alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 59,                         *Accounting and Reporting of Government Land.*

# ADDRESSES:

                        The issuance is available on the FASAB website at                         *https://fasab.gov/​accounting-standards/​.*                         Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

*Authority:*31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app.), and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, as amended in October 2010.                    

Dated: August 9, 2021.

Monica R. Valentine,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2021-17798 Filed 8-18-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

Arctic Products Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales 

BMAC Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales 

British Syphon Industries Ltd., a company registered inEngland and Wales 

Catalina Industries, Inc. (formerly Dana Lighting, Inc.), a Florida corporation 

Catalina International Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales 

Catalina Lighting Canada (1992), Inc., a Quebec corporation 

Catalina Merchandising, Inc., a Floridacorporation 

Go-Gro Industries, Limited, a Hong Kong company 

Catalina Asia Limited (formerly Go-Gro Limited), a Hong Kong company 

Graystone Ring Ltd., a companyregistered in England and Wales 

Grove Products (Caravan Accessories) Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales 

Jiadianbao Electrical Products Company (Shenzhen) Co., Limited (“JES”), a Chinese wholly-owned foreign entity 

Hovekey Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales 

Lancer Products Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales 

Lighten Point Corporation Europe Ltd., a company registered inEngland and Wales 

Marshall’s Universal Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales 

Newton Mill Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales 

PH Products Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales 

Ring Group Ltd., a company registered in Englandand Wales 

Ring Lamp Company Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales 

Ring Limited, a company registered in England and Wales 

Ring Parts Ltd., a companyregistered in England and Wales 

Van-Line Ltd., a company registered in England and Wales
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Brooks, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record shows that the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, argued with the decedent and twice fired a shotgun loaded with deer slugs, striking decedent at close range. Under these circumstances, the jury was entitled to find that because of his intoxication, defendant lacked the intent to kill, yet he recklessly caused the death of the victim under "circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life” (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]; *see, People v Register,*60 NY2d 270; *People v Kanelos,*107 AD2d 764, *Iv denied*65 NY2d 817). It was not necessary for the prosecutor to show that defendant’s conduct put many lives in danger *(see, People v Robinson,*43 AD2d 963).

The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the shotgun cartridge found in defendant’s automobile. The cartridge seized was found in plain view when the police rightfully towed the automobile because it was illegally parked and bore illegal license plates.

The statement made by defendant to the arresting officers was spontaneous and, therefore, admissible even though the defendant had not been advised of his constitutional right to remain silent. It cannot be said that the officer’s remark, which immediately preceded the defendant’s statement, "should reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a declaration from the defendant”. *(People v Lynes,*49 NY2d 286, 295; *see also, People v Rivers,*56 NY2d 476.)

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that errors committed during the trial require reversal. The Trial Justice did not exceed his authority in questioning one of the witnesses *(see, People v De Jesus,*42 NY2d 519). His questioning was *973brief and he did not suggest to the jury his belief concerning the credibility of the answers. The prosecutor’s remark on summation that the defendant did not testify was not prejudicial. Defense counsel had already asked the Judge to instruct the jury concerning the effect of the failure of defendant to take the witness stand *(see,*CPL 60.15 [2]; 300.10 [2]) and the Trial Justice cured the error by instructing the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s remark and to draw no inference adverse to defendant because of his failure to testify. By his remark, the prosecutor did not suggest that any inference should be drawn adverse to the defendant and he gave the jury no more information than they received from the Judge in his instructions. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J—murder, second degree, and criminal possession of weapon, fourth degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Pine, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EXPROFUELS,
INC.  UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1997 AND 
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001034651
<NAME>                        EXPROFUELS, INC.
                                 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         53445
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  238811
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10000
<INVENTORY>                                    358408
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               666786
<PP&E>                                         512014
<DEPRECIATION>                                 291436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 929439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1484839
<BONDS>                                        509186
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       40000
<OTHER-SE>                                     1104586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   929439
<SALES>                                        360381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               360381
<CGS>                                          419931
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  698772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             13959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (352122)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (352122)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (352122)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.09)                                  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.09)
        



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 

Misc. Docket No. 14-9088 

DENIAL OF REQUEST TO 

TRANSFER CASES FROM THE 

SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

The Supreme Court denies the request to transfer the following cases from the Seventh Court 

of Appeals District, Amarillo, Texas: 

Case Numbers: 07-13-00051-CV and 07-13-00401-CV 

In Re R Wayne Johnson, Relator 

ORDERED in Chambers, 

With the Seal thereof affixed at the City 

of Austin, this _!: day of April, 2014 

B�A.\-t� 

BLAKE HAWTHORNE, CLERK 

, 

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE ACCOMPAYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                                 284
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       11,162
<ALLOWANCES>                                           311
<INVENTORY>                                            436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    13,832
<PP&E>                                              26,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                       5,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      67,428
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                8,795
<BONDS>                                             23,286
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 9
<OTHER-SE>                                          24,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        35,347
<SALES>                                             27,865
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    29,422
<CGS>                                               21,030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       27,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         9
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        692
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    692
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           692
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.08



</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 28, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 05-16738

Non-Argument Calendar

_____________

D.C. Docket No. 04-00892-CV-ORL-31-JGG

KEVIN H. HUDSON, an individual,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER NEGOTIATIONS, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

____________

(April 28, 2006)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant-plaintiff Kevin H. Hudson (Hudson) appeals the district court’s

grant of summary judgment in favor of International Computer Negotiations, Inc.

