alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### United States *v.*Strickland.

*Circuit Court, S. D. Georgia.*

November 10, 1885.)

1. Criminal Law—Violation of Internal Bevenue Laws—Information for Selling Tobacco.

Ad affidavit stating that a party on trial “ sold tobacco ” will not support an information charging the accused with carrying on the business of a retail dealer in tobacco without paying the special tax.

*2.*Same—Affidavit.

Such an affidavit, to authorize an information, must conform substantially to the language of the statute alleged to be violated; certainly it must plainly distinguish the offense.

Violation of Section 3242, Rev. St.

*Lester & Ravencl,*for defendant.

*S. A. Darnell,*Dist. Atty., *contra.*

Speer, J.

.The prisoner is charged by information filed by the district attorney with the offense of carrying on the business of a dealer in manufactui'ed tobacco, without paying the special tax as required by law. The information is based on an affidavit made before a commissioner of the court, in which affidavit it is stated that the prisoner “sold tobacco without paying the special tax,” etc. A motion to quasli the information is made for the reason that no offense is sufficiently stated in the affidavit on which the information is based. The power of the district attorney to file informations against tho citizen should not be enlarged by a lax enforcement of the rules of practico. The rule in this district has been always to require the affidavit which is the basis of the information, substantially to conform to the language of the statute alleged to have been violated. This rule is practical, intelligible, and reasonable. Certainly the affidavit should clearly distinguish tho offense. Here the prisoner might be at a loss to understand, so far as the affidavit has informed him, whether he is to be tried as a wholesale or a retail dealer in tobacco, or whether the prosecution relies on a single sale or many sales. The evidence in a prosecution for this offense must show that it was *the business*of the party charged to *sell*or offer for sale tobacco, etc. Act March 1,1879, § 4. The affidavit should have stated that he “carried on the business, ” and, failing to do this, the information depending upon it must be quashed.
GHINEW. YORK.

World Financial Center
One North End Avenue, 13) Floor
New York, New York 10282

BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

Amended 06-28
November 10, 2006
Ms. Eileen A. Donovan
Acting Secretary of the Commission .
Office of the Secretariat :
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre =
1155 21* Street, NW —
Washington, DC 20581

Re: Amendments to Rules 4.09, 21.02 and 21.25 -
Submission Pursuant to Section 5e(c)(1) of the Act and Regulation 40.6

Dear Ms. Donovan:

Yesterday, the Board of Trade of the City of New York, Inc. (“Exchange”) submitted, by
written certification, amendments to Rules 4.09, 21.02 and 21.25, in accordance with Section
5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and Commission Regulation 40.6. The
Submission contained an error with respect to amended Rule 21.02. The underlined portion of
paragraph (e) should have read, “or a violation of Rule 4.25(b) for which the Floor Committee
has not taken any action” and the words “‘in accordance with Rule 21.25(b)(i)(A)(21)” should not
have been included. A corrected version of the rule amendment is attached as Exhibit A.

The Exchange certifies that the amendments comply with the requirements of the
Commodity Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 212-748-4084.
Sincerely,
Jill S. Fassler
Vice President
Associate General Counsel
cc: Riva Adriance

CFTC, Division of Market Oversight
Allen Cooper


CFTC, New York Regional Office
(In the text of the amendments below, additions are underlined.)

Rule 21.02. Compliance Staff — Powers and Duties

+ ok Ok

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (d) of this Rule, if in any case, the Vice President
concludes that a violation of any trading card or order ticket record keeping rule, or a violation of Rule
4.25(b) for which the Floor Committee has not taken any action may have occurred, the Vice President
may impose a summary fine of no more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) after one (1) warning letter
has been issued to the Member for the same violation. The authority to impose such a summary fine does
not limit the Vice President’s authority to refer the matter to the BCC instead of imposing a summary
fine. A summary fine imposed in accordance with this paragraph shall become final and effective and
payment shall become due and owing to the Exchange fifteen (15) calendar days after the Member
receives the fine.

