alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 43999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16860]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB280]


Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting; 
Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a correction to a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS, NOAA, published a document in the Federal Register of 
August 3, 2021, regarding a meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council (Council). The meeting has since changed to a hybrid 
meeting offering both in-person and virtual options for attending the 
meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Carrie Simmons, Executive 
Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 
348-1630.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 3, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-16465, 
on page 41832, in the first column, correct the third full paragraph to 
read:
    The meeting will be a hybrid meeting. You may register for the 
webinar to listen-in only by visiting www.gulfcouncil.org and click on 
the Council meeting on the calendar.
    On page 41831, under heading Wednesday, August 25, 2021; 8:30 a.m.-
5:30 p.m., correct the last paragraph to read:
    The Council will hold public testimony from 2:45 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., 
EDT for Potential Reconsideration of Final Document--Framework Action: 
Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Recreational Data Calibration and 
Recreational Catch Limits, and open testimony on other fishery issues 
or concerns. Public comment may begin earlier than 2:45 p.m. EDT, but 
will not conclude before that time. Persons wishing to give public 
testimony in-person must register at the registration kiosk in the 
meeting room. Persons wishing to give public testimony virtually must 
sign up on the Council website on the day of public testimony. 
Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour (1:45 p.m. EDT) 
before public testimony begins.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 3, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16860 Filed 8-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2002 (the "Report"), I, John E. Gherty, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
        Company.



                                                By  /s/ John E. Gherty
                                                --------------------------------
                                                        John E. Gherty
                                                           President
                                                 and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Colon, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 542]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Nunez, J, at hearing; A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J, at jury trial and sentencing), rendered June 7, 2010, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of six years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police acted on information that was far more reliable than an anonymous tip *(compare Florida v J.L.,*529 US 266 [2000]).

A visibly frightened witness told the police that a man had just threatened him with a firearm, and the witness pointed to the location where this happened. As instructed by the police, the witness followed the police car in his own vehicle. At the location, the witness pointed at defendant and exclaimed, excitedly, that defendant was the man who had threatened him.

This provided, at least, reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk. Although the witness ultimately drove away without giving his name, the reliability of his statement was enhanced by many factors. This was a face-to-face encounter, permitting the officers to observe the witness’s demeanor *(see e.g. People v Appice,*1 AD3d 244 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 594 [2004]). The witness expressly stated the basis of his knowledge, which was that he had personally been threatened. Finally, the witness’s statements were excited utterances, another factor enhancing their reliability *(see People v Govantes,*297 AD2d 551, 552 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 558 [2002]).

Moreover, at the time the police stopped defendant, it was reasonable for them to expect that the witness would remain at the scene and ultimately become a complainant. They did not find out until later that the witness had departed. It was only the urgency of the situation that prevented the police from obtaining the witness’s name and contact information *(see People v*Harris, 175 AD2d 713, 715 [1991], *lv denied*79 NY2d 827 [1991]).

Even assuming the police had only reasonable suspicion to justify a forcible detention, but not probable cause to arrest, they did not arrest defendant until after he resisted a frisk and a pistol fell to the ground in the course of the struggle. We have *421considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 Nos. 333-1502, 333-31047) pertaining to the 1985 Incentive Stock
Option Plan, the 1994 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the 1995 Director Stock
Option Plan, the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1995 Stock Option Plan
and non-statutory stock options granted to directors and officers of IDX Systems
Corporation and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-31045)
pertaining to the PHAMIS, Inc. Amended and Restated 1983 Combined Nonqualified
and Incentive Stock Option Plan, the PHAMIS, Inc. 1993 Combined Incentive and
Nonqualified Stock Option Plan as amended through May 14, 1996, the PHAMIS Inc.
1994 Nonemployee Director Stock Option Plan as amended through January 1, 1996,
the PHAMIS, Inc. Salary Savings and Deferral Plan and Trust as amended through
February 22, 1996 and the PHAMIS, Inc. Cain Option Agreement, of our report
dated February 3, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of IDX Systems Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-
K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.



                                                               Ernst & Young LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 1998
Exhibit A 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 667-1 Filed: 05/16/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:9624
1

Croswell, Katherine E.

From: Anderson, Kimball R.

Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 2:56 PM

To: Croswell, Katherine E.

