alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1448 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1448

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 17, 2010.
    Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5297) to 
create the Small Business Lending Fund Program to direct the Secretary of the 
Treasury to make capital investments in eligible institutions in order to 
increase the availability of credit for small businesses, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 1436, it shall be in order to consider 
the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution as though they were the last two amendments printed in part C of 
House Report 111-506.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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 State

          - [Public Notice 3696]

# DEPARTMENT:

United States Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Drawings and Prints,” imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign lenders. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY from on or about September 24, 2001 to on or about December 2, 2001, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-5997). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

Dated: June 1, 2001.

Helena Kane Finn,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01-14632 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-08-U
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 Agriculture

###### Natural Resources Conservation Service 

# AGENCY:

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of proposed changes to conservation practice standards in Section IV of the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) of NRCS in South Dakota for review and comment. 

# SUMMARY:

It is the intention of NRCS in South Dakota to issue revised conservation practice standards in Section IV of the FOTG for the following practice Constructed Wetland (656). 

# DATES:

                        Comments on this notice must be received within 30 days from the publication date in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# ADDRESSES:

All comments concerning the proposed conservation practice standard changes should be addressed to: Ronald Nadwornick, State Resource Conservationist, NRCS, 200 Fourth Street SW, Huron, South Dakota 57350. Copies of these standards will be made available upon written request. 

Dated: April 24, 2001. 

Ronald Nadwornick, 

State Resource Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Huron, South Dakota 57350. 

[FR Doc. 01-14836 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000850427
<NAME> GEODYNE INSTITUTIONAL/PENSION ENERGY INCOME P-1 LIMITED PART
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         248,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  235,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               483,927
<PP&E>                                       7,633,387
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,122,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,994,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,994,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,994,545
<SALES>                                        867,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,007,006
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,191,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (184,349)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (184,349)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (184,349)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

RANDALL ALAN FRANZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 30178

D.C. No. 9:17

- cr

- 00018

- DLC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019 **

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Randall Alan Franz appeals from the district court ’s judgment and

challenges his guilty

- plea conviction and eight

- month sentence for concealment of

assets in bankruptcy , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(1)

. Pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Franz ’s counsel has filed a brief stating th at there

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JAN 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 30178

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

We have provided Franz the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No

pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Franz waived his righ t to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 20 09). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,657; TA-W-38,657A]

                    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on March 7, 2001, applicable to workers of Lanier Clothes, Greenville, Georgia.  The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 5, 2001 (66 FR 18117).                

At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm.  The workers are engaged in the fusing of men's suits. New information shows that worker separations occurred at the Oxford Transport facility of Oxford Industries, Inc., Buford, Georgia.  The Buford Georgia facility provides administrative support services to the subject firms' production facilities, including Lanier Clothes. 

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to include the workers of the Oxford Transport facility of Oxford Industries, Buford, Georgia, and to correctly identify the subject firm title name to read Lanier Clothes, Division of Oxford Industries, Inc., Greenville, Georgia. 

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Lanier Clothes, Division of Oxford Industries, Inc., Greenville, Georgia who were adversely affected by increased imports.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-38,657 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Lanier Clothes, Division of Oxford Industries, Inc., Greenville, Georgia (TA-W-38,657) engaged in fusing operations, and workers of Oxford Transport, Oxford Industries, Inc., Buford, Georgia (TA-W-38,657A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 19, 2001, through March 7, 2003, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of May, 2001.

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-15042  Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### Daniel Francis, Respondent, v Dav Mishra, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 219]-

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated April 1, 2008, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was examined and treated by the defendant dentist several times between April 2005 and September 2005. During those visits the plaintiff complained of, inter alia, oral pain and bleeding, and the swelling of his gums, tongue, mouth, and face. In December 2005 the plaintiff saw a different dentist, who directed him to obtain a biopsy. In February 2006 the plaintiff was diagnosed with Stage IV squamous cell carcinoma of the mouth. In March 2006 he underwent surgery that required, among other things, removal of parts of his tongue, the floor of his mouth and his mandible, and some of the lymph nodes in his neck. The plaintiff also required reconstruction of his mandible with a bone graft and prosthesis, and a course of chemotherapy and radiation. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for dental malpractice alleging, inter alia, that the defendant was negligent in failing to diagnose his oral cancer. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that any dental malpractice committed was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

The defendant submitted the affidavit of an expert who opined, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the plaintiff’s oral cancer was already a Stage IV squamous cell carcinoma at the time of his April 2005 visit with the defendant, and that even if the cancer had been diagnosed at that time, “the plaintiff’s ultimate course of treatment would not have been altered in any way. [The] plaintiff would have still undergone a surgical removal of the growth, chemotherapy and radiation.” However, the defendant’s expert failed to address whether the delay in diagnosing the cancer impacted upon the extent of the surgery and treatment required, or affected the *807plaintiff’s prognosis after the surgery and treatment. For example, although the expert opined that the plaintiff would have still “lost a significant portion of his mandibular bone” even if diagnosed in April 2005, he did not expressly address the removal of parts of the plaintiffs tongue. Consequently, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that his alleged malpractice was not a proximate cause of any of the plaintiffs alleged damages *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Terranova v*Finklea, 45 AD3d 572 [2007]). Thus, his motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers *(see Terranova v Finklea,*45 AD3d 572 [2007]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Santucci and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 24.01

                           CONSENT OF ANGELL & DEERING

To the Board of Directors
of ProtoSource Corporation

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registrations
Statements of ProtoSource Corporation and any amendments thereto (1) File No.
333-78497 on Form S-8; (2) File No. 333-78437 on Form S-8; (3) File No.
333-80773 on Form S-3, and File No. 333-82664 on Form S-3 of our report dated
February 21, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of ProtoSource
Corporation as of December 31, 2001 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, cash flows and changes in stockholders' equity for the years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2000, which report appears or is incorporated by reference
in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of ProtoSource
Corporation.





