alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 353-354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-256]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-99-206]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Passaic River, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the 
NJTRO Newark-Harrison (Morristown Line) Bridge, mile 5.8, across the 
Passaic River between Newark and Harrison, New Jersey. This deviation 
from the regulations allows the bridge owner to keep the bridge in the 
closed position from 2 a.m. on January 7, 2000, to 2 a.m. on January 9, 
2000. This action is necessary to facilitate mechanical repairs at the 
bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective January 7, 2000, through January 9, 
2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Yee, Project Officer, First Coast 
Guard District, at (212) 668-7165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NJTRO Newark-Harrison (Morristown Line) 
Bridge, mile 5.8, across the Passaic River between Newark and Harrison, 
New Jersey, has a vertical clearance of 15 feet at mean high water, and 
20 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The bridge owner, New 
Jersey Transit, requested a temporary deviation from the operating 
regulations to facilitate mechanical repairs at the bridge. The 
existing operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117. 739(g) require the 
bridge to open on signal, if at least a one-hour advance notice is 
given to the drawtender at the Upper Hack Bridge. An additional half-
hour delay in opening is permitted if the drawtender is not at the 
Upper Hack Bridge and at the Lower Hack Bridge. From 7:15 a.m. to 9 
a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6:50 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
federal holidays, the draw need not open for vessel traffic.
    This deviation to the operating regulations allows the owner of the 
NJTRO Newark-Harrison (Morristown Line) Bridge to keep the bridge in 
the closed position from 2 a.m. on January 7, 2000, through 2 a.m. on 
January 9, 2000. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an 
opening may do so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed 
with all due

[[Page 354]]

speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as 
possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized 
under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 17, 1999.
R.M. Larrabee,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 00-256 Filed 1-3-00; 1:12 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jason McGlory, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Workers' Compensation Appeal :

Board (A.W. Golden, Inc. Chevy/ :

Cadillac and AmeriHealth Casualty :

Insurance Company), :

Respondents : No. 2018 C.D. 2013

O R D E R

NOW, August 20, 2014, having considered petitioner’s application for 

reargument, and respondents’ answer in opposition thereto, the application is 

denied.

 BY THE COURT:

 

 DAN PELLEGRINI,

 President Judge
|                                                                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                                                       
|View History:                                                                                                              
|                                                                                                                           
|California State Offshore Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                           
|California State Offshore Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
1A rule of appellate procedure will hereafter be referred to as “Rule ____.”

NO. 07-03-0442-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 5, 2004

______________________________

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT

V.

ARTHUR HILL, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 128TH DISTRICT COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY;

NO. A010136-C; HONORABLE PAT CLARK, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 17, 2003, appellant, Zurich American Insurance Company, filed a

Motion to Dismiss Appeal pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)1 based on an agreement

resolving the underlying dispute. The motion includes a certificate of service that counsel
2

for appellee was served a copy of the motion by first class mail on December 3, 2003. No

response to the motion has been received. 

Accordingly, without passing on the merits of the case, appellant’s Motion to

Dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Rule 42.1(a). 

All costs are assessed to appellant. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s

request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Phil Johnson

Chief Justice
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on High Energy Laser Weapon Systems Applications will meet in closed session on October 19-20, 2000, at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Task Force will review on-going or proposed programs in high energy laser (HEL) applications; examine recent supporting technology advancements and their applications with respect to supporting military HEL weapon system developments; develop potential military and strategic HEL system applications and identify processes required to implement these potentials; determine what needs to be done to “weaponize” these systems; and assess HEL operational concepts, impacts and limitations, considering legal, treaty and policy issues concerning HEL employment.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public. Law. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly these meetings will be closed to the public.

Dated: October 2, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-25573  Filed 10-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
##### 



Exhibit 10.9




---



##### 



Very truly yours,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Agent and as LenderBy
    
    /s/ C. Christopher SmithC. Christopher SmithIts Senior Vice President LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONBy
    
    /s/ J. Eric BergrenJ. Eric BergrenIts First Vice President  ENESCO GROUP, INC.By:
    /s/ Cynthia Passmore-McLaughlinName:
    Cynthia Passmore-McLaughlinTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer By:
    /s/ Charles E. SandersName:
    Charles E. SandersTitle:
    Treasurer N.C. CAMERON & SONS LIMITEDBy:
    /s/ Charles E. SandersName:
    Charles E. SandersTitle:
    Treasurer ENESCO INTERNATIONAL LTD.By:
    /s/ Charles E. SandersName:
    Charles E. SandersTitle:
    Treasurer




---



##### 



ENESCO INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LIMITEDBy:
    /s/ Charles E. SandersName:
    Charles E. SandersTitle:
    Director GREGG MANUFACTURING, INC.By:
    /s/ Charles E. SandersName:
    Charles E. SandersTitle:
    Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer ENESCO HOLDINGS LIMITEDBy:
    /s/ Charles E. SandersName:
    Charles E. SandersTitle:
    Director ENESCO LIMITEDBy:
    /s/ Charles E. SandersName:
    Charles E. SandersTitle:
    Director BILSTON & BATTERSEA ENAMELS PLCBy:
    /s/ Lawrence JenningsName:
    Lawrence JenningsTitle:
    Director
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-21-00069-CV

IN RE LANDSTAR RANGER, INC., Appellant

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O R D E R

On August 4, 2021, Landstar Ranger, Inc. (Relator), filed a motion for emergency relief

pending a decision by this Court on its petition for a writ of mandamus. The motion for 

emergency relief asks this Court to stay the trial court’s July 22, 2021, discovery order requiring

it to present certain witnesses for oral and videotaped deposition this week and next week. 

