alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J. L.,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES NILON, Lower Court Child 

Dependency, Judge JAMES 

COLAW, Lower Court Child 

Dependency Judge,

Respondents.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1194

Opinion filed April 14, 2015. 

Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

J. L., pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
----

----

| (1)   | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                          |   |                                                           |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:      November 17, 2008 | By:    | /s/      John Horton                                           |
|                          |   | Chief      Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer) |

----
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Report of Left Behind Games Inc. a Washington corporation
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) I, Thomas H. Axelson,
      Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) hereby certify, pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that,
      to my knowledge:





|a. | 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
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|b. | The
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







/s/
      Thomas H. Axelson


Thomas
      H.
      Axelson, Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)





Dated
      June 27, 2006
Coronavirus Response Grants – General Session

Friday, March 19, 12 p.m. – 6 p.m. ET

Agenda

All times are approximate. 

11:15 a.m. Host opens event

12:00 p.m. Event starts

Welcome Remarks 

12:10 p.m. Brief event overview by Moderator

Introduction of first speaker

Speakers (3 min each)

1:30 p.m. Break (5 min)

1:35 p.m. Call to order – Introduction of next speaker

Speakers (3 min each)

3:05 p.m. Break (5 min)

3:10 p.m. Call to order – Introduction of next speaker

4:40 p.m. Break (5 min)

4:45 p.m. Call to order – Introduction of next speaker

Speakers (3 min each)

6:00 p.m. Event concludes
# FY17 Vendor Table
**Exhibit 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-91367 and 333-66622) pertaining to employee benefit plans, of BNSHolding, Inc. of our report dated February 18, 2005 except as to Note 16, as to which the date is March 14, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of BNS Holding, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ ERNST& YOUNG LLP 

 

Providence, Rhode Island 

March 14, 2005
TDCJ Offender Details $D,^^pagelof:

w\TEximoiPARTMEurorgr|mjnail;Jusflii TDCJ Home B3K New Offender Search

Offender Information Details

Return to Search list

SID Number:

TDCJ Number:

Name:

Race:

Gender:

DOB:

Maximum Sentence Date:

Current Facility:

Projected Release Date:

Parole Eligibility Date:

Offender Visitation Eligible:

50077745

01851178

WILSON,LILNIFTY GENERAL

B

M

1977-09-23

2016-09-28

BYRD

2016-09-28

.2013-03-17

NO

The offender is temporarily ineligible for visitation. Please call the offender's unitfor any

additional information.

The visitation information is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day

on visitation days.

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE:

Scheduled Release Date:

Scheduled Release Type:

Scheduled Release Location:

Parole Review Information

Offender is not scheduled for release at this time.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Offense History:

Offense Date Offense Sentence Date County Case No. Sentence (YY-MM-DD)

2012-06-04 RETALIATION 2013-03-28 BEXAR 2012CR8462 4-00-00

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=50077745 4/7/2015
#### In the Matter of Joan Scimeca, Respondent, v Michael V. Scimeca, Appellant.

—Mikoll, J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Family Court of Putnam County (Sweeney Jr., J.), entered January 11, 1990, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, to direct respondent to contribute toward the college tuition of the parties’ daughter.

Petitioner filed a petition in Family Court seeking enforcement of a judgment of divorce providing, *inter alia,*that each party would contribute to the expenses for their daughter’s college tuition. Petitioner alleged that respondent failed to pay his share of the college tuition costs of their daughter. After an initial appearance before a Hearing Examiner, both parties exchanged financial disclosure affidavits and copies of paycheck stubs. Respondent’s statement was unsworn. Respondent entered a general denial and claimed financial inability to contribute toward college expenses and that, in violation of the divorce decree, he had no input regarding a choice of *831college as required by the decree. The matter was adjourned to October 12, 1989 for a hearing at which time respondent failed to appear. An inquest was held and testimony taken from petitioner. The Hearing Examiner found that respondent made two thirds of the combined parental income. He was ordered to pay $7,314 of his daughter’s tuition. Thereafter, respondent filed objections to the Hearing Examiner’s decision. Family Court, however, upheld the decision and also rejected respondent’s attempt to open his default. This appeal ensued.