/s/  Angell & Deering
-----------------------------
     Angell & Deering



March 15, 2001
INTHE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE No. 69717-0-1 <=2,

^? STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v. PHILLIP D. BALDWIN, Appellant. 

### UNPUBLISHED OPINION *£, 

### FILED: APR " 7 2014 PerCuriam— Phillip Baldwin appeals his conviction for second degree rape, arguing that the trial court erred in instructing thejury that ithad a "duty to return a verdict of guilty" if itfound all the elements ofthe offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument is controlled by ourdecision in State v. Ryan P. Moore, No. 69766-8 (Wash. February 18, 2014) and the cases cited therein. Affirmed. FOR THE COURT: 

# **XcM*4.}^ &3U-
#### In re BLAKE.

(District Court, E. D. New York.

July 13, 1909.)

Bankruptcy (.§ 140*) — Preference—Possession.

A bankrupt executed certain deeds, which he delivered as security for a loan under an agreement that, if the loan was not paid on May 15, 1909, the lender should have, between May 15th and June 1st, an option to cancel the notes and purchase the land. The deeds were recorded as deeds March 27, 15)09, and again with the agreement as mortgages on May 28th following. The record as deeds was made on the grantee’s paying an equity of $400 cash, on it becoming apparent that the bankrupt would not he able to meet the notes when due. He was adjudicated a bankrupt on June 7, 1909. *I-Teld,*that since, if the arrangement to exercise the option and pay a cash consideration constituted a preference, the relief of the bankrupt’s trustee must he by action, during pendency thereof, the grantee was entitled to possession and to collect the rents and profits.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Dec. Dig. 6 140.*]

*299Charles M. Davenport, for trustee.

David H. Taylor, for Ogden.

*

For other cases see same topic & 5 number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

The bankrupt gave a note, accompanied by certain deeds, to one Ogden, in return for a loan of $17,000. The deeds were delivered under an agreement that if the loan should not be pf)id, with interest, on the 15th of May, 1909, Ogden should have, between May 15th and June 1st, an option to cancel said notes and purchase said lands. The deeds in question were recorded as deeds upon the 27th day of March, 1909, and again, with the agreement, as mortgages upon the 28th day of May, 1909; the record as deeds having been made inasmuch as it had become apparent that the bankrupt would be unable to meet the notes at the time they became due, and an equity of $400 cash having been then paid to the bankrupt. The debtor, Blake, was adjudicated a bankrupt on June 7, 1909.

Whether it be assumed that the title passed by the premature exercise of the option, or whether Ogden held the title merely as security for his claim, it nevertheless follows that he is entitled to retain possession of the property, and to collect the rents and income therefrom, pending a determination of what his real status may be. Lunny v. McClellan, 116 App. Div. 476, 101 N. Y. Supp. 812; Barson v. Mulligan, 66 App. Div. 486, 73 N. Y. Supp. 262. Even if the arrangement to exercise the option and pay a certain amount of cash constituted a preferential payment, the relief must be by action, and Ogden is entitled to retain possession pending this determination.

The present motion to have the property turned over to the trustee, and to restrain Ogden or his representative from collecting the rents, must be denied; but some provision may be made by which the trustee can be informed, or secured, if necessary, with reference to the amount and disposal of the revenues from the property for a short period, within which he must take action looking to a determination of the rights of the estate, if he be advised to bring such an action.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

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

CITATION: 18 Agric. Dec. 1010 

DOCKET NUMBER: 74 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1959 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(No. 6111) 

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

CEA Docket No. 74. Decided September 15, 1959. 

Dismissal of Petition for Reconsideration

The petition for reconsideration is dismissed and the order of June 26, 1959, 

shall become effective on October 15, 1959. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On June 26, 1959, a decision was made in this proceeding under the Commodity 

Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. Chapter 1) finding that the respondents had violated the 

act and an order was entered (18 Agric. Dec. 582 (18 A.D. 582)) providing for 

sanctions. On July 14, 1959, the respondents were granted an extension of time 

for the filing of a petition for reconsideration, and the effective date of the 

sanctions prescribed was postponed pending action upon the petition for 

reconsideration to be filed. On August 3, 1959, the respondents filed a 

petition for reconsideration and the complainant filed a reply thereto on August 

18, 1959. Reexamination of the record and the decision and order of June 26, 

1959, in the light of the petition for reconsideration and the reply results in 

the conclusion that no material change should be made in the decision and order 

entered. Accordingly, the order of June 26, 1959, should be made effective. 

A re-reading of the decision, however, discloses an inadvertent omission in 

the quotation from the administrative decision in In re General Foods 

Corporation (6 Agric. Dec. 288 (6 A.D. 288), 305 (1947)) which appears on page 

31 on lines 12 and 13 under the heading "IV" and the quotation is corrected to 

read as follows: 

"To manipulate prices means . . . to cause prices to go up or down by means 

directed to either such end or to prevent prices from going up or down by means 

directed to either such end." [Emphasis supplied.] 

The order of June 26, 1959, shall become effective on October 15, 1959, and 

therefore: 

Effective October 15, 1959, 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 October 15, 1959, 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 
Page 2 

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 3