alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF RICHMOND COUNTY

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kenneth L. Muse

December 4, 1990

By JUDGE JOSEPH E. SPRUILL, JR.

The conviction of this defendant for driving after having been declared an habitual offender is dependent upon the admission in evidence of a copy of an order of the Northumberland County Circuit Court declaring him an habitual offender in 1985. The order offered by the Commonwealth contains the following certificate:

> A TRUE COPY, TESTE

> J. STEVE THOMAS, SR., CLERK

> BY: *Emily D. Walker*/s/

> Deputy Clerk

Defendant objects to the admission of this document claiming it is not properly authenticated pursuant to Section 8.01-389(A). He relies on *Carroll v. Commonwealth,*10 Va. App. 686, 396 S.E.2d 137 (1990). In *Carroll,*the designation of the person purporting to sign for the clerk was not given, and the Court of Appeals ruled that the document was for that reason not properly authenticated. Thus, the order was inadmissible under § 8.01-389(A).

Here, Emily D. Walker was clearly designated as deputy clerk, thus significantly distinguishing this case from *Carroll.*

The Court of Appeals, in *Owens v. Commonwealth,*10 Va. App. 309, 391 S.E.2d 605 (1990), just recently expressly approved a certification virtually identical to the one *47at issue here, holding that such form was sufficient to "authenticate and certify" the document within the meaning of Code § 8.01-389. Accordingly, we hold that the certification here fulfills the requirements of § 8.01-389.

The defendant next claims that the applicable statute governing the admission of *copies*of court records should be § 8.01-391(B). This statute provides, in part, as follows:

> Section 8.01-391(B). If any . . . clerk’s office of a court of this Commonwealth . . . has copied any record made in the performance of its official duties, such copies shall be as admissible into evidence as the original . . . provided that such copy is authenticated as a true copy both by the custodian of said record and by the person to whom said custodian reports, if they be different, *and*is accompanied by a certificate that such officer does in fact have the custody. (Emphasis added.)

The requirements of this statute are explicit and require certification both as to authenticity and custody.

This situation poses a dilemma for the Court. We are dealing here with a copy of a court record, and in this context, the requirements of § 8.01-391(B) would seem to apply. However, the Court of Appeals twice recently has had almost the precise issue before it and in each case held that § 8.01-389 was the applicable statute. Defendant maintains that the issue he raises here was not before the Court of Appeals in either *Carroll*or *Owens.*We should not assume, however, that the learned judges of the Court of Appeals were not aware of § 8.01-391 when *Carroll*and *Owens*were before them.

The Court of Appeals was explicit in Owens, holding that the statute which deals with the admission of judicial records as evidence is § 8.01-389.

Accordingly, we rule that the Northumberland County order is properly authenticated pursuant to § 8.01-389 and is therefore admissible.
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 Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [AK-962-1410-HY-P; F-19155-1]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, DOI.

# ACTION:

Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Doyon, Limited, for lands in T. 3 N., R. 13 E., Kateel River Meridian, located in the vicinity of Huslia, Alaska, containing approximately 40 acres. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the                         *Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.*

# DATES:

The time limits for filing an appeal are:

1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision, shall have until July 16, 2001 to file an appeal.

2. Parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.

                        Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43                               ( print page 32639)                            CFR part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.                    

# ADDRESSES:

A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Opp, (907) 271-5669.

**Authority:**43 CFR 2650.7(d).                        

Barbara J. Opp,

Land Law Examiner.

[FR Doc. 01-15110 Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: FOX DELUXE FOODS, INC., ROLAND N. GERGEN, HAROLD W. FOX, AND BERT E. FOX 

CITATION: 19 Agric. Dec. 64 

DOCKET NUMBER: 74 

DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1960 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER 

(No. 6353) 

In re Fox DELUXE FOODS, INC., ROLAND N. GERGEN, HAROLD W. FOX, AND BERT E. FOX. 

CEA Docket No. 74. Decided February 5, 1960. 

Stay Order Vacated

The sanctions ordered September 15, 1959 (18 Agric. Dec. 1010 (18 A.D. 

1010)), shall become effective February 10, 1960. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

ORDER

On October 1, 1959, an order was entered in this proceeding (18 Agric. Dec. 

1130 (18 A.D. 1130)) staying the order entered on September 15, 1959 (18 Agric. 

Dec. 1010 (18 A.D. 1010)), pending the outcome of an appeal of the latter order 

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On February 3, 

1960, the respondents, by their attorneys, filed a petition stating that the 

respondents had agreed to dismiss the appeal of the order of September 15, 1959; 

consenting to the sanctions imposed thereby; and requesting that such sanctions 

become effective on February 10, 1960. The Commodity Exchange Authority, by its 

attorney, consented to the respondents' petition. The Judicial Officer has been 

advised that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has 

dismissed the appeal of the order of September 15, 1959. 