(ICN) and against Hudson’s claims arising under the Employee Retirement and

Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (ERISA), the Florida Civil Rights

Act, Fl. Stat. § 760, et seq. (FCRA), as well as a state law claim for negligent

misrepresentation. After carefully reviewing the record on appeal and reading the

parties’ briefs, we affirm this appeal for the reasons stated in the district court’s

thorough and well-reasoned order dated November 16, 2005, finding that

Hudson’s “utter inability to support his claims” made them “little more than

frivolous.”

AFFIRMED.
#### Grusin *v.*Old Springs Distilling Company.

January 13, 1915.

Evans, P. J.

In a suit to recover the price of whisky it appeared that the agent of a wholesale whisky dealer solicited and took an order from the defendant at his place of business, at Augusta, Georgia, for the sale of a certain quantity of whisky. The agent sent the order to his principal in another State, who testified: “This order was received through the mail by us on December 31st, 1910, from our salesman, O’Connor. The order was in no way conditional, but a straight order for the goods. The order was accepted at Cincinnati, Ohio, and the goods shipped to defendant, , . marked and consigned to J. Grusin [the defendant], c/o. People Transfer Company, Augusta, Ga. The order was taken at Augusta, Ga., but we concluded the transaction in Cincinnati, Ohio.” The seller paid the freight charges in advance, and the goods were delivered to the defendant at his place of business by the transfer company. *Held,*that the sale was in violation of the prohibition law of this State, and there can be no recovery by the plaintiff. Bogel *v.*State, 42 Tex. Cr. 389 (55 S. W. 830) ; Julius Winkelmeyer Brewing Asso. *v.*Nipp, 6 Kan. App. 730 (50 Pac. 956) ; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 742.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*

*26Complaint. Before Judge Hammond. Richmond superior court. November 14, 1913.

*Isaac 8. Peebles Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7061

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE BRETON-PICHARDO, a/k/a Rolando Berberena,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, 

District Judge. (5:03-cr-70006-SGW-9)

Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: September 30, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Breton-Pichardo, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Jeb 

Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrisonburg, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Breton-Pichardo appeals the district court’s orders 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Breton-Pichardo, No. 5:03-cr-70006-SGW9 (W.D. Va. May 28, 2015; June 24, 2015). 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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 2065

In re: LINWOOD EARL DUFFIE , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh . ( 5:20

- ct

- 03229

- FL )

Submitted : November 16 , 2023 Decided: November 21, 2023

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD , Senior Circuit Judge

.
Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Linwood Earl Duffie, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2065 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Linwood Earl Duffie petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to allow Duffie to amend his complaint in the underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and to liberally construe that complaint

. Duffie has also filed a motion asking that

we issue a preliminary injunction ordering the United States Attorney General “to serve his full civil and criminal investigation” into the North Carolina Legislature’s “conspir[acy] to cause [the] habitual felon class to complete unlawful enhanc ed sentence[s] during [the] . . . pandemic.” (ECF No. 7 at 1). We deny the requested relief. As to the mandamus petition, m andamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

- Brown, LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018)

. M andamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up). F urther, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief that Duffie seeks is not available by way of mandamus , and he otherwise fails to establish a clear right to the relief he seeks. We therefore deny the mandamus petition. Next, w e conclude that Duffie’s motion for a preliminary injunction fails to satisfy the stringent requirements necessary for the requested relief. See Miranda v. Garland , 34 F.4th 338, 358 (4th Cir. 2022) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities ti ps in his favor, and that an USCA4 Appeal: 23-2065 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 injunction is in the public interest.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, w e also deny the motion for a preliminary injunction. 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.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-2065 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/21/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Brandon R., an Infant. Chrystal R., Appellant; Children’s Aid Society, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 23]—

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2010, which, following a fact-finding hearing, determined that respondent mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights to the child, and transferred custody and guardianship to petitioner and the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record amply demonstrates the diligent efforts by petitioner agency to assist respondent in overcoming her lifelong drug abuse problems, including repeated relapses, mental health concerns, and resistance to the Agency’s efforts *(see Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368, 385 [1984]). The record also amply demonstrates that respondent permanently neglected the child by her failure to plan for his future. Respondent’s drug addiction and antisocial personality disorder impeded her ability to care for the child, who has profound special needs, and she admitted that she regularly sent him to school dirty, unkempt, smelling of urine, and with a sore on his head, when he was in her care.

*654The court properly determined that it is in the child’s best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights given her inability to overcome her deficiencies as a parent in the approximately three years since placement.

We have considered respondent’s additional arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of CHS Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K/A-2 for the fiscal
year ended August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, John Schmitz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






| |                                                                                                                                                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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.



| |                                                         
| | --------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ JOHN SCHMITZ                                        
| |                                                         
| | John Schmitz                                            
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
    Officer




February 13, 2004
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Cour an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this

Cour's general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by Local Rules 83.12 through

83.14.

In the Matter of

Beal, et al. v. City of Chicago, et aL.

Case Number: 04-2039

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

(In the space below, enter the name of the par or paries being represented)

The Estate of John Risley

NAME (Type or print)

Richard T. Sikes, Jr.

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signatue if the appearance form is fied electronically)

s/Rchard T. Sikes, Jr.

FIRM

Freeborn & Peters LLP

STREET ADDRESS

311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000

CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP

Chicago, Ilinois 60606

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUER

3128217 (312) 360-6000

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? (Enter "Y" or "N") Y

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? (Enter "Y" or "N") N

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT'S TRIAL BAR? (Enter "Y" or "N") Y

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNY? (Enter "Y" or "N") Y

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, USE AN "X" TO DESCRIBE YOUR STATUS IN THIS CASE.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL

Case: 1:04-cv-02039 Document #: 251 Filed: 03/25/09 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3021