alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1760 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1760

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, as the 
          ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2005

 Ms. Baldwin (for herself, Mr. Obey, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Petri, Mr. 
 Kind, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, and Mr. Ryan of 
  Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, as the 
          ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert M. 
La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Vegetable Crops Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ScientistsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin Vegetable Crops Research People B. bee lab





- Home
- All Publications
- Outreach
- Photos
- Videos
- Bee Blog
- Pollinator Behavior and Gene Flow
- Pollinator Preferences
- Hybridization and Introgression
- Alfalfa Selfing Management
- Pollinators and Global Warming
- Other Research
- Research Projects (VCRU)
- Publications in ARIS
- Current
- Previous
- How to Assess a Hive

Past Lab Peopleheadline bar Here you can find information on previous lab members. When possible, links to their current pages or Research Gate page are included. /ARSUserFiles/34905/Brunet Lab Photos/lab-pic 1.jpgLab photo 2018
 Some more recent lab members Molly Dieterich Mabin (2018-2023) Fabiana Fragoso (2017-2022) Andrew Flick (2019-2021) Luciano Palmieri (2018-2019) Megan Van Etten (2010-2012) Matt Hetherington (2017) Danny Minahan (PhD - 2019) Amy-Mei Lynch (2021-2022) Patricia Dombrowski (2019-2021) Alina Iwan (2020-2021) Kevin Boyer (2018-2019) Zach Diamond (2017-2018) Jillian M. Henss (2013-2016)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### BERNSTEIN et al. v. STANDARD ICE CREAM CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

May 9, 1912.)

Corporations (§ 432*)—Contract—Execution—Authority—Evidence.

To recover on a contract made by an individual on behalf of a corporation, the evidence must show the individual’s authority to contract for the corporation, or a ratification.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1717, 1718, 1724, 1726-1737, 1743, 1762; Dec. Dig. § 432.*]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Solomon Bernstein and another against the Standard Ice Cream Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, and an order *1097denying a motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued April term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and GERARD, JJ.

Max Schenkman, of New York City (Charles Goldzier, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Watts & Merrill, of New York City (Maurice Rubinger, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes.

SEABURY, J.

This action was brought to recover 60 per cent, of the disbursements made and expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in dissolving a corporation and organizing a new corporation, under an oral contract alleged to have been made by the plaintiffs and one Ginsberg, acting on behalf of the defendant corporation. Assuming that the contract was made, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Ginsberg was authorized to make the contract, or that the defendant corporation ratified the contract alleged.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### In the Matter of Charles Birnbaum, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

August 12, 1985

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert H. Straus (Diana L. Maxfield*of counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on April 3, 1929 under the name of Charles Birenbaum. By order of this court dated November 26,1984, respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the further order of this court, and the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against respondent.

On February 6, 1985, respondent pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.35), a class D felony. On March 26, 1985, he was sentenced to five years’ probation plus restitution.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), upon his conviction of a felony, the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. Respondent is disbarred and it is directed that the respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law forthwith.

Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### Zippora Bell et al., Respondents, v Princeton Skate & Ski Shop, Appellant.

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Gammerman, J.), entered on August 10,1984, denying defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment rendered against it on March 28, 1984 on the ground that the default resulted from excusable negligence, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exércise of discretion, without costs, and the motion to vacate the default judgment is granted.

In a personal injury action defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court denying its motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a default judgment rendered against it, which followed the dismissal of defendant’s answer because of its failure to comply with a conditional order directing such dismissal if defendant did not within a stated period of time produce certain documents demanded in a notice for discovery and inspection.

In denying the motion to vacate the judgment, the court did so on the quite reasonable ground that the motion was more appropriately addressed to the Judge who had entered the conditional order dismissing the answer, and did so without *626prejudice to a motion addressed to that Judge. Notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to pursue the course appropriately suggested, we think it proper under all the circumstances, in light of the time that has now elapsed, to address the merits of the motion.

So considered, it is apparent that the default was an inadvertent and excusable one, the result of the omission of a departing attorney from defendant’s law firm adequately to communicate to his successor the procedural status of the conditional order; that the period of noncompliance was brief; and that no prejudice to the plaintiff resulted. In addition, the affidavits submitted clearly present a substantial issue as to the merits of the lawsuit. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Asch, Fein and Kassal, JJ.
#### Brasscrafters, Inc., Respondent, v Herbert B. Ehrlich et al., Appellants.

— In an action, *inter alia,*for specific performance of certain restrictive covenants contained in a stock purchase agreement, for related injunctive relief, and to recover damages, defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated September 17,1984, as granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction restraining defendants, pendente lite, from (1) conducting any activity or holding any interest in any business involving the sale of fireplace equipment, at wholesale, to retail customers within the continental United States and (2) conducting business under the name “Ehrlich” or using *725the word “Ehrlich” in any combination of words, upon condition that plaintiff furnish an undertaking in the sum of $25,000.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The New York courts plainly have personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendant *(see, e.g., Sybron Corp. v Wetzel,*46 NY2d 197) and Special Term properly balanced the equities in issuing the preliminary injunction. We would note that, irrespective of a covenant not to solicit former customers, the seller of a business has a legal duty to refrain indefinitely from acting to impair the good will transferred in connection with the sale of a business *(Mohawk Maintenance Co. v Kessler,*52 NY2d 276) and, to prevent unfair competition, even the right to use one’s own name may be enjoined *(David B. Findlay, Inc. v Findlay,*18 NY2d 12, *cert denied*385 US 930). Titone, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-14173