Accordingly, the order of September 15, 1959, shall become effective on 

February 10, 1960, and therefore: 

Effective February 10, 1960, the registration of Fox DeLuxe Foods, Inc., as a 

futures commission merchant and the registration of Harold W. Fox as a floor 

broker are revoked, and the registration of Bert E. Fox as a floor broker is 

suspended for a period of three months. 

Effective February 10, 1960, all contract markets shall refuse all trading 

privileges to Fox DeLuxe Foods, Inc., Harold W. Fox, and Roland N. Gergen for a 

period of one year, and to Bert E. Fox for a period of six months, such refusals 

to apply to all trading done and positions held directly and also to all trading 

done and positions held indirectly through persons owned or controlled by any of 

respondents. 

Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties and upon the contract markets. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15132]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Sunshine Act Meeting

June 11, 2001.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 
3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5 
U.S.C. 552B:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME:  June 18, 2001, 1 p.m.
    Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS:  Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Docket No. EL00-95-031, San Diego Gas 
Electric Company V. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Service into 
Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator and the 
California Power Exchange.
    Docket No. EL00-98-030, Investigation of Practices of the 
California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California 
Power Exchange.
    Docket No. RT01-85-001, California Independent System Operator 
Corporation.
    Docket Nos. EL01-68-000 and 001, Investigation of Wholesale Rates 
of Public Utility Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services in the 
Western Systems Coordinating Council.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  David P. Boergers, Secretary, 
Telephone (202) 208-0400.

David P. Boregers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15132 Filed 6-12-01; 11:38 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 147 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 147

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Select Committee on Energy 
 Independence and Global Warming in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2009

 Mr. Markey of Massachusetts submitted the following resolution; which 
         was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Select Committee on Energy 
 Independence and Global Warming in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
Global Warming (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 
``Committee''), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 
shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House of 
Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, not more than 
$4,167,500 for the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $2,096,900 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2009, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2010; and
            (2) not more than $2,070,600 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2010, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2011.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
#### Maurice COTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Erin McCARTHY, Thomas Beyers, Christopher Sterlace, City of Buffalo, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees, Boyd Lee Dunlop, Defendant-Cross-Defendant.*

No. 09-4507-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 30, 2010.

*27Maurice Cotton, pro se, Buffalo, NY.

Carmen J. Gentile, Assistant Corporation Counsel (David Rodriguez, Acting Corporation Counsel, of counsel), City of Buffalo Department of Law, Buffalo, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the listing of the parties stated above.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Maurice Cotton (“plaintiff’ or “Cotton”), *pro se,*appeals from a judgment of the District Court, dismissing his claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against defendants-appellees Erin McCarthy, Thomas Beyers, Christopher Sterlace, and the City of Buffalo (“defendants”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the factual and procedural history of the case.

Generally, a district court’s dismissal of some, but not all, defendants is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 unless the court certifies an appeal from that order. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *In re Chateaugay Corp.,*928 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1991). We have recognized, however, that when the court has dismissed all of the served defendants, and only unserved defendants “remain,” there is no reason to preclude the immediate and automatic entry of a final judgment, as there is no basis for believing that there will be any further adjudications in the action. *See Leonhard v. United States,*633 F.2d 599, 608 (2d Cir.1980). Here, there was confusion in the record regarding defendant Boyd Dun-lop’s address, and at least one show cause order was returned to the District Court as undeliverable. Moreover, Dunlop did not appear, which, together with the returned order, led the District Court to conclude that he may not have been served and to decline to enter a default judgment against him. Therefore, as “there is no basis for believing there will be any further adjudications” in this case, we will treat the judgment entered as final and appealable. *See id.*

Turning to the merits, we find no error in the District Court’s comprehensive analysis of plaintiffs claims, and we agree that the allegations in plaintiffs complaint were insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough Decision and Order dated September 28, 2009. *See Cotton v. McCarthy,*No. 06-CV-477S, 2009 WL 3165606 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2009).