Respondent contends that he is entitled to a vacatur of the default judgment in that his counsel was led to believe that the matter would be adjourned and, therefore, their failure to appear was excusable. We disagree. In order to prevail, respondent was required to show that his default was excusable, that there was merit to his defense, an absence of willfulness and that no real prejudice resulted to the other party *(see, Passalacqua v Banat,*103 AD2d 769). Respondent’s affidavit of merit is inadequate in that his allegations of inability to pay college expenses are conclusory and thus insufficient *(see, Loeb v Tanenbaum,*124 AD2d 941). Also, respondent has failed to make out excusable grounds for his failure to appear at the hearing.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 43182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), announcement is made of a Health Care 
Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting.
    A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to 
health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on 
an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ 
support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-
scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of 
time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review 
meetings which require their type of expertise.
    Substantial segments of the upcoming SEP meeting listed below will 
be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the AHRQ Grants for Health Services 
Research Dissertation Program (R36) applications are to be reviewed and 
discussed at this meeting. These discussions are likely to reveal 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications. This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure 
under the above-cited statutes.
    SEP Meeting on: AHRQ Grants for Health Services Research 
Dissertation Program (R36) applications.
    Dates: August 12, 2010 (Open on August 12 from 10 a.m. to 10:15 
a.m. and closed for the remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, John Eisenberg 
Bldg, 540 Gaither Road, Conference Room TBD, Rockville, MD 20850.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the nonconfidential portions of this meeting 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, Telephone 
(301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities 
dictate.

    Dated: July 13, 2010.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-17798 Filed 7-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANTHONY MICHAEL GONZALES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50283

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03108-H-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015 **

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Anthony Michael Gonzales appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for receipt of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

FILED

APR 10 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Gonzales asserts that the district court’s sentence of 120 months is

substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating circumstances, including his

youth and lack of criminal history. To determine whether a sentence is

substantively unreasonable, we consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the

totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

We review for abuse of discretion and “will provide relief only in rare cases.”

United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

Though the Guidelines sentence is harsh, this is not the rare case where relief

is appropriate. The district court granted a five-level downward departure based on

the mitigating factors argued by Gonzales. The 120-month sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the

totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50283
Great Lakes Milk Marketing Agency 

40 West 4th Street, Minister, Ohio 45865

Ms. Dana Coale, April 21, 2020

Deputy Administrator

USDA 

Dear Ms. Coale, 

RE: Freeze the Class I Price Mover in All Federal Milk Orders 

In the wake of the unprecedented decrease in dairy commodity prices due to the COVID 19 crisis

we, the members of the Great Lakes Milk Marketing Agency, hereby request that the USDA set a 

minimum Class I Price Mover for all Federal Milk Orders at $15.00 per CWT in an effort to 

help maintain milk prices to save our dairy farmers. We ask that the USDA make this change 

expeditiously and consider these needed changes as an emergency provision needed to maintain 

orderly marketing and to help assure an adequate supply of milk remains available. 

The Class I Price Mover and is based on a combination of Class III and Class IV prices, plus $.74 . 

The Class III and Class IV prices are calculated by using the surveyed commodity prices for 

butter, cheese, skim milk powder, and whey. When this system was established, nobody thought 

we would ever be in a situation where all commodity prices would collapsed at the same time to 

the levels we are seeing today. Due to this unprecedented collapse of the commodity prices, we 

believe the Market Administrators have to set a minimum level for the Class I Price Mover. 

We feel the Federal Order system has some “emergency action” leeway that would allow for 

Market Administrators to take dramatic actions to assure the objectives of the Federal Order 

System are met The COVID 19 crisis certainly constitutes an “emergency” causing us to consider 

the actions proposed above.

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Richard L. Bylsma

On Behalf of all GLSMMA agency members: Dairy Farmers of America, Foremost Farms, Prairie 

Farms, Michigan Milk Producers, Select Producers and NFO.
# HRWGLB_UNS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marsha Cohen, Also Known as Marsha Schiffmiller, Appellant.

—Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered on May 2, 1990, withdrawn, and the stay heretofore granted is vacated. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T WAL T E R DE J E S US MONT E R R OS AC R U Z , a. k. a. W al t erD e J es us M on t errosa , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73071 A ge nc yN o. A 037- 222- 334 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W al t erD e J es us M on t errosa -C ruz, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f E l S al vado r, p e titio n s f

o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ o r d e rs u m m ar ily a f f i rm i ng hi s appe a l f

r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s r e m ova l or de r . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e gr antthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w a nd r e m and. 

# FI LED SEP 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73071 2 T he agency deni ed M on t errosa -C ruz’ s r equestfor r el i ef un der f orm er s e c tio n 2 1 2 ( c ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( c ) ( r e p e a le d1 9 9 6 ) , f o rf a ilu r e to s ub m it h is f in g e rp r in ts b yth e d e a d lin e im p o s e db yth e I J . See 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 47( c ) . T he a ge nc y , how e ve r , di d notha ve the be ne f i tof ouri nt e rve ni ng de c i s i on i n C uiv. Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 1289 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , w hi c h he l d tha tr e f us i ng t o c ont i nue pr oc e e di ngs f

orf i nge rpr i ntpr oc e s s i ng m aybe a n abus e of di s c r e t i on. W e r e m a nd f orthe a ge nc yt o r e c ons i de ri t s de ni a l of M ont e rr os a - C ruz ’ s appl i c a t i on i n l i ghtof C ui . See 538 F . 3d a t 1 2 9 2 - 9 5 ; se e al so Karap et

yan v. Mukasey , 543 F . 3d 1118, 11 29 -32 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries
of the registrant are as follows:

|                                           |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|OfficeMax Contract, Inc.                   |  | Delaware                                                    
|Picabo Holdings, Inc.                      |  | Delaware                                                    
|OfficeMax Nevada Company                   |  | Nevada                                                      
|Loving Creek Funding Corporation           |  | Delaware                                                    
|Grand & Toy Limited                        |  | Ontario, Canada                                             
|OfficeMax Southern Company                 |  | Louisiana                                                   
|Boise Cascade Office Products (NZ) Limited |  | New Zealand                                                 
|OfficeMax, Inc.                            |  | Ohio                                                        
|OMX Timber Finance Holdings I, LLC         |  | Delaware                                                    
|OMX Timber Finance Holdings II, LLC        |  | Delaware                                                    
|Clearfield Insurance Limited               |  | Bermuda                                                     
|OfficeMax de Mexico                        |  | Mexico                                                      

|Note: |  | The names of various consolidated wholly owned subsidiaries have been omitted. None of the omitted subsidiaries, considered either alone or together with the other omitted subsidiaries, constitutes a significant subsidiary.
|----- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 91 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 91

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
               protecting the right of citizens to vote.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2020

Mr. Cooper submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
               protecting the right of citizens to vote.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Sec. 1. The right of a citizen of the United States, who is 18 
years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the 
United States or by any State, unless, at the time of an election, such 
citizen is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a felony in a 
correctional facility.
    ``Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by 
appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2010-1052 

 SE-KURE CONTROLS, INC., 

Plaintiff/Cross Claim DefendantAppellant, 

v. 

DIAM USA, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

POP DISPLAYS USA, LLC (successor in interest to Diam USA, Inc.), 

Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

POP DISPLAYS, LLC, POP DISPLAYS, INC., and 

DIAM INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

 Defendants, 

v. 

TELEFONIX, INC., 

Cross Claim Plaintiff/Third Party 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Richard D. Harris, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for 

plaintiff/cross claim defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Herbert H. Finn, 

Kevin J. O’Shea, and Cameron M. Nelson. 

Lee F. Grossman, Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for all 

appellees. With him on the brief was Mark M. Grossman, Grossman Law Offices, of 

Arlington, Illinois. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

Judge Ronald A. Guzman 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2010-1052 

SE-KURE CONTROLS, INC., 

Plaintiff/Cross Claim DefendantAppellant, 

v. 

DIAM USA, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

POP DISPLAYS USA, LLC (successor in interest to Diam USA, Inc.), 

Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

POP DISPLAYS, LLC, POP DISPLAYS, INC., and 

DIAM INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Defendants, 

v. 

TELEFONIX, INC., 

Cross Claim Plaintiff/Third Party 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois 

In CASE NO(S). 06-CV-4857. 
This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (RADER, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED May 5, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly_________________________ 

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk