.


                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 26, 2004
No. 11128.

#### The Scioto Valley Traction Co. *v.*Benson.

Decided October 26, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

*Messrs. Daugherty & Todd,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Q. R.- Lane*and *Mr. U. S. Brandt,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Davis and Spiauck, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      24,547,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,100,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      37,700,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,347,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,195,128
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,152,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,347,180
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 11612.

#### Skelton et al., County Commissioners, et al. *v.*Timmonds et al.

Decided October 5, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Scioto county.

*Mr. Harry W. Miller,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. John C. Miller,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Oscar W. Newman,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Spiauck and Price, JJ., -concur.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 8, 2018*

Decided August 9, 2018

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

No. 18-1444

ROBERT CRUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ADVOCATE NORTH SIDE HEALTH NETWORK,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 16 C 8951

Manish S. Shah, Judge.

Order

Advocate North Side Health Network fired Robert Crum in June 2016, when he was 

62. Crum contends that this violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 29 

U.S.C. §§ 621–34. He also alleges that he suffered from a work environment hostile to 

older people and that the employer retaliated against him for presenting claims of discrimination.

 

* The court granted the parties’ requests to waive oral argument.
No. 18-1444 Page 2

The district court awarded summary judgment to Advocate. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

30141 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2018). We affirm, substantially for the reasons the district judge 

gave.

Crum’s lead argument on appeal is that a continuing-violation doctrine required the 

district court to consider disciplinary actions, and denials of requests for transfers or

promotions, that occurred more than 300 days before his charge of discrimination. But 

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002), holds that there is no 

general continuing-violation doctrine in the federal law of employment discrimination. 

Each discrete act carries its own period of limitations. Id. at 110–15. Hostile-environment 

claims are considered cumulatively (so the court considers the whole course of conduct, 

not just conduct within 300 days of the charge), id. at 115–21, and the district judge 

complied with that rule. He held that the hostile-environment claim fails, not because 

made too late, but because the evidence of record would not permit an inference that 

the workplace environment had anything to do with Crum’s age.

Crum’s other arguments are well covered by the district court’s opinion.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000759641
<NAME> AEI REAL ESTATE FUND 85-A LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         174,683
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               174,683
<PP&E>                                       5,126,348
<DEPRECIATION>                               (999,929)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,301,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,195,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,301,102
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               539,329
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                332,237
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            332,237
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   332,237
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    46.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    46.44
        


</TABLE>
Region LABORER MILL WRIGHTS PAINTERS PLASTERERS PIPE FITTERS PLUMBER SHEET METAL TEAM STERS WEIGHT AVERAGE 

## Region Averages CONSTRUCTION LAB OR RESEARCH COUNCIL UNION WAGES AND SUPPLEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 07/01/2008- 07/01/2013

26-Jun-13



### New England Rate - 07/01/08 $38. 04 $61.92 $48.92 Rate - 07/01/13 $42. 95 $73.94 $56.51 Increase $4. 91 $12.02 $7.59 

### Middle Atlantic Rate - 07/01/08 $40. 84 $58.32 $49.62 $60.84 $47.07 $48.12 $31.50 $47.74 Rate - 07/01/13 $47. 16 $69.32 $55.77 $71.30 $54.92 $55.57 $38.72 $55.59 Increase $6. 33 $11.00 $6.15 $10.46 $7.85 $7.45 $7.22 $7.84 

### Southeast Rate - 07/01/08 $19. 91 $27.82 $37.07 $38.07 $35.62 Rate - 07/01/13 $23.48 $31.43 $41.76 $42.82 $40.36 Increase $3. 57 $3.61 $4.69 $4.75 $4.74 

### East North Central Rate - 07/01/08 $39.47 $46.27 $38.17 $57.45 $46.50 $52.22 $30.07 $45.96 $37.33 Rate - 07/01/13 $45. 64 $51.17 $43.02 $68.04 $53.19 $60.19 $35.64 $52.84 $43.04 Increase $6. 17 $4.90 $4.85 $10.60 $6.69 $7.98 $5.57 $6.88 $5.71 

### West North Central Rate - 07/01/08 $34. 17 $40.20 $52.24 $51.89 $45.28 $36.14 $43.10 $37.23 Rate - 07/01/13 $39. 50 $43.28 $59.95 $59.78 $50.74 $40.28 $49.76 $42.74 Increase $5. 33 $3.08 $7.72 $7.88 $5.45 $4.14 $6.66 $5.51

1Region LABORER MILL WRIGHTS PAINTERS PLASTERERS PIPE FITTERS PLUMBER SHEET METAL TEAM STERS WEIGHT AVERAGE 

## Region Averages CONSTRUCTION LAB OR RESEARCH COUNCIL UNION WAGES AND SUPPLEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 07/01/2008- 07/01/2013

26-Jun-13



### South Central Rate - 07/01/08 $20. 70 $32.86 $34.70 $34.35 Rate - 07/01/13 $22. 29 $37.31 $39.72 $39.14 Increase $1. 59 $4.45 $5.02 $4.79 

### Mountain-Northern Plains Rate - 07/01/08 $38.87 $42.77 $41.03 $41.74 Rate - 07/01/13 $43.59 $47.47 $45.78 $47.87 Increase $4.72 $4.70 $4.75 $6.14 

### Southwest Pacific Rate - 07/01/08 $39.42 $52.07 $51.45 $58.38 $54.04 $49.51 $41.17 Rate - 07/01/13 $45. 68 $58.30 $56.83 $70.76 $64.24 $57.20 $50.26 Increase $6. 25 $6.23 $5.38 $12.38 $10.20 $7.69 $9.09 

