alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24758-24759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9999]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7857]


Advisory Committee International Postal and Delivery Services

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice; FACA Committee meeting announcement.

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

SUMMARY: As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 
92-463, the Department of State gives notice of a meeting of the 
Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services. This 
Committee has been formed in fulfillment of the provisions of the 2006 
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 109-435) and in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 15, 2012, 
from 1 to 5 p.m.
    Location: The Elliott School of International Affairs, 7th Floor 
State Room, 1957 E St. NW., Washington, DC 20052.
    Public input: Any member of the public interested in providing 
public input to the meeting should contact Ms. Jocelyn Jezierny, whose 
contact information is listed under for further information section of 
this notice. Each individual providing oral input is requested to limit 
his or her comments to five minutes. Requests to be added to the 
speaker list must be received in writing (letter, email or fax) prior 
to the close of business on May 8, 2012; written comments from members 
of the public for distribution at this meeting must reach Ms. Jezierny 
by letter, email or fax by this same date. A member of the public 
requesting reasonable accommodation should make the request to Ms. 
Jezierny by that same date.
    Meeting agenda: The agenda of the meeting will include a review of 
the major proposals and issues to be considered by the September-
October UPU Congress in Doha, Qatar, and other subjects related to 
international postal and delivery services of interest to Advisory 
Committee members and the public.
    For further information, please contact Ms. Jocelyn Jezierny of the 
Office of Global Systems (IO/GS), Bureau of International Organization 
Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at (202) 647-7935 or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dd97b8a7b4b8afb3a4979a9daea9bca9b8f3bab2abf3b0bcb4b1a9b2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="440e213e2d21362a3d0e030437302530216a232b326a29252d28302b">[email protected]</span></a>:


[[Page 24759]]


    Dated: April 18, 2012.
Robert Downes,
Senior Foreign Service Officer, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-9999 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Four Corners Tenant Association et al., Respondents, *315v Richard L. Higgins, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, and London Terrace Associates, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on March 19, 1990, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Edward Lehner, J., without costs. No opinion. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
Plant Variety Protection - 25 Certificates Issued on January 31, 2023

APPLICATION 

NUMBER

VARIETY NAME CROP APPLICANT / OWNER *CERTIFIED

SEED ONLY?

201800176 Agritonic PLANTAIN Grasslands Innovation Ltd. No

202000093 5PFMZ43 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000094 5PFUT36 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000095 5PYQQ43 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000096 5PZAH50 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000097 5PZMA79 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000098 5PZUF97 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000099 5PZUG30 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000100 5PZVS61 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000101 5PUYJ35 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000102 5PVPG40 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000103 5PWFQ23 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000104 5PWGS87 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000105 5PWYY47 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000106 5PYPR71 SOYBEAN Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. No

202000107 5PZWT86 SOYBEAN Agrigenetics, Inc. No

202000108 5PKEM45 SOYBEAN Agrigenetics, Inc. No

202000109 5PLER67 SOYBEAN Agrigenetics, Inc. No

202000110 5PLVG49 SOYBEAN Agrigenetics, Inc. No

202000111 5PLYD55 SOYBEAN Agrigenetics, Inc. No

202000150 ND1907S SOYBEAN NDSU Research Foundation Yes

202000151 Dane SOYBEAN Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation No

202000218 ND Dickey SOYBEAN NDSU Research Foundation Yes

202000445 Ace FIELD BEAN Archer-Daniels-Midland Company No

202100036 SVTM9013 TOMATO Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

* Certified seed - seed which has been determined by an official seed certifying agency to conform to standards of genetic purity and identity as to variety,

which standards have been approved by the Secretary.

USDA, AMS, Science and Technology, Plant Variety Protection Office (202) 260-8983 Page 1 of 1
#### PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON, INC., and Club Bar & Cafe, Appellants, v. Margie Rhodes FISH, Appellee.

No. 3661.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Aug. 4, 1978.

Ronald T. West, Anchorage, for appellants.

William M. Erwin, Anchorage, for appel-lee.

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NO WITZ, CONNOR and BURKE, JJ., and DIMOND, J. Pro Tern.

PER CURIAM.

The superior court ruled that there was substantial evidence to support a finding by the Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Board that Margie Fish had a total loss of earning capacity and was entitled to payment of compensation for permanent total disability. Despite appellants’ argument that the court erred, we find, on a review of the record, which includes detailed and explicit findings of the Board, that the superior court was correct.

In finding that Ms. Fish’s disability was permanent and total, the Board stated:

> We conclude from the medical reports that appellee probably did have a prior tendency to be hypertensive or hysterical or emotional but that these characteristics did not cause her disability from work prior to injury and since injury they have combined with the pain and restrictions caused by the injury to bring about continuing disability.

Appellants argue that the Board was in error in considering Ms. Fish’s emotional condition because under *Brown v. Northwest Airlines,*444 P.2d 529, 533 (Alaska 1968), only a traumatic neurosis could be considered in awarding compensation, and Ms. Fish’s psychological or emotional disorders did not rise to the level of a traumatic neurosis.