[REMAINDER OF RULE UNCHANGED]
EXHIBIT A
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL T. DEL VILLAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-74729

Agency No. A092-344-537

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Manuel T. Del Villar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

SEP 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-74729

We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder,

584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. 

Del Villar does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1992 conviction for

lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California

Penal Code § 288(a). 

The agency determined that Del Villar is ineligible for relief under former

section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of

removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See

8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5). Del Villar’s legal and constitutional challenges to this

determination are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207, 1208 n.7

(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 

Del Villar is ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(h), because he was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission as

a lawful permanent resident. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050,

1055 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

I, Marcus Feder, ChiefFinancial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer), certify that this annualreport on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained hereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Vital Living, Inc. and its subsidiaries for the periodspresented.

 

 
| Date:  March 30, 2004 |                            | /s/ Marcus Feder |   |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------|--------|
|                       | Marcus Feder                    |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer         |
|                       | (Principal Accounting  Officer) |

 

----
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 4 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 4 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 4 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 4 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 4 of 4
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Part 1 
          - [REG-105801-00] 
          - RIN 1545-AX92 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. 

# SUMMARY:

This document provides notice of cancellation of a public hearing on proposed regulations that clarify the application of the straddle rules to a variety of financial instruments. 

# DATES:

The public hearing originally scheduled for May 22, 2001, at 10 a.m., is cancelled. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Treena Garrett of the Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization & Strategic Planning), (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the                     **Federal Register**                     on Thursday, January 18, 2001, (66 FR 4746), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, May 22, 2001, at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is proposed regulations under sections 1092 and 263(g) of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these proposed regulations expired on May 1, 2001.                 

The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Tuesday, May 8, 2001, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, May 22, 2001, is cancelled. 

Cynthia E. Grigsby, 

Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization and Strategic Planning). 

[FR Doc. 01-12222 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
exhibit1006.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

      Farm Credit of Southwest Florida

       

    


    September
8, 2010

     

    Mr.
Patrick Murphy

    P.O. Box
338 

    LaBelle,
Florida 33975-0338

     

    
      	
               

            	
              Re:
      Final Estopel Letter for September 8,2010 

                   
      Alico, Inc 

                   
      Loan # 457846-004-002

                             
      # 457846-006-000

                    

            


    

    Dear Mr.
Murphy:

     

    The
payoffs as of September 8, 2010 for the above referenced loans are shown below.
The prepayment penalty has been revised to reflect the amount as of September
8,2010 A breakdown of the payoffs is as follows:

     

              

     

    
      	
                                                                                                                                                                                             
      RLOC

            	 Term Loan
	
              Loan
      Number

            	
              457846-004-002

            	
              457846-006-000

               

            
	
              Principal
      Balance

            	
              $
      26,102,435.00

            	
              $
      41,995,856.91

                                                 
      

            
	
              Interest

            	
                  $
      114,203.20 

            	
              $ 539,053.93

               

            
	
              Prepayment
      Penalty

            	 
      	
              $
3,093,971.69

               

            
	
              Total

            	
              $
      26,216,638.20

            	
              $
      45,628,882.53

               

            
	
              Per
      Diem

            	
              $
    1877.229699

            	
              $ 7812.375872

               

            
	
              Combined
      Total

            	
              $
      71,845.520.73

            	 
      


    

     

     

    If you
have any questions, please call.

     

     

     

     

    /S/ Greg
Carlton

    Vice
President

     

    330 North
Brevard Avenue I Arcadia.
Florida 34266

    Phone
(800) 307-5677 or (863) 494-0500 1 Fax (8631 494-6460 or (863)
494-51 14 1
www.FarmCredit5WFL.com
Exhibit 32.2

# Certification Pursuant
to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Woodhead Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending July 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Robert H. Fisher, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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/ Robert H.
FisherRobert H. FisherChief Financial
OfficerAugust 9, 2005

This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

---
NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 13a0223n.06 Case No. 11- 6254 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT
BET INA CAR

VER HOWARD, et al. , P laintif fs-App ellants,

v. SMITH COUNTY, TE NNESSE E, et al. , Defendan ts-Appellees.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FR OM THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESS EE