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without mer*28it. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
#### Charles R. TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen M. HERRICK, Director/Doctor/Acting Director; Doctor Decocci; Abernathy, Head Nurse/RN, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-7283.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

*251Charles R. Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Joan Baer, Allyson Kurzmann Tys-inger, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Rosalie Fes-sier, Timberlake, Smith, Thomas & Moses, PC, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles R. Turner appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Turner *v. Herrick,*No. 1:10-cv-00871-CMH-JFA (E.D.Va. Aug. 3, 2011). We deny Turner’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
CFTC

Division of Market Oversight
Bona Fide Hedging Position

(BFH)

1.Historical perspective on BFH

2.Dec. 2013 proposed definition

2
Historical Perspective on BFH

1.Defined in statute prior to 1974

2. Current definition established in 

Regulation 1.3(z) in 1977

3.Dodd-Frank directs a definition

4.Dec. 2013 proposed definition

3
Dec. 2013 Proposal

1. Temporary substitute test

2. Economically appropriate test

3. Change in value requirement

4. Pass-through swap offset

5.New enumerated exemptions

6. Section 4a(a)(7) exemptive authority

4
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1439 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1439

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 29, 2010.
Whereas the historic Chicago Blackhawks, as one of the ``Original Six'', have 
        made countless contributions to sports;
Whereas the Blackhawks and the National Hockey League have demonstrated a 
        commitment to promoting fitness and leadership skills for youth through 
        support for youth hockey programs and community skating facilities;
Whereas with 101 straight home game sellouts, and an NHL leading regular-season 
        average attendance of 21,356, the Blackhawks are the pride of their 
        hometown, Chicago, Illinois;
Whereas in just 3 years, the Blackhawks organization of Rocky Wirtz, Joel 
        Quenneville, John McDonough, Stan Bowman, Scotty Bowman, Jay Blunk, and 
        Dale Tallon have revitalized a franchise and reminded Chicago that it 
        has always been a hockey town;
Whereas the Chicago Blackhawks, through amazing offense, superb defense, and 
        unmatched depth, dominated the regular season and won 52 games;
Whereas the Blackhawks defeated the Nashville Predators in 6 games, the 
        Vancouver Canucks in 6 games, and swept the number 1 seeded San Jose 
        Sharks to become the Western Conference Champions and advance to the 
        Stanley Cup Final;
Whereas in the Stanley Cup Final series, the Blackhawks held off the aggressive 
        play and talent of the Eastern Conference Champion Philadelphia Flyers, 
        who deserve great credit, to win in overtime, and provide one of the 
        most exciting final series in recent history; and
Whereas the innumerable contributions from every player, coach, and the entire 
        Blackhawks family have ended the 49-year-long championship drought and 
        brought the roar back to Madison Street and Lord Stanley's Cup to where 
        it belongs, sweet home Chicago: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the Chicago Blackhawks for their long distinguished 
        history, countless contributions to sports, and their many successes as 
        a franchise;
            (2) congratulates the Blackhawks on an amazing season and for 
        winning the 2010 Stanley Cup Championship;
            (3) recognizes the players, coaches, and leadership of the 
        Blackhawks organization; and
            (4) joins with all people in the United States and hockey fans all 
        over the world in celebrating the return of the Stanley Cup to Chicago, 
        Illinois.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-84921, 33-90848, 33-92200, 333-57683 and
Form S-3 No. 333-32068) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan, 1995
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1992 Stock Option Plan, and the Amended
and Restated 1984 Incentive Stock Option Plan of SDL, Inc. and to the
registration of shares of common stock of SDL, Inc. issued or to be
issued in connection with its acquisition of Queensgate Instruments,
Limited, of our report dated 15 December 1998 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of IOC International plc as at 30
September 1998 and for each of the two years in the period ended 30
September 1998 included in SDL, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K dated
May 18, 1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/ Arthur Andersen

Arthur Andersen, Chartered Accountants

Cambridge, England
March 27, 2000

---
Nos. 161 and 162.

#### Thompson et al. *v.*Park Savings Bank, Inc., et al.

October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. E. Hilton Jackson, Wm. E. Richardson, Ward B. McCarthy, J. Bruce Kremer, George B. Springston,*and *Herbert M. Bingham*for petitioners.

*Messrs. Joseph T. Sherier*and *Otis Beall Kent*for respondents.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3759

_____________________________

RICHARD C. BALES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

February 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                -------------------------------
                                                  1998       1997       1996
                                                --------   --------   ---------
                                                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT 
                                                       PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
<S>                                             <C>        <C>        <C>
Weighted-average common shares outstanding 
  for the period:
Common stock                                      29,630     26,778      26,181
Preferred stock                                       --         --          --
                                                --------   --------   ---------
Shares used in computing per share amount         29,630     26,778      26,181
                                                --------   --------   ---------
Net loss applicable to common stockholders      $(61,783)  $(28,384)   $(45,634)
Net loss per share                              $  (2.09)  $  (1.06)   $  (1.74)
                                                --------   --------   ---------
</TABLE>
RYAN PAUL WAYNE 

MORGAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1497

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 4, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Gary L. Bergosh, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Brian Ellison, Assistant Public Defender, 

Miami, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, THOMAS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.