alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 

ON ADMINISTRATIVE OR CIVIL JUDICIAL SEIZURES 

This form is to be used to request payment of interest on refunded seized currency as required by the 

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). Please email this form, with backup documentation, 

to the Internal Revenue Service Headquarters' mailbox: HQ-W&F@ci.irs.gov 

Seizure #: 

Seizure Date: 

Date Notice Sent: 

Cash Receipt Number : 

-

Deposit Date: 

Seizure Amount: 

Refund Amount: 

Payment date of Refund:

 Special Instructions: 

Amount of Interest: (to be determined by EOAF) 

Pay To: 

Address: 

TIN/SS#: 

Headquarters Representative: 

Name

Signature & Date 

: Port: 

Phone: 

Title: 

: Fax: 

SEIZURE#: 

FUND: COST CENTER: 98999000 

FUNDS CENTER: RM500 MATERIAL GROUP: 4312 

FUNCTIONAL AREA: MA1199999988 AMOUNT: 

ORDER: ZFX5

EOAF: Obligator - Signature/Date EOAF: Certifier - Signature/Date 

Accomplished by NFC: 

Form #7a 

NFC Signature and Date 

Revised: March 2021
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 174 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 174

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

           Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.



                                     


103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 174

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
           Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (b) of section 
3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the 
dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu 
thereof $4,731,900,000,000.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 31, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KEVIN KTARI WEST, #21023617 

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Case 3:22-CV-952-B-BK

 §

TRACY HOLMES, §

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in

this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

SO ORDERED this 9 day of August, 2022. th

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00952-B-BK Document 11 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 30
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**PC MALL,INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**(ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PC Mall, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Frank F. Khulusi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as ofthe date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not bedeemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

May 8, 2009

 

 
| /s/ Frank F. Khulusi    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Frank F. Khulusi        |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
# IMMC.EESC-2021-02657-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2021-02657-00-00-AC-TRA-EN.docx

| OPINION |
| --- |
| European Economic and Social Committee |
| Certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM Agreement area (Category C) |
| _____________ |
| Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area (recast)

  [COM(2021) 434 final – 2021/0248 (COD)] |
| |
| NAT/829 |
| |
| |

OPINION

European Economic and Social Committee

Certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM Agreement area (Category C)

_____________

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area (recast)

  [COM(2021) 434 final – 2021/0248 (COD)]

NAT/829

EN

Referral

| Referral | European Parliament, 13/09/2021


  Council, 03/09/2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 43(2) and article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted at plenary | 22/09/2021 |
| Plenary session No | 563 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 235/1/2 |

Referral

European Parliament, 13/09/2021

European Parliament, 13/09/2021

Council, 03/09/2021

Council, 03/09/2021

Legal basis

Legal basis

Articles 43(2) and article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Articles 43(2) and article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted at plenary

Adopted at plenary

22/09/2021

22/09/2021

Plenary session No

Plenary session No

563

563

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

235/1/2

235/1/2

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 563rd plenary session of 22 and 23 September 2021 (meeting of 22 September), by 235 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 563rd plenary session of 22 and 23 September 2021 (meeting of 22 September), by 235 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 22 September 2021

Brussels, 22 September 2021

Christa Schweng

Christa Schweng

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

_____________

_____________
#### Charles La Plant, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Charles D. La Plant, Plaintiff, *v.*Hyman Atias, Defendant.

County Court, Monroe County,

March 3, 1958.

*Robert T. Skipworth*for defendant.

*William L. Clay*for plaintiff.

George D. Ogden, J.

Upon the complaint and notice of motion, with accompanying affidavit, it appears that the infant plaintiff herein was approximately 7 years of age at the time of the accident; his examination before trial is sought. This court has been unable to find any decided cases on the subject, except *Blagburn*v. *Milrita Realty Corp,*(204 Misc. 74). In that case *853the court held that an infant plaintiff 11 years of age (nearly 12), who was sought to be examined before trial, should appear before the court or official referee and be examined, if found qualified to testify.

As to his qualifications to testify, it appears that the infant plaintiff in the above-entitled action was of tender years at the time of the accident, and the court holds, as a matter of discretion, that he is not qualified and his testimony would not be accepted; therefore, his examination before trial is denied. The motion by defendant for such examination of infant plaintiff is, in all respects, denied, with $10 costs.

Submit order.
Exhibit 31.2

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 302**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

I, Terry L. Stevens, certify that: 

 

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: March 12, 2008

 

| /s/ TERRYL.STEVENS                                                                       |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry L. StevensSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |   |

 

| * | Paragraphs 4 and 5, omitted here, are included in Exhibit 31.2 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership on May 15, 2007. |
|---|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Fw: HCFC Allocation Rule Question /Thoughts

Drusilla Hufford 

t

o

:

David Donaldson, Luke Hall-Jordan, Diane 

McConkey 05/26/2011 02:27 PM

FYI - the email I mentioned this morning, to be docketed.

Drusilla

Drusilla Hufford 

U.S. EPA 

Mailing address

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (6205J)

Washington, DC 20460 

Office location and express mail delivery 

1310 L St., NW

Washington, DC 20005

tel: 202-343-9101

cell: 202-253-2243

fax: 202-343-2363

e-mail: hufford.drusilla@epa.gov

http://www.epa.gov/ozone

----- Forwarded by Drusilla Hufford/DC/USEPA/US on 05/26/2011 02:28 PM -----

From: "Lee, Amanda I." <Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov>

To: Drusilla Hufford/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/25/2011 04:17 PM

Subject: FW: HCFC Allocation Rule Question/Thoughts

From: Zumwalt, Bryan (Vitter) [mailto:Bryan_Zumwalt@vitter.senate.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 12:10 PM

To: Lee, Amanda I.