This argument has no merit. It is true that *Brown, supra*at 533, held that “disability flowing from traumatic neurosis is com-pensable.” But *Brown*also held that

> . the appellant is entitled to compensation if the work-connected accident or injury “aggravated, accelerated or *681combined with *the disease or infirmity*to produce . . . disability, . . . (emphasis added) *Id.*
>       *1*

Thus, the Board could rely on evidence of Ms. Fish’s psychological or emotional disorders or infirmities to find that, when combined with other factors such as her work-connected back injury, she was permanently and totally disabled.

The decision of the superior court, affirming the decision of the Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Board, is affirmed.

. *See also, Thornton v. Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Board,*411 P.2d 209, 211 (Alaska 1966).
<PAGE>


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the use in the Statement of Additional Information
constituting part of this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (the "Registration
Statement") of (1) our report dated February 6, 2002 relating to the financial
statements of Separate Account Nos. 195, 197 and 198 of The Equitable Life
Assurance Society of the United States for the year ended December 31, 2001; (2)
our reports dated February 6, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial
statements of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States for the
year ended December 31, 2001; and (3) our reports relating to the financial
statements of the following funds established under the Declaration of Trust of
the State Street Bank and Trust Company Investment Funds for Tax Exempt
Retirement Plans: Lifecycle Fund Group Trust - Conservative (report dated March
1, 2002), Lifecycle Group Trust - Moderate (report dated March 1, 2002), S&P 500
Flagship Fund and S&P 500 Flagship Non-Lending Fund (Combined Financial
Statements) (report dated February 1, 2002), Russell 2000 Index Securities
Lending Fund and Russell 2000 Index Fund (Combined Financial Statements) (report
dated February 8, 2002), Daily EAFE Securities Lending Fund (report dated March
22, 2002), Daily MSCI Europe Index Securities Lending Fund and Daily MSCI Europe
Index Fund (Combined Financial Statements) (report dated February 22, 2002),
Daily MSCI Japan Index Securities Lending Fund and Daily MSCI Japan Index Fund
(Combined Financial Statements) (report dated February 22, 2002), Daily MSCI
Pacific Basin ex-Japan Index Securities Lending Fund and Daily MSCI Pacific
Basin ex-Japan Index Fund (Combined Financial Statements) (report dated February
22, 2002), Government Corporate Bond Fund (report dated March 1, 2002), and
Short Term Investment Fund (report dated January 25, 2002) for the years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2000. We also consent to the use in the Prospectus
Supplement constituting part of this Registration Statement of our report dated
February 6, 2002 relating to the financial statements of Separate Account No. 4
of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. We also consent to
the references to us under the headings "Condensed Financial Information" and
"About Our Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement.


/s/ PriceWaterhouseCoopers
PricewaterhouseCoopers
New York, New York
April 17, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1259 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1259

  To authorize private parties to compel the Securities and Exchange 
  Commission to seek sanctions by filing civil actions, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2019

Mr. Davidson of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Hill of Arkansas, Mr. Banks, Mr. 
    Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, Mr. Norman, Mr. LaMalfa, and Mr. Posey) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize private parties to compel the Securities and Exchange 
  Commission to seek sanctions by filing civil actions, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Due Process Restoration Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. PRIVATE PARTIES AUTHORIZED TO COMPEL THE SECURITIES AND 
              EXCHANGE COMMISSION TO SEEK SANCTIONS BY FILING CIVIL 
              ACTIONS.

    Title I of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et 
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 41. PRIVATE PARTIES AUTHORIZED TO COMPEL THE COMMISSION TO SEEK 
              SANCTIONS BY FILING CIVIL ACTIONS.

    ``(a) Termination of Administrative Proceeding.--In the case of any 
person who is a party to a proceeding brought by the Commission under a 
securities law, to which section 554 of title 5, United States Code, 
applies, and against whom an order imposing a cease and desist order 
and a penalty may be issued at the conclusion of the proceeding, that 
person may, not later than 20 days after receiving notice of such 
proceeding, and at that person's discretion, require the Commission to 
terminate the proceeding.
    ``(b) Civil Action Authorized.--If a person requires the Commission 
to terminate a proceeding pursuant to subsection (a), the Commission 
may bring a civil action against that person for the same remedy that 
might be imposed.
    ``(c) Venue.--An action brought by the Commission under subsection 
(b) may be brought only in accordance with the requirements relating to 
venue under section 1391 of title 28, United States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 33-39113, 33-54357, 333-42842, and 333-123512) of Briggs and Stratton Corporation of ourreport****dated August 31, 2006 relating to thefinancial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthis Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopersLLPMilwaukee, WisconsinAugust 31, 2006

 

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIE J. CAUSEY, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, Trustee for Lehman

Brothers-Structured Asset Investment

Loan Trust Sail 2006-BNC3,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-56021

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-03460-JHN-CW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 7, 2011

Pasadena, California

Before: B. FLETCHER, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Willie J. Causey, Jr. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment

for defendant U.S. Bank National Association on his Truth in Lending Act claim to

rescind his mortgage refinancing loan with the defendant. Reviewing de novo, we

FILED

DEC 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
- 2 -

reverse and remand. See Blue Lake Rancheria v. United States, 653 F.3d 1112,

1115 (9th Cir. 2011).