Subject: FW: for settlement discussions

From: Kirsch, Thomas L. 

Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 12:36 PM 

To: Cohen, Jonathan (jcohen2@ftc.gov) 

Cc: Anderson, Kimball R. 

Subject: for settlement discussions 

Jonathan, 

I am writing following our conversations on Tuesday night and Friday morning. During those conversations, 

we discussed the manner in which Trudeau could purge a possible contempt finding in light of the bankruptcy 

and in light our position that he does not have the ability to pay (which I know that you disagree with). In 

summary, from those conversations, I believe that the FTC’s position in the event of a contempt finding would 

be that Trudeau must provide a complete accounting of his assets, including any entities that the court finds that 

he controls, to purge any contempt finding (assuming that he cannot pay the judgment). Trudeau agrees to 

provide that accounting. You and I briefly discussed the process by which that could be achieved, which 

included bringing in a third party accountant/audit that we could both agree upon to do the accounting. 

Pursuant to our conversations, will you please provide me with a list of entities (even if it’s a preliminary list) as 

soon as possible that the FTC would want included in such an accounting? I will work on identifying a list of 

accountants/auditors that can do this work (unless you already have such a list). 

I am hopeful that after such an accounting is complete, we will be in agreement as to what assets Trudeau has or 

does not have to satisfy the judgment. 

Thanks. 

Tom 

Thomas Kirsch 

D: +1 (312) 558-3220 

M: +1 (312) 375-0798 

www.winston.com

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 667-1 Filed: 05/16/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:9625
#### Smith *v.*Johnson & Company.

June 23, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Hawkins. Laurens superior court. May 23, 1914.

*J. S. Adams,*for plaintiff in error. *Davis & Sturgis,*contra.

Beck, J.

There being no exception to the charge of the court nor to any ruling made pending the trial, and the evidence being sufficient to support the verdict, the judgment refusing a new trial will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 99.15a


[RYDER SCOTT LOGO]  RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                    ----------------------
                    PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS                     FAX (713) 651-0849

1100 LOUISIANA          SUITE 3800      HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218
                                         TELEPHONE (713) 651-9191





           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

      As independent oil and gas consultants, Ryder Scott Company, L.P. hereby
consents to: (a) the use of our report setting forth our estimates of proved
reserves and future revenue, as of December 31, 2001, to the interest of
Tengasco, Inc. (Tengasco) in certain oil and gas properties, and (b) all
references to our firm included in or made a part of Tengasco's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.



                                        /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
                                        ----------------------------
                                        RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
April 3, 2002









<TABLE>
<S>                               <C>                               <C>                     <C>
1100, 530 - 8th AVENUE, S.W.      CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 3S8         TEL (403) 262-2799      FAX (403) 262-2790
600 17TH STREET, SUITE 1610N      DENVER, COLORADO 80202-5416       TEL (303) 623-9147      FAX (303) 623-4258
</TABLE>
#### PIRONG, Respondent, v. S Y R A C U S E LIGHTING CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Mary E'. Pirong, as administratrix, etc., against the Syracuse Lighting Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:13
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:15
Case: 1:02-cv-08044 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/02 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:16
#### John Gooding, Junior, Administrator *de bonis non*of John Gooding, deceased, Appellant, *v.*Charles Oliver and Robert M. Gibbes, Executors of Robert Oliver, deceased.

The decision in the preceding case, of Williams, administrator of Williams *v.*Oliver’s executors, again affirmed.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland.

In its' leading features, it was identical with the preceding case of Williams, administrator of Williams, against the same defendants.

Oliver had purchased Gooding’s share in the Mexican Company, from Winchester, the trustee in insolvency, which was passed upon by the Baltimore county court and the Maryland court of appeals, under the same circumstances and at the same time with the preceding ease.

Gooding died intestaté, on the 15th of February, 1839, and John Glenn administered upon his estate on the 15th of February, 1852. John Gooding, Junior, the appellant, afterwards became the administrator *de bonis non.*

The circuit court dismissed the bill filed by the appellant, and it was argued in this court together with the preceding case.

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland.

The case involves the same questions, and is in all respects the same, as the case of the administrator of Williams against the executors of Oliver, just decided.

