alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hattie N. Stokely and W. R. Stokely, her Husband, *Appellants,*v. The First National Bank of St. Augustine, a Corporation, Existing Under and by Virtue of the Laws of the United States of America, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 13, 1926.

*L.*W. *Nelson,*for Appellant;

*MacWilliams & Perry,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises,- it seems to the court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudgd by the court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39875-39876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19882]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments

[[Page 39876]]

must be received not later than August 10, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Fred A. Moore, Laura H. Moore, Bonita B. Moore, all of Lockhart, 
Texas; to acquire additional shares of Lockhart Bankshares, Inc., 
Lockhart, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First 
Lockhart National Bank, Lockhart, Texas. In addition, O. T. Moore, III, 
Lockhart, Texas, has applied to retain voting shares of Lockhart 
Bankshares, Inc., Lockhart, Texas, and thereby indirectly retain voting 
shares of First Lockhart National Bank, Lockhart, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 21, 1998.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-19882 Filed 7-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Nicki Boyd 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947.4 e
No. 10-10406.

#### Mathew Lamont Powell, Petitioner v. Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

565 U.S. 1101, 132 S. Ct. 867,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8986.

181 L. Ed. 2d 565,

December 12, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 836, 132 S. Ct. 140, 181 L. Ed. 2d 59, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5418.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3184 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3184

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to increase the vehicle length 
limitation for truck tractor-lowboy trailer combinations, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2019

Mr. Moolenaar introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to increase the vehicle length 
limitation for truck tractor-lowboy trailer combinations, 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. LENGTH LIMITATIONS.

