alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
 Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Groups
                        Corn & Soybean Virus Lab
                                    Soft Wheat Quality LabSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Wooster, Ohio Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research Docs





- CSWQRU Home
- Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory
- --Publications
- --Personnel
- --Partnering

2016 Review and Conference Photosheadline bar


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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
Vv. 5 Cause No. 1:16-MJ- lo¥
ALA EL BASHATLY 5 x
MOTION FOR DETENTION s
a
Comes now the United States of America by Stacey R. Speiffs Assistant

BR

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, andmove@the
Court to detain the defendant, ALA EL BASHATLY, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§3142(e) because the defendant is a danger to the community and a serious
risk of flight.

WHEREFORE, the United States of America requests that the Court
detain the defendant, ALA EL BASHATLY, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)
for further proceedings in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID CAPP

tas Ch 2b.
By:

Stacey R. Speith

Assistant United States Attorney

E. Ross Adair Federal Bldg.

& US. Courthouse

1800 S. Harrison Street, Room 3128
Fort Wayne, IN 46802-3489

Telephone: (260) 422-2595

Facsimile: (260) 426-1616

E-mail Address: Stacey.speith@usdoj.gov

aa ila
# C_2008326EN.01000401.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5345 — Terex Corporation/Fantuzzi Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 326/03)

On 19 November 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5345. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5345. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1771 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1771

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that a NADBank 
    guarantee is not considered a Federal guarantee for purposes of 
              determining the tax-exempt status of bonds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2005

 Mr. Gonzalez (for himself, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. 
   Reyes, and Mr. Doggett) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that a NADBank 
    guarantee is not considered a Federal guarantee for purposes of 
              determining the tax-exempt status of bonds.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN GUARANTEES NOT CONSIDERED FEDERAL GUARANTEES FOR 
              PURPOSES OF DETERMINING TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF BONDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 149(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 (relating to certain insurance programs) is amended by 
inserting ``the North American Development Bank,'' after 
``Corporation,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to any bond issued before, on, or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7687

TROY W. DALTON, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00337-GEC-MFU)

Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy W. Dalton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Troy Dalton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dalton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Dalton’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000715096
<NAME> COMMERCE BANCORP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         140,740
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                32,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,735
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    159,570
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,090,022
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,059,366
<LOANS>                                        869,883
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,005
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,402,857
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,216,229
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,604
<LONG-TERM>                                     27,615
<COMMON>                                        16,839
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,506
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,402,857
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 58,901
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               61,851
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,833
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               123,585
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              45,180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,078
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           70,507
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,633
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 106
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 56,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,263
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      27,263
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,336
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.46
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,196
<LOANS-PAST>                                        77
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   543
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  7,618
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                12,036
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      664
<RECOVERIES>                                       502
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,005
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            13,005
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6371

FEDERICO J. HEADLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1794-AM) Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Federico J. Headley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on February 16, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 22, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Federico J. Headley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Headley v. Braxton , No. CA-99- 1794-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2000). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 34044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13716]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Advisory Committee on Civil Rules; Meeting of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Civil Rules; Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules will hold a meeting on 
October 5, 2021 in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public 
for observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting 
materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at: 
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/agenda-books.

DATES: October 5, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (Eastern).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Wilson, Esq., Acting Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3260475e5741715d5f5f5b464657576d61575140574653404b72535d1c4741515d474046411c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cd9fb8a1a8be8ea2a0a0a4b9b9a8a8929ea8aebfa8b9acbfb48daca2e3b8beaea2b8bfb9bee3aaa2bb">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2021-13716 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 1 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 2 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 3 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 4 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 5 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 6 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 7 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 8 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 9 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 10 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 11 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 12 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 13 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 14 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 15 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 16 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 17 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 18 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00118-RL-PRC   document 1   filed 03/30/15   page 19 of 19
#### In the Matter of Zorina Tomich, Respondent, v Hugh H. Lowery et al., Appellants.

[942 NYS2d 618]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington dated June 23, 2005, as, after a public hearing, denied that branch of the petitioner’s application which was for a nonconforming use variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated January 19, 2011, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington to approve the petitioner’s application to the extent reviewed.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the ZBA) determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the continuous nonconforming use of the subject property as a multi-family dwelling began prior to the 1934 enactment of the relevant zoning code. Thus, the ZBA denied that branch of the petitioner’s application which was for a nonconforming use variance. The Supreme Court properly annulled the determination of the ZBA, as it was without a rational basis and was not based on the evidence in the record *(see Matter of Straub v Modelewski,*56 AD3d 481, 482 [2008]; *Matter of Piesco v Hollihan,*47 AD3d 938 [2008]; *Matter of Doyle & Doyle v Rush,*241 AD2d 494 [1997]; *Town of Islip v P.B.S. Marina,*133 AD2d 81 [1987]; *cf. Matter of Marzella v Munroe,*69 NY2d 967, 968 [1987]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.
#### Philip Furgang, Respondent-Appellant, v Lenefsky, Meier & Novod, Appellant-Respondent.

— In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages under a quantum meruit theory, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Palella, J.), dated September 21, 1983, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff $4,190.92 and plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the judgment as denied him $775.02 in additional damages.

Judgment affirmed, with costs .to plaintiff.

We find that plaintiff was requested to perform certain services for clients of the defendant law firm, at the request of defendant, because of plaintiff’s expertise in a specialized area of the law, and that he rendered the services. An obligation to pay for these services is therefore imposed by operation of law, even in the absence of an agreement or expression of assent by word or act as to the amount of the fee *(see, Bradkin v Leverton,*26 NY2d 192,196). Recovery under a theory of quasi contract is not dependent on a promise to pay, and therefore defendant’s argument that there was no promise to pay is unpersuasive. Nor can defendant be relieved of this obligation merely because it was the defendant’s client who ultimately benefited from the *729services performed by plaintiff *(see, Farash v Sykes Datatronics,*59 NY2d 500, 503).

The amount awarded by Special Term reflects the reasonable value of the services performed by plaintiff. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JAMES LOUNSBURY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-cv-00618-RL-CAN 

)

FOREST RIVER, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff and 

Defendant, by their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that this cause of action should 

be dismissed with prejudice. The parties further stipulate and agree that no motion for costs 

and/or attorneys’ fees will be brought by Plaintiff or Defendant with regard to the claims now 

dismissed herein, as each party will bear its own fees and costs.

Respectfully Submitted, Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Lori W. Jansen /s/ Jeanine M. Gozdecki 

Christopher C. Myers & Associates Jeanine M. Gozdecki

809 S. Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Fort Wayne, IN 46802 700 1st Source Bank Center

Counsel for Plaintiff 100 N. Michigan St.

South Bend, IN 46601-1632

Counsel for Defendant

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00618-CAN document 27 filed 06/21/16 page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Van A. LOVE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7530.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2006.

Decided April 28, 2006.

Van A. Love, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Van Allen Love seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Love has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[No. 37138-0-I.

Division One.

August 4, 1997.]

#### Crowley Marine Services, Inc., *Appellant,*v. The Department of Transportation, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-2-23543-7, John M. Darrah, J., entered June 14, 1995. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.