The decree of the court below is therefore reversed, and the case remanded to the court below.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, Mr. Justice McLEAN, and Mr.. Justice DANIEL, dissented.

*275For the opinions of Mr. Chief Justice Taney and Mr. Justice Daniel, see the preceding case of Williams, administrator of Williams, *v.*Gibbes and Oliver, executors of Robert Oliver, deceased.

*Order.*

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said circuit court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed with costs, and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court for further proceedings to be had therein, in conformity to the opinion of this court.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1495** 
JUSTIN DICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; FAOUR CLEMENT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated , Plaintiffs

– Appellants , and DAVID A. GARCIA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

v. CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION; SCOT WINGO; DAVID SPITZ; JOHN BAULE , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. ( 5:15

- cv - 00307

- F )

Submitted : November 1, 2016 Decided: November 30, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jacob A. Goldberg, Gonen Haklay, ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania; James A. Roberts, III, LEWIS & ROBERTS, PLLC,2 Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Lyle Roberts, COOLEY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Justin Dice and Faour Clement appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint alleging violations of Se ctions 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 , 15
U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a) (2012). We review de novo a district
court ’ s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), accepting factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all

reason able inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep ’ t v. Montgomery Cty. , 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient “ facts to state a claim to relief th at is plausible on its face. ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “Under Section 10(b) of the Act, companies are prohibited from using any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the sale of a security in viola tion of [Securities and Exchange Commission] rules.” Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int’l, Ltd. , 780 F.3d 597, 605 (4th Cir. 2015). Rule 10b

- 5 in turn prohibits making any untrue statement of a material fact. Id. (citing 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b

- 5(b)). To stat e a claim for violation of § 10(b), a plaintiff must establish: “(1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance4 upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the Appellants’ complai nt. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1165

To apply rules regarding the conduct of meetings and recordkeeping under

the Federal Advisory Committee Act to the Social Security Advisory

Board, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 11, 1997

Mr. GRASSLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To apply rules regarding the conduct of meetings and recordkeeping under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to

the Social Security Advisory Board, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Social Security Advi5 sory Board Sunshine Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that—
2

•S 1165 IS

1 (1) the Social Security Advisory Board has a

2 vital mission to advise the Commissioner of Social

3 Security, Congress, and the President on the future

4 direction of the Social Security Administration;

5 (2) the Advisory Board has a responsibility to

6 ensure that future social security policy continues to

7 provide a basic level of economic protection for retir8 ees, the disabled, and their dependents; and

9 (3) the Advisory Board must conduct its activi10 ties and operations in the open, with public notice,

11 and with disclosure of information to the fullest ex12 tent possible.

13 SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF FACA TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADVI14 SORY BOARD.

15 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 703(h) of the Social Secu16 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 903(h)) is amended to read as follows:

17 ‘‘Federal Advisory Committee Act

18 ‘‘(h) The Board shall be subject to sections 10, 11,

19 and 12(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5

20 U.S.C. App.).’’

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

22 subsection (a) shall apply to meetings occurring after the

23 date of enactment of this Act.
3

•S 1165 IS

1 SEC. 4. COMPENSATION FOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEM2 BERS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 703(f) of the Social Secu4 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 903(f)) is amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘Compensation

6 ‘‘(f) Members of the Board—

7 ‘‘(1) shall each receive compensation at a rate

8 of not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual

9 rate of basic pay payable for positions at GS–15 of

10 the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5,

11 United States Code, for each day such member is

12 engaged in the actual performance of the duties of

13 the Board, and

14 ‘‘(2) while serving on business of the Board

15 away from their homes or regular places of business,

16 may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem

17 in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703

18 of title 5 of such Code for persons in the Govern19 ment employed intermittently.’’

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

21 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of enactment

22 of this Act.

Æ
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
 Crop Genetics and Breeding Research: Tifton, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Southeast Biomass Research Center
                    Forage & Turf ResearchSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Tifton, Georgia Crop Genetics and Breeding Research People & Locations







Shannon  Atkinson
                        Crop Genetics and Breeding Research

                        




                        
                        Agricultural Science Research Technician (Plants)
                        Phone: (229) 386-7253
                        
                        
                        Fax: (229) 391-3701(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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