After reviewing Relator’s motion for emergency relief, this Court is of the opinion that 

the temporary relief requested should be granted and that the depositions scheduled for August 5, 

6, 9, 11, and 13 should be stayed pending the ruling of this Court on Relator’s mandamus 

petition.

Therefore, the depositions of (1) Cody Wyrick, noticed for August 5, (2) Bill Ater,

noticed for August 6, (3) Shannon Burgess, noticed for August 9, (4) Lance Phy, noticed for 

August 11, and (5) Hans Hitzeman, noticed for August 13, are hereby stayed pending the ruling 

of this Court on the petition for a writ of mandamus.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: August 4, 2021
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5447 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. MEEHAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Zinc 

dimethyldithiocarbamate. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ZINC DIMETHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.13.97 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate) is amended by striking the 

7 date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2015’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5447 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

United States of America

vs.

Ernesto Mendoza-Tovar

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 1:20-CR-91-RP

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The District Court referred this case to the United States Magistrate 

Judge for the taking of the defendant’s felony guilty plea and for his allocution pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

On March 18, 2020, the defendant and counsel appeared before the Magistrate Judge. The 

undersigned addressed the defendant personally in open court, informed him of the admonishments 

under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and determined that he understood 

those admonishments. The defendant pled guilty to one count of Illegal Re-entry into the United 

States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

The Magistrate Judge finds the following:

1. The defendant, with the advice of his attorney, consented to enter this guilty plea before 

the Magistrate Judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the District Judge;

2. The defendant fully understands the nature of the charge against him and possible 

penalties;

3. The defendant understands his constitutional and statutory rights, understands that his

constitutional and statutory rights can be waived, and understands the meaning and

effect of the waiver of his constitutional and statutory rights;
4. The defendant’s plea was made freely and voluntarily;

5. The defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; and

6. There is a factual basis for this plea. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court accept the defendant’s guilty 

plea and, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, enter a Final Judgment of guilt 

against him.

WARNING

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections 

must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained within this Report within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo 

review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and, except on grounds 

of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted by the District Court to which no objections were filed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472-74 (1985); Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on March 18, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 22, 2020

s0519 

# Order

Clerk May 22, 2020

161306

- 7 & (152)(153)(154)(155)(15 6)

GREAT LAKES CAPITAL FUND FOR

HOUSING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP XII,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161306

- 7

COA: 349763; 349931

Saginaw CC: 18

- 035570

- CB

ERWIN COMPANIES, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

STACY ERWIN OAKES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED, in

part, to the extent that they seek expedited review of the application and the other

motions. The request for a stay of proceedings is DENIED. The application for leave to

app eal the May 5, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED,

because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this

Court. The motions for miscellaneous relief are DENIED.
EXHIBIT 1

1:20-cv-474

Case 1:20-cv-00474-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MCALLEN DIVISION

COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Colony,

v.

D.L. PHILLIPS CONSTRUCTION, 

INC. d/b/a JA-MAR ROOFING and 

PARK PLACE VENTURES, LLC

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 7:18-CV-00158

CONFIDENTIAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Confidential Release and Settlement Agreement is entered into by and between 

Colony Insurance Company (“Colony”); D. L. Phillips Construction d/b/a Ja-Mar Roofing

(“D.L. Phillips”); First Mercury Insurance Company (“First Mercury”); and Commerce & 

Industry Insurance Company (“C&I”). Collectively, Colony, D.L. Phillips, First Mercury, and 

C&I are referred to herein as “Parties.” 

WITNESSETH:

Case 1:20-cv-00474-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 10
2

Case 1:20-cv-00474-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 3 of 10
3

Case 1:20-cv-00474-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 4 of 10
4

Case 1:20-cv-00474-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 5 of 10
5

 

Case 1:20-cv-00474-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 6 of 10
6

Case 1:20-cv-00474-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 7 of 10
7

 

Case 1:20-cv-00474-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 8 of 10
8

Case 1:20-cv-00474-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 9 of 10
STATE OF ---- § 

§ 

COUNTY OF ____ § 

-····· ·- ··--··-· .... _________ J 

Fi~~A~ 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

BEFORE ME, personally came ____________ , to me known, who, by 

me duly sworn, did depose and say that s/he executed the foregoing Agreement, and that s/he 

signed her/his name to the Agreement. 

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO before me this day of 

2019. ----- - -----

Notary Public in and for the State of ___ _ 

11 

Case 1:20-cv-00474-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 10 of 10
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6025

WHEELER WILLIAMS, a/k/a Wheeler Robinson,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM JEDNORSKI, Warden; OFFICER HARRIS;

OFFICER ARMSTRONG; OFFICER WILLIAMS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-

383-AMD)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Wheeler Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Richard Bruce Rosenblatt, Assistant Attorney

General, Stuart Milton Nathan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b).

2 See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10

F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Wheeler Robinson, appeals from the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion, and find no reversible error. Robinson claims that the

Defendants conspired to intimidate him and failed to protect him

from an assault by an unknown masked man. On these claims, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Jednorski,

No. CA-95-383-AMD (D. Md. Dec. 18, 1995). Additionally, Robinson

claims he was unconstitutionally exposed to asbestos and overcrowded prison conditions.

These claims were dismissed without prejudice to his right to

refile the claims in a separate action because of his failure to

assert these claims in his original complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders.1 Because Robinson may be able to amend these

claims, the dismissal Robinson seeks to appeal is not an appealable

final order.2 We dismiss the appeal as to these claims.

Additionally, we deny Robinson's motion to appoint counsel. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART