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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 13, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), R Consortium, Inc. (“R Consortium”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA; and Moore Foundation, Palo Alto, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and R Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On September 15, 2015, R Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 2, 2015 (80 FR 59815).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 22, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 8, 2021 (86 FR 18323).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2021-19038 Filed 9-2-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
MF/Pro Se 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

LANCE ALLEN BRITTON, 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 

 v. 

 

KLAMATH COUNTY; et al., 

 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 17-35325 

 

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-02086-CL 

District of Oregon, 

Medford 

 

ORDER

Before: REINHARDT, CALLAHAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over 

this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) 

(order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or judgment 

is entered in compliance with rule). 

DISMISSED. 

FILED

MAY 16 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 

Case 1:15-cv-02086-CL Document 42 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-1356

PATRICIA UCHEOMA EGEKWU, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

No. 07-2050

PATRICIA UCHEOMA EGEKWU, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: May 19, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 
Petitions denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished 

per curiam opinion. 

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Daniel 

Glenn Lonergan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

 Patricia Ucheoma Egekwu, a native and citizen of 

Nigeria, petitions for review of orders of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judge’s 

denial of her applications for relief from removal, and denying 

her motion to reopen and reconsider. 

 Egekwu first challenges the determination that she 

failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal 

of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien 

“must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that 

no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear 

of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 

(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that Egekwu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary 

result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, she cannot meet 

the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. 

INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 

480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 

 We likewise uphold the finding below that Egekwu 

failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she 

would be tortured if removed to Nigeria. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). Though Egekwu also challenges the 

denial of cancellation of removal, we do not have jurisdiction 

to review the finding below that Egekwu failed to demonstrate 

3 
4 

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying 

relative in order to demonstrate eligibility for that relief. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 

F.3d 475, 481-82 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 

431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005). Finally, we find no abuse of 

discretion in the Board’s decision to deny Egekwu’s motion to 

reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009). 

 Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the 

petitions for review. 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. 

PETITIONS DENIED IN PART

AND DISMISSED IN PART
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

Certain identified information has been excluded from this exhibit because it is both (i) not material and (ii) would likely cause
competitive harm to the registrant if publicly disclosed. Such excluded information has been marked with [Redacted: Commercially Sensitive Information] 
  





 
 May 11, 2020 
 Village Farms
International 
 90 Colonial Center Parkway, 
 Lake Mary,
Florida 32746 
 Attention: Stephen Ruffini, Chief Financial Officer 

Dear Sir, 
 Re: Loan #0000545874000 

As per our recent email correspondence and telephone discussions, the captioned loan was renewed with an effective date of May 1, 2020 as
follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 Term is 5 years, maturity date is now set at April 1st,
2025. 


  

	 	•	 	 Remaining amortization is currently 9 years and 9 months, ending on February 1st, 2030. 


  

	 	•	 	 Interest rate is 4.574%, Variable open. This is based on CIBC LIBOR rates, which are reset on a quarterly basis.



  

	 	•	 	 Monthly payments are currently set at $374,623.36. 



 

	 	•	 	 [Redacted: Commercially Sensitive Information] 



 

	 	•	 	 [Redacted: Commercially Sensitive Information] 



 

	 	•	 	 [Redacted: Commercially Sensitive Information] 



Any questions regarding the above can be directed to the undersigned. 

Sincerely, 
  





 

Bill Moore 

Senior Relationship Manager 

Corporate and Senior Accounts 

FCC Agribusiness and Agri-Food 

Western Region 

Farm Credit Canada 
 18110-2618 Hopewell Place NE 

Calgary, Alberta T1Y 7J7 
 Tel/Tél. : (403) 292-5799 Cell. : (587) 436-6047 

bill.moore@fcc.ca 

www.fcc.ca/food 
 www.fcc.ca/agribusiness 

Dream. Grow. Thrive.
Order entered November 19, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01140-CR

MANUEL CORTEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-30535-T

ORDER

The reporter’s record has been filed in this appeal, but the clerk’s record has not been 

filed. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s 

record within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CELIA LOCKWOOD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-1659 ) HMC Assets, LLC, solely in its capacity as ) separate trustee of Community ) Development II Trust, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 10, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Perry A. Little, Senior Judge. Inger M. Garcia, of Florida Litigation Group, P.A., Davie, for Appellant. Harris Howard of Howard Law Group, Hollywood, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. VILLANTI, LUCAS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1670 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1670

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 4, 2016

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To direct the Architect of the Capitol to place in the United States 
 Capitol a chair honoring American Prisoners of War/Missing in Action.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National POW/MIA Remembrance Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) In recent years, commemorative chairs honoring American 
        Prisoners of War/Missing in Action have been placed in 
        prominent locations across the United States.
            (2) The United States Capitol is an appropriate location to 
        place a commemorative chair honoring American Prisoners of War/
        Missing in Action.

SEC. 3. PLACEMENT OF A CHAIR IN UNITED STATES CAPITOL HONORING AMERICAN 
              PRISONERS OF WAR/MISSING IN ACTION.

    (a) Obtaining Chair.--The Architect of the Capitol shall enter into 
an agreement to obtain a chair featuring the logo of the National 
League of POW/MIA Families under such terms and conditions as the 
Architect considers appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
    (b) Placement.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Architect shall place the chair obtained under 
subsection (a) in a suitable permanent location in the United States 
Capitol.

SEC. 4. FUNDING.

    (a) Donations.--The Architect of the Capitol may--
            (1) enter into an agreement with any organization described 
        in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that 
        is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of that Code to 
        solicit private donations to carry out the purposes of this 
        Act; and
            (2) accept donations of funds, property, and services to 
        carry out the purposes of this Act.
    (b) Costs.--All costs incurred in carrying out the purposes of this 
Act shall be paid for with private donations received under subsection 
(a).

            Passed the House of Representatives March 21, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# L_2009173EN.01001001.xml

| 3.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 173/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/10

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 22 June 2009

on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India on certain aspects of air services

(2009/516/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Council authorised the Commission on 5 June 2003 to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Council authorised the Commission on 5 June 2003 to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

| (2) | On behalf of the Community, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India on certain aspects of air services (1) (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On behalf of the Community, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India on certain aspects of air services (1) (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

| (3) | The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 28 September 2008 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2008/797/EC (2). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 28 September 2008 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2008/797/EC (2).

| (4) | The Agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 7(1) of the Agreement.

Done at Luxembourg, 22 June 2009.

For the Council

The President

J. ŠEBESTA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 273, 15.10.2008, p. 9.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 273, 15.10.2008, p. 7.

2

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0330

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRADLEY MEFFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Following entry of this Court’s September 27, 2022 Opinion 

reversing and vacating the conviction, Defendant and Appellant 

Bradley Mefford has moved for immediate remittitur. Mefford 

represents that the State of Montana does not oppose this motion. Good 

cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that remittitur shall issue immediately.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 30 2022

09/30/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0330
TECHNICAL WORK GROUP

Ground Rules for Meetings

1. Arrive on time

2. Commit to full participation

3. Do homework before class begins

4. Keep your representatives informed

5. Take private meetings outside

6. Wait to be recognized

7. Show respect for others

8. Be concise

9. Stick to the topic

10. Save new business for the appointed time

11. Help keep the meeting on schedule
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
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research People & Locations







Judith  Herreid
                        Pest Management Research

                        




                        
                        POST DOC
                        Phone: (406) 433-9412
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6760
THERON JOHNNY MAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN ASKINS, Nurse at Kirkland Correctional Institution; F. WILLIAMS, Nurse at Kirkland Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Caro lina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-782-3-6BC) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint for failing to comply with a pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Maxton v. Askins , No. CA96-782-3-6BC (D.S.C. Apr. 17, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### STERRIT v. FLANNERY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 8, 1896.)

Landlord and Tenant—-Action for Rent.

The owner ot leased premises is entitled to the rent, though the lease was under seal, and was executed in the name of the-owner’s agent as lessor; and therefore a receiver of such nominal lessor cannot recover the rent reserved on the ground that an action on a sealed' instrument may be brought only by and against the parties named in it

Appeal from Orange county court.

*350The question involved in this action is not whether any person other than the lessor can maintain an action upon the lease, but it is whether the rent reserved by the lease belonged to the lessor, or to the owner of the premises, for whom he acted as agent. It cannot be disputed that, if the lessor had collected the. rent, an action in favor of the principal could have been maintained against him to recover it. This being so, and all the parties to the transaction having conceded the right of the plaintiff to the rent, she cannot be deprived of it by á stranger to the transaction, under a technical rule of pleading which requires an action to be brought upon a sealed instrument by and against the parties named in it. Judgment for the defendant, with costs.

Action by Louis S. Sterrit, as receiver in supplementary proceedings of W. H. Vance, a judgment debtor, against Frank Flannery, to recover the rent of a farm, which said judgment debtor had leased to defendant by a writing under seal, in which he described himself as lessor, though the farm belonged to Hannah A. Vance, his wife. Before the action was brought, defendant paid the rent sued for to said Hannah A. Vance. Plaintiff obtained a judgment in the justice’s court for the rent sued for. The justice’s judgment was reversed by the county court, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

The opinion of County Judge BEATTIE is as follows:

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and BRADLEY, JJ.

John Miller, for appellant.

A. H. F. Seeger, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of the county judge.