### Northwest Rate - 07/01/08 $37. 72 $46.52 $49.96 $44.52 $45.34 Rate - 07/01/13 $41. 23 $52.48 $62.43 $51.49 $51.08 Increase $3. 51 $5.96 $12.46 $6.97 $5.74 

### U.S. Average Rate - 07/01/08 $38. 63 $48.62 $47.86 $52.27 $48.10 $48.84 $42.54 $45.75 $40.41 Rate - 07/01/13 $44. 53 $54.75 $53.37 $61.61 $55.18 $56.68 $49.09 $52.70 $48.83 Increase $5. 90 $6.13 $5.51 $9.34 $7.08 $7.84 $6.55 $6.95 $8.41

2
Order entered March 1 9 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01437
- CV EBAY INC., Appellant
V. ADVOCARE INTERNATION AL, L.P., Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 296
- 01545
- 2014 

### O RDER T he reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated January 15, 2015, we notified the official court reporter for the 296th Judicial District Court that the reporter’s record was overdue. We directed the c ourt reporter to file the record within thirty days. To date, we have not received any response. Accordingly, we ORDER Court Reporter Janet Dugger to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written veri fication that no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has not requested or made payment arrangements for the record. We notify appellant that if we receive verification it has not requested, paid for, or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, we will order theappeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c)

. /s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Michael J. Smith, President and Chief Financial Officer of TriMaine Holdings, Inc., certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Trimaine Holdings, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)	the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

Dated: May 17, 2004



/s/ Michael J. Smith
Michael J. Smith
President and 
Chief Financial Officer



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to TriMaine Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by TriMaine Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K OF
COX COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          33,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  275,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (14,783)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,533,366
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,495,130)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,614,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,150,636
<PREFERRED>                                      4,836
<COMMON>                                       603,767
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,614,497
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            (2,318,135)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  734,858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               715,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             305,736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,480,488
<INCOME-TAX>                                   579,965
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            900,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   881,928
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.54<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.51<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS BASIC AND EPS DILUTED HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT A TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK
SPLIT ON MAY 21, 1999. INTERIM FILINGS SUBSEQUENT TO THE STOCK SPLIT HAVE BEEN
ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE STOCK SPLIT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Joe L. PERSELL and Carrie Lee Persell, his wife, Appellants, v. Harold LOWENTHAL and Pearl Lowenthal, his wife, Appellees.

No. 67-399.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 12, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### AMERICAN MOTORIST INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. William A. DAVIDSON, Appellee.

No. 71-505.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 22, 1972.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
/*
  ------------------------------------------
  Display Control
  version: 2.2
  date: 10/22/2010
  update: 3:03 PM 12/22/2010
  author: carollynn.hammersmith@census.gov
  author: gregory.l.henle@census.gov
  author: laura.k.yax@census.gov
  website: www.census.gov
  --------------------------------------------
*/
/* Base Layout */
* {
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;  
}
#masthead,
#masthead #image,
#masthead #titles {
  height: 60px;
  min-height: 60px;
}
#masthead #titles h1,
#masthead #titles h4 {
  width: 50%;
  white-space:nowrap;
  padding-left: 20px;
  display: inline;
}
#masthead #titles h1 {
  height: 60px;
  line-height: 60px;
}
  
#page-container #source-order-container {
  border: none;
}
#page-container #source-order-container .center {
  float: left;
  width: 100%;
  margin: 2em 0 1em;
  overflow: hidden;
}
#page-container #source-order-container .center .inside {
  margin: 0 1em;
  overflow: hidden;
}

#page-container #source-order-container .sidebar,
#page-container #outer-column-container .sidebar {
  position: relative;
  margin-top: 2em;
  margin-Bottom: 1em;
  width: 280px;
  float: left;
  z-index: 2;
  overflow: hidden;
}
#page-container #outer-column-container #right-column div.inside {
  margin: 0 1em 0 2em;
}
#page-container #source-order-container #left-column div.inside {
  margin: 0 2em 0 1em;
}
#page-container #source-order-container #left-column.sidebar {
  display: none;
  visibility: hidden;
}
#page-container #outer-column-container #right-column.sidebar {
  display: none;
  visibility: hidden;
}

#masthead,
#dropdown,
#breadcrumbs,
#page-container,
#reviseddate {
  margin: 0 auto;
  min-width: 1024px;
}
#masthead,
#dropdown,
#breadcrumbs,
#page-container {
  text-align: left;
}
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50895

TEXAS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:18-CV-659

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In light of the Supreme Court’s pending review of the case Food 

Marketing Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, No. 18-481, 2019 WL 166877 (U.S. 

Jan. 11, 2019), we VACATE the preliminary injunction issued by the district 

court and REMAND with instructions that the court stay its hand from further 

activity until the Supreme Court’s decision is rendered.1

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 If the court, following the Supreme Court’s decision, reopens this case, it must 

explain why any disclosure ordered by courts in a sister circuit to which, as here, jurisdiction 

first attached, is not “authorized by law” pursuant to the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 11, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50895 Document: 00514830431 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,801
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,577
<INVENTORY>                                      3,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,920
<PP&E>                                          75,747
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,634
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,069
<BONDS>                                         20,823
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           217
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,265
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,932
<SALES>                                         50,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,075
<CGS>                                           37,936
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,655
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   541
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        69
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,190)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,190)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>