alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12684]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--IBACOS, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 24, 1995, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), IBACOS, Inc. has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Carrier 
Corporation, Syracuse, NY has become a new member of IBACOS. In 
addition, Honeywell, Inc. has withdrawn membership with IBACOS.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership remains open and 
IBACOS, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 6, 1992, IBACOS, Inc. filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act May 6, 1992, 57 FR 19442.
    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 23, 
1994. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 20, 1994, 59 FR 18829-30.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-12684 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Lloyd Anthonie WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6737.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

July 23 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk July 23 , 2021

16 32 9 0 ( 5 8 ) (59)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 16 32 9 0

v COA: 351700

Saginaw CC: 80

- 000118

- FY

RICHARD GERALD MUSSELMAN

,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellant to exceed the word

limitation for the application for leave to appeal is G RANTED. The application submitted

on July 15, 2021, is accepted for filing

. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion

for th e temporary admission of out

- of

- state attorneys Samuel Callahan, John Swanson, and

Andrew Tutt to appear and practice in this case under MCR 8.126(A) is GRANTED

.
case 2:13-cv-00147-RL-PRC document 4 filed 05/17/13 page 1 of 2
Atlorney or Parly wilhout Altorney: 

LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES LLC ATTORNEYS AT LA 

1100 SUMMER STREET, 3RD FLOOR 

STAMFORD, CT 06905 

Telephone No: 202 653-2250 FAXNo:20Z 653-3424 

ciosenstock@leinberglaw.com 

Atlorney/or: Plaintiff 

Re/ No. or File No.: 

8222-001 

Insert name o/Court, and Judicial Dislrici and Branch Court: 

United States District Court - Northern District Of Indiana, Hammond Division 

Plaintiff: BEN KITCHENS 

Defendant: WORLDWIDE RECOVERIES, LLC 

For Court Use Oidy 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVIC E 

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE 

Hearing Date: Time: Depl/Div: Case Number: 

213CV147 

}. Al the time ofservice I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 

2. I served copies ofthe SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION; COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL; APPEARANCE OF 

COUNSEL, 

3. a. Party seiyed: 

b. Person served: 

PLATINUM RECOVERIES 

DAN SHIELLIE, MANAGER, PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE 

OF PROCESS 

4. Address where the party was served: 2414 S. FAIRVIEW STREET, SUITE 210 

SANTA ANA, CA 92704 

5. I served the party: 

a. by personal service, I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive 

process for the party (1) on: Sat., Apr. 13, 2013 (2) at; 1:35PM 

6. The "Notice to the Person Seiyed" (on the Summons) was completed as follows: 

on behalf of PLATINUM RECOVERIES 

Other: A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, FORM UNKNOWN, under CCP 415.95. 

7. Person Who Served Papers: 

a. ALAN THOMAS 

Fee for Sendee: $62.50 

I Declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 

INDIANA that the foregoing is true and correct. 

1614 W. Temple Street, LosAnxelesCA 90026 

(213) 483-4900' Fax: (213)483-7777 

Prolesslonal Legal Services end Pholocopying et en aHordable price! 

JDale) (HignatureJ 

8. STA TE OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF C^'^^ 

Subscribed andsworu to (or affirmed) before me on this day of ^'ff^ . SP/~?> by ALAN THOMAS 

proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who appeared before me. ""^^^^^^^ 

COMM.ffio7//o/ * 

NOTARY PUBLIC •CALIFOEWIA ^ 

CommL O S ANGELE . Exp. JAN;^i201 S COUNTY 4 

267U 44237 

case 2:13-cv-00147-RL-PRC document 4 filed 05/17/13 page 2 of 2
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Rodney Earl Miller

, * From the 244 th District Court

Of Ector County, Texas

Trial Court No. C

- 29,905

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00099

- CR * May 14 , 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance

with this court ’ s opinion, the appe al is dismissed.
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-19   filed 07/14/15   page 1 of 10

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-19   filed 07/14/15   page 2 of 10