It is undisputed that the plaintiff effectively invoked his absolute right to

rescind the transaction within three business days of the loan closing. It is also

undisputed that the lender ignored the plaintiff’s rescission notice and proceeded to

fund the loan. The district court erred in ruling that the plaintiff was required to

tender the borrowed funds to the defendant before the defendant was obligated to

release its lien. In an uncontested rescission as here, the default sequence under the

Act requires the creditor to release its lien before the consumer must tender. See

15 U.S.C. § 1635(b); 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(d)(2)–(3).

Although the district court is authorized to modify the default sequence, that

authority ends once rescission is accomplished. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b); 12 C.F.R.

§ 226.23(d)(4). In a case where the creditor disputes the consumer’s asserted

ground for rescission, rescission is not accomplished until a court determines that

the consumer had the right to rescind. See Yamamoto v. Bank of N.Y., 329 F.3d

1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 2003). But in a case where the creditor acquiesces in the

consumer’s notice of rescission or fails to respond within the 20-day response

period, rescission is accomplished automatically. See id.
- 3 -

Here, the undisputed facts show that the plaintiff timely mailed his

rescission notice, and the defendant failed to dispute it within 20 days — thus

accomplishing rescission automatically and triggering the default sequence under

the regulations.

On remand, the district court should order that the defendant release its lien

on the plaintiff’s home and determine the amount that the plaintiff must then tender

to the defendant. Also, the plaintiff may present evidence to support his assertion

that he attempted to tender in 2006 but the defendant did not timely take

possession of the tender he offered.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      586,139
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,547
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         203,018
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        38,428
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  72,760
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 902,892
<COMMON>                                        51,418
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       43,233
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            189,517
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 284,168
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           26,454
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           210,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              31,200
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  74,020
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     14,399
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   950
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 261,701
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  902,892
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      592,719
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            24,093
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     513,982
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     538,075
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         54,644
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,979
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  56,623
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        16,849
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,774
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,862
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   37,912
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        27,252
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       16,775
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          64,928
<EPS-BASIC>                                      73.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    73.73


</TABLE>
ELECTRONIC RECORD [hl^lS

COA# 07-13-00149-CR OFFENSE: 22.021

Ernest Glenn Benton v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Collingsworth

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 100th District Court

DATE:12/09/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 2878

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Ernest Glenn Benton v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

APPElLAMT^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

CCA#:

V&I-/5

DATE: _

JUDGE:

ozltf/*

tmC/,

'ic/r

'AAjs&si—

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
**Exhibit
      No. 23(c)**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
      333-126967 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 6, 2006, relating to the
      financial statements and financial statement schedule of Florida Power
      Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) (which report on the
      financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
      explanatory paragraph concerning the adoption of new accounting principles
      in
      2005 and 2003) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10−K of PEF for the year
      ended December 31, 2005.








/s/
      Deloitte & Touche LLP








Raleigh,
      North Carolina


March
      6,
      2006
OMB No. 0581-0178

(Exp. 3/31/2024) Destroy previous editions.

TO: PRUNE MARKETING COMMITTEE 

SUBJECT: RELEASE OF GROWER PRODUCTION INFORMATION 

Approval is hereby granted to the Prune Marketing Committee (Committee) to release California prune 

production information for any grower tonnage delivered to us. This approval is contingent upon the 

grower submitting a written request to the Committee authorizing the release of production information to 

the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation under the Risk Management Agency, the Farm Service Agency 

or other agencies of the U.S. Government. This authorization is granted to the Committee until canceled 

in writing. 

Signed: _______________________________________________________________________________

Handler Name: _________________________________________________________________________

Date: _________________________________________________________________________________
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant To
                  Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

I, Paul A. Ormond, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Manor
Care, Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

         (1) The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
             ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
             Commission on the date hereof (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 result of operations
             of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

/s/ Paul A. Ormond

Paul A. Ormond
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
November 11, 2002

                                       28
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

FREDERICK JOHN DAVIS

PETITION OF: ROBERT ALLEN 

SAURMAN

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 22 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2018, in consideration of the Motion to Withdraw 

and the Motion to Deny Attorney Withdrawal, this matter is REMANDED to the Court of 

Common Pleas of Monroe County for that court to determine whether counsel should be 

granted leave to withdraw. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 120(B) (providing that an attorney may not 

unilaterally withdraw his or her appearance in a criminal matter; rather, a court must 

determine whether leave to withdraw is warranted). 

If the attorney is permitted to withdraw, the court is DIRECTED to determine 

whether Frederick Davis is to be appointed new counsel or is to proceed pro se. The 

Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County is DIRECTED to enter its order regarding this 

remand within 45 days and to promptly notify this Court of its determination.