    Section 31111 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) Lowboy trailer.--The term `lowboy trailer' means a 
        semitrailer with a depressed section between the hitch and the 
        first rear axle.''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)(1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``or'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period and 
                inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(I) imposes a vehicle length limitation of less 
                than 80 feet on a truck tractor-lowboy trailer 
                combination with a front overhang of less than 4 feet 
                and a rear overhang of less than 6 feet.''.
                                 <all>
```
**BIC SDR IPT  Agenda**
I 

I 

Ridan Inves 

Respondent 

SERVED: October 12, 2016 

U.S. DEPART:rvffiNT OF TRANSPCS~'Jfili 

OFFICE OF HEARINGERANSPORTA\~ WASHINGTON, DCzatt 0

. . • CT 13 P 11: ~Jb 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET OPERATIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2013-1082 

Case No. 201280700133 

NOTICE OF HEARING 

Pursuant t 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(1) and§ 13.221, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Locati n 

a. Th hearing will be held at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. 

Co rtbouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701. 1 

b. Bri fcases, purses, packages, and other items will be subject to search upon entry to. 

the building. All individuals must present a valid government-issued J.D. to enter. 

2. Date 

a. Th hearing will begin on January 24, 2017. 

b. Th courtroom is reserved through January 26, 2017. 

3. Time 

a. Th hearing will begin at 9:00a.m. local time and end by 4:00p.m. each day. 

b. Th parties shall vacate the courthouse by 5:00p.m. each day. 

1 As of the date this notice, a courtroom has not yet been assigned. Parties should check the Court Calendar on 

the day of the he ing for the exact courtroom or check with the Clerk's Office. 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviati n Administration 

800 Independe ce Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D 20591 

Attention: earing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright uilding-· Suite 2W1 0002 

ONE COPY 

Lawrence M. urek, Respondent's Counsel 

550 North Par enter Drive, Suite 204 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

TEL: 714-56 -9033 

FAX: 714-56 -1685 

Glenn H. Bro • Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement D vision, Western Team 

Federal Aviati n Administration 

222 W. 7th Ave ue, Box 14 

Anchorage, A 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-27 -5271 

FAX: 907-27 -2800 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHeari gs, M-20 

U.S. Departme t of Transportation 

1200 New Jers y Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, D 20590 

TEL: 202-36 -5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-36 -7536 

Docket No. FAA-2013-1082 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

2 Service was by .S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Adminis ation, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attent on: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
No. 10-10731.

#### Jose Del Carmen Cardales-Luna, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1034, 132 S. Ct. 573,

181 L. Ed. 2d 421,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8132.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 632 F.3d 731.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,773
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,570
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,776
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,093
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,889
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (149)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (149)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-5896.

#### Oscar Roy Doster, Petitioner v. Alabama.

565 U.S. 1063, 132 S. Ct. 760,

181 L. Ed. 2d 490,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8549.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.

Same case below, 72 So. 3d 50.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1827

___________

Fred Jones, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Becker Group O&Fallon Division, a *

Division of Becker Group, Inc.; *

International Union, United *

Automobile, Aerospace & * Appeal from the United States

Agricultural Implement Workers of * District Court for the

America, Local 282, * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Appellees, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Missouri Department of Labor and *

Industrial Relations, *

*

Movant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 15, 1999

 Filed: November 17, 1999

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________
1The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Fred Jones appeals following the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment in

his hybrid breach of duty of fair representation/breach of collective bargaining

agreement action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act 1947, 29

U.S.C. § 185. He also moves for appointment of counsel. Having carefully reviewed

the record and the parties’ briefs, we decline to appoint counsel, and we affirm on the

basis that Becker Group O&Fallon Division had the right to discharge Mr. Jones under

the collective bargaining agreement, and therefore that Local 282, United Automobile,

Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America did not breach any duty

it may have had to represent Mr. Jones by failing to fully prosecute the grievance. See

Blount v. Local Union 25, 984 F.2d 244, 248 (8th Cir. 1993) (union does not breach

duty by failing to prosecute if plaintiff had no bona fide grievance against employer);

Leeuwen v. U.S. Postal Service, 628 F.2d 1093, 1096-97 (8th Cir. 1980) (probationary

employee had no right to continuing employment, so discharge could not be breach of

collective bargaining agreement). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EX-10.24



 Exhibit 10.24 

THIS Amendment Agreement to the Term Storage Contract No. 2010-04 dated ###-##-#### (‘‘TSC”) is made on this 2nd day of July 2014 between 
  

	1.	Antwerp Terminal and Processing Company NV, a company incorporated in Belgium and having its business address at Haven
279, Beliweg 20, B-2030, Antwerpen, Belgium (hereinafter referred to as (“ATPC”) 

 AND 

 

	2.	Vitol SA, a private company, registered in Geneva, company number CH-660-0063972-5, having its registered office at Boulevard du Pont –d’ Arve 28, CH 1205 Geneva, PO Box 384,
1211Geneva, Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as “Vitol”). 

 WHEREAS 

ATPC and Vitol are parties to a TSC In connection with storage and handling services wherein ATPC provides storage and handling services to Vitol. For good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ATPC and Vitol now wish to amend the TSC in accordance with this Amendment Agreement. 

NOW THEREFORE it is agreed as follows: 
  