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-19   filed 07/14/15   page 3 of 10

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-19   filed 07/14/15   page 4 of 10

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-19   filed 07/14/15   page 5 of 10

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-19   filed 07/14/15   page 6 of 10

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-19   filed 07/14/15   page 7 of 10

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-19   filed 07/14/15   page 8 of 10

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-19   filed 07/14/15   page 9 of 10

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-19   filed 07/14/15   page 10 of 10
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<CASH>                                  32,200
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            411,524
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   3,726
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     3,733
<LOANS>                              1,065,318
<ALLOWANCE>                             (9,947)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,560,059
<DEPOSITS>                           1,003,120
<SHORT-TERM>                           231,204
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     69,099
<LONG-TERM>                             63,697
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                29,630
<OTHER-SE>                             163,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>       1,560,059
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         73,136
<INTEREST-INVEST>                       21,725
<INTEREST-OTHER>                         1,233
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        96,094
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      29,062
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      44,815
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   51,279
<LOAN-LOSSES>                            2,135
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          (1)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         35,386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         27,595
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>              27,595
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                            19,508
<EPS-BASIC>                             1.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                             1.80
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            4.55
<LOANS-NON>                              1,313
<LOANS-PAST>                             2,631
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                           773
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         11,213
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         9,854
<CHARGE-OFFS>                            2,261
<RECOVERIES>                               219
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                        9,947
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     9,947
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      0

</TABLE>
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Indiana

GEORGE SHOUN

Plaintiff 

v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-463-RLM

BEST FORMED PLASTICS INC

 Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

 the plaintiff 

recover from the defendant the amount of 

 dollars $ , which includes prejudgment interest at the rate of % plus postjudgment interest at the rate of % along with costs.

 the plaintiff recover nothing, the action is dismissed on the merits, and the defendant 

recover costs from the plaintiff .

 X Other: Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Best Formed Plastics, Inc., and against Plaintiff

George Shoun. 

This action was (check one):

 tried to a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

 tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was

reached.

 X decided by Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant.

DATE: September 14, 2015 ROBERT N. TRGOVICH, CLERK OF COURT

by s/L. Steinke 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00463-RLM document 72 filed 09/14/15 page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff/Respondent, )

)

vs. ) NO. 2:09-cr-43

)

HANEEF JACKSON-BEY, )

)

Defendant/Petitioner. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the “Motion Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in

Federal Custody,” filed by Petitioner, Haneef Jackson-Bey, on

September 27, 2013 (DE #485). For the reasons set forth below, the

motion is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

On August 23, 2011, Jackson-Bey, pro se, filed a Petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By

a Person in Federal Custody. (DE #402.) This Court entered an

order on January 23, 2012, denying the section 2255 petition. (DE

#409.) Jackson-Bey then filed a motion to reconsider. (DE #421.) 

The Court also denied the motion to reconsider. (DE #422.)
DISCUSSION

Following a direct appeal, a defendant generally has one

opportunity to challenge his conviction and sentence. Suggs v.

United States, 705 F.3d 279, 281-82 (7th Cir. 2013); 28 U.S.C. §

2255(a), (h). Should a defendant wish to file a second or

successive section 2255 motion challenging that same conviction or

sentence, he must first gain authorization to do so from the court

of appeals; otherwise, the district court does not have

jurisdiction to consider the motion. Suggs, 705 F.3d at 282; 28

U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)-(b), 2255(h). In general, only those successive

motions which challenge the underlying conviction and present newly

discovered evidence of defendant’s innocence or rely on a new

retroactive constitutional law will be certified by the court of

appeals for district court review. Suggs, 705 F.3d at 282-83; 28

U.S.C. § 2255(h). “No matter how powerful a petitioner’s showing,

only [the Seventh Circuit] may authorize the commencement of a

second or successive petition.” Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d

990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). As the Nunez Court explained:

From the district court's perspective, it is

an allocation of subject-matter jurisdiction

to the court of appeals. A district court

must dismiss a second or successive petition,

without awaiting any response from the

government, unless the court of appeals has

given approval for its filing. . . . A second

or successive collateral attack may no more

begin in the district court than a criminal

prosecution may commence in the court of

appeals.