BEFOR E: BA TC HE LD ER , C hi e f Circuit Judge; COLE, Circuit Judge; and ROSEN, District Judge. * ALICE M. B ATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge. Appellant Be tina Howar d was a passeng er in a car driven by her brother, J immy Carver

. Whil e attempting to drop Howar d off at her h o m e, C ar v er overshot the drivewa y , made a u-turn in the street, and then pulled into Howar d ’s drivewa y . Moments later, a police car pulled up and the office r approa ched to ask Carver if he had been drinking

. Carver admitted that he had been drinking and ag ree d to a field sobriety test. Whil e t h e o ff i cer was attempting to g ive Carver the test, Howar d stood within two fee t of the office r, y elling and cursing at him. When othe r office rs arr ived, Howar d continued to ha rang ue and arg ue with the first office r, attempting to preve nt him from administering the sobriety test. After numerous

war nings, the office r finally arr ested and handcuf fed Howar d, char g ing her with disorderly conduct, resisting arr est, drug possession, and possession of drug para pherna lia. She was re lease d on bond and the c harg es we re e ventually dismiss ed.

T h e H o n o r a b l e G e r a l d E

. R o s e n , C h i e f U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f M i c h i g a n , *
s i t t i n g b y d e s i g n a t i o n .N o . 1 1

- 6 2 5 4 , H o w a r d , e t a l

. v . S m i t h , e t a l

.

Howar d sued the office r and the city in state court, claiming assault and battery , ag g rava ted assault, false arr est, false imprisonment, malicious prosec ution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, neg lige nt infliction of emotional distress, neg lige nt hir ing, outrag eous conduct, excessive forc e, loss of consortium, and denial of medical trea tment. She raised fede ral constitutional claims for neg lige nt hiring , failure to train and/or supervise, and excessive forc e. The defe ndants remove d
t h e case to fede ral court and, afte r discovery , moved for summary judge ment. The district co u rt g rante d summary judgme n t o n t h e fede ral law claims and rema nded the state law claims to state court. After car efully revie wing the rec ord, the l aw , and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court’s order and opinion corr ectly sets out the applicable law and corr ectly applies that law
to the fac ts in the rec ord. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Ac cording ly , for the r easons state d in the district court’s opinion, we AF F IRM

.

2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27061-27062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12254]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Export Administration (BXA).
    Title: Special Comprehensive License.
    Agency Form Number: BXA-748P, BXA-752.
    OMB Approval Number: 0694-0089.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of 
information.
    Burden: 1,017 hours.
    Average Time Per Response: 50 minutes to 40 hours per response.
    Number of Respondents: 176 respondents.
    Needs and Uses: The SCL Procedure authorizes multiple shipments of 
items from the U.S. or from approved consignees abroad who are approved 
in advance by BXA to conduct the following activities: servicing, 
support services, stocking spare parts, maintenance, capital expansion, 
manufacturing, support scientific data acquisition, reselling and 
reexporting in the form received, and other activities as approved on a 
case-by-case basis.
    Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit 
institutions.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, DOC Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

[[Page 27062]]

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20230.

    Dated: May 10, 2001.
Madeleine Clayton,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 01-12254 Filed 5-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
# C_2018042EN.01003901.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/39

---

Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Star Television Productions v EUIPO — Marc Dorcel (STAR)

(Case T-797/17)

(2018/C 042/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Star Television Productions Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marc Dorcel SA (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘STAR’ — EU trade mark No 1 992 510

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 1519/2016-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | refuse the application for revocation and; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse the application for revocation and;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant in connection with this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant in connection with this appeal.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2017121EN.01004001.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/40

---

Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SANTORO)

(Case T-102/17)

(2017/C 121/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano (San Marzano di San Giuseppe, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and E. Truffo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SANTORO’ — Application for registration No 12 282 141

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 2018/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 misconstruction of the case-law related to the issues in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 misconstruction of the case-law related to the issues in question;

| — | Infringement of Art. 8(5) of Regulation No. 207/2009 and distortion of evidence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 8(5) of Regulation No. 207/2009 and distortion of evidence.

---