	1.	That tanks TK 600 with a Contractual Capacity of 26,998.674 cbm and TK 604 with a Contractual Capacity of 27,028.226 set forth in the table under Article 7 of the TSC and any references to these tanks in the TSC are
hereby deleted. 

  

	2.	The new Contractual Capacity under Article 7 of the TSC is hereby amended to 213,534.180 cbm taking into account the deleted Tanks TK 600 and TK 604 and the re-calibration and after refurbishment of Tanks TK 601 on 31
October 2012 and TK 609 on 31 October 2013. 

  

	3.	That Articles 21 and 22 of the TSC shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Amendment. 

  

	4.	Capitalised terms not otherwise defined In this Amendment Agreement have the same meaning as in the TSC. This Amendment Agreement may be executed in counterparts. Save to the extent as amended by this Amendment
Agreement, all terms and conditions of the TSC shall remain in full force and effect. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF ATPC and Vitol have caused
this Amendment Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives, as of the date first above written. 
  

									
	Antwerp Terminal and Processing Company NV	  		 	Vitol SA
			
	 /s/ Gert Quint
	  		 	 /s/ David Fransen

	Name:	  	Gert Quint	  		 	Name:	 	David Fransen
	Position:	  	Authorised Signatory	  		 	Position:	 	Managing Director
	Date:	  	02-07-2014	  		 	Date:	 	02-07-2014
			
	Antwerp Terminal and Processing Company NV	  		 	Vitol SA
			
	 /s/ Alain van Riet
	  		 	  

	Name:	  	Alain van Riet	  		 	Name:	 	
	 Position:
	  	 Authorised Signatory
	  		 	Position:	 	
	 Date: 
	  	 02-07-2014 
	  		 	Date:
Date: 20 September 2018 ********************

NSN: 8920-01-526-4909 (BNR) MONOGRAPH 5A12

 ******************* 

Item: Brown and wild rice pilaf (Type IV)

Document: PCR-R-004B, Rice, Packaged in a Polymeric Tray, Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 224 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Glossy and distinct cooked light to medium tan brown rice and dark brown wild rice 

grains with pieces of celery and visible flecks of herbs and spices.

Odor: Cooked, brown and wild rice in butter and chicken broth with celery and seasonings.

Flavor: Cooked, brown and wild rice in butter and chicken broth with celery and seasonings. 

The brown and wild rice pilaf shall have a nutty flavor.

Texture: Moist and slightly soft to slightly firm.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Clumps that do not separate easily upon heating/stirring, darkened.

Odor: Oxidized, rancid, scorched, musty, old spices, old broth, off dairy.

Flavor: Oxidized, rancid, scorched, musty, old spices, old broth, off dairy.

Texture: Thick, starchy, not intact grains, mushy rice, clumpy, wild rice soft (no crunch or 

texture difference when chewed), dry; gummy.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Product should be fluffed with a serving utensil prior to examination.

Special Notes
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

In connection with the Cyber Merchants  Exchange,  Inc. Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Frank S. Yuan,
Chairman and Chief  Executive  Officer of 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) 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 such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB
            fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
            results of operations of the Company.





By:  /s/ Frank S. Yuan
     -----------------
         Frank S. Yuan
Chief Executive Officer
September 29, 2005



A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO CYBER MERCHANTS EXCHANGE, INC. AND
WILL BE  RETAINED  BY  CYBER  MERCHANTS  EXCHANGE,  INC.  AND  FURNISHED  TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Tolerance ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

TAN 516 STANDARD 62.87 4.72 11.39

1 1 RED LIMIT -1.33 0.05 0.93 1.63

2 4 RED LIMIT 0.08 0.95 -0.21 1.55

OLIVE 517 STANDARD 49.18 -1.08 16.72

3 2 RED LIMIT -1.18 0.58 -0.37 1.37

(removed 01/15/20) FULL YELLOW 

LIMIT 0.43 -0.36 0.15 0.58

4 3 YELLOW LIMIT -0.42 0.34 1.22 0.93

GREEN 518 STANDARD 39.77 -6.90 11.99

(removed 01/15/20) FULL LIMIT -1.09 -0.32 -0.47 1.23

5 5 YELLOW LIMIT 0.57 0.16 2.08 1.71

BLACK 519 STANDARD 21.22 3.74 -0.53

Shade Number NWU III WOODLAND Piece/Roll Number 18002

DLA/NAVY SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT May 8, 2021

Fabric Nomenclature CLOTH, RIPSTOP, NYLON AND COTTON 

BLEND, CAMOUFLAGE NCTRF PD 05-11

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF
COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4647 Considered and Passed House (CPH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4647

To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions 
                              of such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 22, 2005

Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee 
  on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

                           December 22, 2005

 The Committees on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on 
             Intelligence discharged; considered and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions 
                              of such Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

    Section 224(a) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by 
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct 
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56; 115 Stat. 
295) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2005'' and inserting 
``February 3, 2006''.
                                 <all>
```
CLD-293 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-1860

___________

IN RE: JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, JR.,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. Nos. 1:15-cv-07887 & 1:16-cv-00251)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

June 16, 2016

Before: FISHER, JORDAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 29, 2016)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

James L. Roudabush, Jr., sought to file two lawsuits in forma pauperis in the 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court denied 

him leave to do so on the grounds that he has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

and did not show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Roudabush 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

has appealed from the orders. He also submits a petition for a writ of mandamus to 

challenge the District Court’s orders in those cases. 

We must deny his petition because mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 

79 (3d Cir. 1996). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). A petitioner must ordinarily have no other means to obtain the 

desired relief, and he must show a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. In 

re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 1992). Roudabush cannot claim 

that he has no other means to get relief where his appeals provide an adequate alternative 

to mandamus. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212-13 (3d Cir. 2006).