2
Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991 (emphasis in original). 

 Because Jackson-Bey has already filed a section 2255 motion

with this Court, his current section 2255 motion is considered a

successive collateral attack on his sentence. He has not obtained

permission from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file this

successive section 2255 motion, and, therefore, it is DISMISSED for

lack of jurisdiction. 

DATED: October 15, 2013 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

3
Mark KILMARTIN, petitioner, v. James HURLEY, Warden.

No. 12-10258.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12375]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology

Announcing a Meeting of Computer System Security and Privacy 
Advisory Board

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., 
notice is hereby given that the Computer System Security and Privacy 
Advisory Board will meet Wednesday, June 7, and Thursday, June 8, 1995, 
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Advisory Board was established by the 
Computer Security Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-235) to advise the Secretary of 
Commerce and the Director of NIST on security and privacy issues 
pertaining to Federal computer systems. All sessions will be open to 
the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 7 and 8, 1995, from 9:00 a.m. 
to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Clopper Road and Quince Orchard Road, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

AGENDA:
--Welcome and Update
--Overview of Meeting
--Perspectives on Information Security
--Privacy Issues Update
--Common Criteria Update
--GITS Security Status
--Draft OMB Appendix III Update
--Security Policy Board Update
--PKI Steering Committee Activities
--SI-PMO Action Plan Briefing
--Public Participation
--Pending Board Business
--Close.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The Board agenda will include a period of time, 
not to exceed thirty minutes, for oral comments and questions from the 
public. Each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Members of the 
public who are interested in speaking are asked to contact the Board 
Secretariat at the telephone number indicated below. In addition, 
written statements are invited and may be submitted to the Board at any 
time. Written statements should be directed to the Computer Systems 
Laboratory, Building 225, Room B154, National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. It would be appreciated if 
fifteen copies of written material could be submitted for distribution 
to the Board by June 2, 1995. Approximately 20 seats will be available 
of the public and media.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Edward Roback, Board Secretariat, Computer Systems Laboratory, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building 225, Room 
B154, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, telephone: (301) 975-3240.

    Dated: May 15, 1995.
Raymond G. Kammer,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 95-12375 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-CN-M
```
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES DIVISION, petitioner, v. Hilda L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor.

No. 12-726.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Daniel Andrew LINTON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 13-6599.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 6/30/98 FORM
10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001040751
<NAME> WALLSTREET RACING STABLES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           68936
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      665
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 70249
<PP&E>                                           54438
<DEPRECIATION>                                   19560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  105127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11888
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           895
<OTHER-SE>                                       92334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    105127
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 16154
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                158413
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (141278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (141278)    
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (141278)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 666 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Williams. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 2022 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States 

v. Williams. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Williams, Cr. No. 

21–377, pending in the United States District Court for 

the District of Columbia, the prosecution has requested 

the production of testimony from Daniel Schwager, a 

former employee of the Office of the Secretary of the 

Senate; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and employees of the 

Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 

for evidence relating to their official responsibilities; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 666 ATS 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee 

2 of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized 

3 to provide relevant testimony in the case of United States 

4 v. Williams, except concerning matters for which a privi5 lege should be asserted. 

6 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

7 represent Mr. Schwager and any current or former officer 

8 or employee of his office in connection with the production 

9 of evidence authorized in section one of this resolution. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000369 15-OCT-2019 09:18 AM
Thomas COOK, III, aka Mex, aka Sport, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6612.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

*540Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Exhibit 27.2
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000711425
<NAME>                        NetOptix Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         754
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,290
<INVENTORY>                                    8,711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,520
<PP&E>                                         39,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                 32,875
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 51,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22,331
<BONDS>                                        992
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       81
<OTHER-SE>                                     28,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   51,910
<SALES>                                        3,831
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,831
<CGS>                                          2,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (27)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,533)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,533)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 392
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,141)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.51)




</TABLE>