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

KATIE ROMANO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TD BANK, N.A., 

a.k.a. TD Bank USA, N.A., 

TARGET ENTERPRISE, INC., 

RAS LAVAR LLC, 

a.k.a. Robertson, Anschultz & Schneid, PL., 

Defendants-Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 23-14173 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-14173

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-01293-RBD-EJK

____________________

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Upon our review of the record and the responses to the jurisdictional questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

Katie Romano and her counsel, Paul Wersant, appeal from 

the district court’s order sanctioning Wersant and directing Appellees’ counsel to file notices regarding the amount of costs and fees 

incurred, as well as previous orders related to the sanctions proceedings. None of those orders determined the specific amount of 

sanctions for which Wersant is responsible. We thus lack jurisdiction to consider them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; PlayNation Play Sys., 

Inc. v. Velex Corp., 939 F.3d 1205, 1212 (11th Cir. 2019). Further, the 

district court’s January 8, 2024 order, which awarded a specific 

amount of monetary sanctions but was entered after the instant 

notice of appeal was filed, does not cure this premature appeal. See 

Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1385 (11th Cir. 1986); LaChance 

v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 836-37 (11th Cir. 1998).

Romano and Wersant also appeal from the district court’s 

December 10, 2023 order dismissing Romano’s action, without 

USCA11 Case: 23-14173 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2024 Page: 2 of 3
23-14173 Opinion of the Court 3

prejudice, pursuant to her November 17, 2023 notice of voluntary 

dismissal. Wersant does not have standing to appeal that ruling 

because he is not a party to Romano’s action. See Marino v. Ortiz, 

484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988). And Romano lacks standing to challenge 

the dismissal order because it is not adverse to her, as it merely recognized the voluntary dismissal she sought by filing her notice. See 

Versa Prods., Inc. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 387 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th 

Cir. 2004); Ortega Trujillo v. Banco Cent. del Ecuador, 379 F.3d 1298, 

1301 (11th Cir. 2004).

USCA11 Case: 23-14173 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2024 Page: 3 of 3
[No. 15966-3-III.

Division Three.

October 2, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Antonio Cuara Cruz, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court *for*Yakima County, No. 95-1-01557-9, Michael N. Leavitt, J., entered July 18, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Thompson and Schultheis. JJ.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  Banc of America Funding Corporation
  Mortgage Pass Through Certificates,
  Series 2007-8

  I, Kelly Rentz, a Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the "Master
  Servicer"), certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K of the Banc of America Funding 2007-8 Trust (the "Exchange
    Act Periodic Reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a
    whole, do 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 report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;

  4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
    conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
    this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
    in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the servicers have fulfilled
    their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material
    respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with the servicing
    criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
    reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
    asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
    accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
    13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
    except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
    noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this
    report on Form 10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Bank
    of America, National Association as Servicer, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
    as Servicer and Washington Mutual Bank as Servicer.

    Dated:   March 27, 2008


    /s/ Kelly Rentz
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 178 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Dichloroethyl Ether. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Dichloroethyl Ether. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DCEE Tariff Suspen5 sion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DICHLOROETHYL ETHER. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

9 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

10 new heading: 
2 

•HR 178 IH 

‘‘ 9902.05.38 Dichloroethyl Ether (1,1’- 

oxybis [2-chloroethane] CLCH2-CH2-0-CH2-CH2-CL) 

(provided for in subheading 

2909.19.18) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2014 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 12


TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
STATEMENT SETTING FORTH COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                            MARCH 31, 2002

<S>                                                                                          <C>
Income before income taxes and distributions on preferred securities.....................      $ 22,882
                                                                                               --------

Fixed Charges:

Interest on debt.........................................................................        46,298

Estimated interest portion of rents......................................................           553
                                                                                               --------
Total fixed charges......................................................................        46,851
                                                                                               --------

Adjusted Income..........................................................................        69,733

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.......................................................         1.49x
                                                                                               ========
</TABLE>

    The ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been computed by dividing income
before income taxes and distributions on preferred securities and fixed charges
by fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest on debt and one-third rental
expense as representative of interest portion of rentals.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at                     *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.*                     Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.                

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than July 1, 2021.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City*                     (Jeffrey Imgarten, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

                    1.                     *Michael Waldo, Alma, Nebraska; and Dwight Waldo, Republican City, Nebraska*; to establish the Waldo Family Group, a group acting in concert to retain voting shares of Commercial State Holding Company, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Commercial State Bank, both of Republican City, Nebraska.                

      ( print page 32039)    
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 11, 2021.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2021-12686 Filed 6-15-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
|   | • | fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/ C. Troy Woodbury, Jr. |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   |                      |
|   |   | Name:                     | C. Troy Woodbury, Jr. |
|   |   | Title:                    | President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |
|   |   | Date:                     | July 18, 2011 |

----