Subject: HCFC Allocation Rule Question/Thoughts

Hello Amanda,

I understand you are handling the Interim Final Rule for the HCFC‐22 Allocation Rule. We are concerned 

that the court decision is forcing EPA to allocate in a way that harms US companies to the benefit of 

foreign companies. These are significant impacts ‐ one of the three US producers tells us that the impact 

to them alone is $70 million dollars in lost sales. It is important that the rule be finalized in a way that 

minimizes this harm. I was curious if we can prevent the total number of consumption allowances from 

being increased? 

Consumption allowances let the companies produce or import for the US market. While that will mean 

shifting allowances from the US companies to the foreign companies, adding consumption allowances 

would disrupt the market transition in the run up to the next phase ‐own step in 2015. It would also 

mean more ozone depleting chemicals in the atmosphere and slow market adoption of new generation 
refrigerants. On the other hand, the domestic producers production allowances should NOT be reduced

. Production allowances allow US producers to make HCFCs for export. Reducing production allowances 

would simply serve to reduce the ability of the US companies to make product to serve their existing 

export markets in developing countries, giving further advantage to the foreign producers and shifting 

production to China. 

It is important that this rule minimize harm to the US companies, and that EPA go through a full 

rulemaking to try to fix these problems in a timely manner. I am not sure if our thoughts on this are 

helpful in any way, but I appreciate your attention to our concerns.

Thank you,

Bryan

Bryan Zumwalt

Counsel

U.S. Senator David Vitter

 (202) 224-4623

 (202) 228-5061

 www.vitter.senate.gov

To receive regular e-updates from Senator Vitter, please click here .
Case 4:22-cr-00174-Y Document 47 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 92
Case 4:22-cr-00174-Y Document 47 Filed 07/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 93
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 the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision

          - [AC-3: OTS Nos. 02461 and H-3365]

Notice is hereby given that on November 3, 2000, the Managing Director, Office of Supervision, Office of Thrift Supervision, or his designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of FloridaFirst Bank, Lakeland, Florida, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection at the Dissemination Branch, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20552, and the Southeast Regional Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1475 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30309.

Dated: November 7, 2000.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Nadine Y. Washington,

Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28980  Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3626

___________

Kirk Knight; Heather Knight, as *

Parents and Legal Guardians of *

their minor child J.N.K., *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Washington School District, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 15, 2011

Filed: April 27, 2011

___________

Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kirk and Heather Knight appeal from the district court’s1

 dismissal of their

action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in which they

sought review of an administrative hearing officer’s pre-hearing determination that

their due process complaint notice was insufficient. Upon de novo review, see

Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2008), we conclude that the district
-2-

court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(c)

(governing procedure for hearing officer’s pre-hearing determination of sufficiency

of due process complaint notice), (f) (governing impartial due process hearings),

(i)(2)(A) (“any party aggrieved by the findings and decisions made under subsection

(f) or (k) . . . and . . . findings and decision made under this subsection” shall have

right to bring civil action in federal district court); S. Rep. 108-185 (2003) (“[t]here

should be no hearing or appeal in regard to the hearing officer’s determination” of

sufficiency of notice); see also Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 162.962 (permitting party to seek

judicial review of hearing panel’s “decision”), 162.961.3 (indicating “decision” is one

reached when, “[a]fter review of all evidence presented and a proper deliberation,”

hearing panel “by majority vote determine[s] its findings, conclusions, and decision

in the matter in question”); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 200-01 (1976)

(in cases of statutory interpretation, language of statute controls when it is sufficiently

clear in context). We conclude, however, that the dismissal should have been without

prejudice. See Cty. of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464-65 (8th Cir. 2004)

(district court generally barred from dismissing case with prejudice if it concludes

subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking).

Accordingly, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, and affirm the

dismissal as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         185,726
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  527,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,039,604
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,857,809
<PP&E>                                       5,333,692
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,139,059
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,422,728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,867,235
<BONDS>                                      4,884,679
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       484,601
<OTHER-SE>                                     478,746
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,422,728
<SALES>                                      1,519,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,519,414
<CGS>                                        1,191,517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,191,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               272,625
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             211,276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (124,169)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (47,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (77,169)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (93,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (170,169)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### CHAMBLESS v. STATE.

No. 22881.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 7, 1944.

J. Walter Friberg, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for selling whisky in dry area, punishment assessed at a fine of $250 and 60 days in jail.

A recital of the facts is not necessary. The appellant did not testify.

Our State’s Attorney confesses error on the complaint that the jury discussed and considered the failure of appellant to testify. We agree with him in his conclusion. See Art. 710, C.C.P.; Harrell v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 279, 42 S.W.2d 438.

We are also of opinion that bill of exception No. 4 presents reversible error. Two State’s witnesses testified to the sale by appellant of the whisky. No other parties were present. The County Attorney in his argument said there was no “word of testimony to deny that this sale was made” just as State witnesses had *928testified. No one could have denied it save appellant. This was an indirect reference to the failure of appellant to testify. Scarbrough v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 54, 263 S.W. 917; Wood v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 28 S.W.2d 130. We quote from Gothard v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 452, 270 S.W. 177, 178: “* * * where a defendant has not testified himself nor offered any defensive testimony whatever it would be well for counsel representing the state to confine himself to a discussion of the evidence introduced by the state, and not allude to defendant’s failure to produce evidence, unless it is apparent from the record that evidence other than his own was available which he neglected to bring before the jury.”

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.