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

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20205]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 731-TA-376, 563 and 564 (Second Review)]

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Japan, Korea, and 
Taiwan

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
determines,\2\ pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(the Act),\3\ that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan 
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff not participating.
    \3\ 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 
5478), and determined on May 9, 2005, that it would conduct expedited 
reviews (70 FR 30483, May 26, 2005).
    The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to 
the Secretary of Commerce on September 29, 2005. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3801 (September 2005), 
entitled Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Japan, Korea, and 
Taiwan: Investigations Nos. 731-TA-376, 563 and 564 (Second Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 3, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-20205 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  --------------------------------------------------------------------   In connection with the Quarterly Report of StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark L. Kay, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: November 16, 2009   /s/ Mark L. Kay Mark L. Kay Chief Executive Officer
----

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 13 October 2005

in Case C-2/05 SA: Names BV v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on the Commission of the European Communities)

(2006/C 10/12)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-2/05 SA: application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on the Commission of the European Communities brought on 28 January 2005 by Names BV, established in Hazerswoude-Rijndijk (Netherlands) (lawyer: R. Nathan) against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J-F. Pasquier and E. Manhaeve) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

----

(1)OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005

----
#### LLP MORTGAGE LTD., f/k/a Loan Participant Partners, Ltd., a Texas Ltd. Partnership, Appellant, v. Vincent P. CRAVERO and Dorothy C. Cravero, Appellees.

No. 4D02-2443.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 13, 2003.

*898Anne S. Mason and Laurie A. Dart of Mason Law, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.

E. Scott Golden and Donielle Mason, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellees.

KLEIN, J.

When the federal government is the mortgagee, there is no statute of limitations which applies to foreclosure, because the federal government has sovereign immunity from state statutes of limitations, *United States v. Summerlin,*310 U.S. 414, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 84 L.Ed. 1283 (1940), and the federal statute of limitations does not apply to actions to establish title to real property. 28 U.S.C. § 2415(c). The question we must decide is whether an assignee of the government has the same protection from statutes of limitation that the government had. We conclude that it does.

In this case, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was the original lender and accelerated the mortgage in 1995, but took no further action until it assigned the mortgage to LLP in 2001. When LLP brought this suit to foreclose, the trial court held that it was barred by Florida’s five year period of limitations, section 95.11(2)(c), Florida Statutes, the cause of action having accrued when the mortgage was accelerated in 1995.

The parties have found only one case involving this precise issue, *UMLIC VP LLC v. Matthias,*234 F.Supp.2d 520 (D.Vi. 2002), in which the court held that the assignee of the SBA was not subject to the Virgin Islands’ statute of limitations. The court relied on cases in which it has been held that when the federal government assigns a promissory note, the assignee is subject only to federal statutes of limitation. *See, e.g., F.D.I.C. v. Bledsoe,*989 F.2d 805 (5th Cir.1993), and other cases cited in *UMLIC,*234 F.Supp.2d at 524. In *Cadle Co. II v. Stamm,*633 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the court held that the assignee of a promissory note by the FDIC was subject only to the extended federal statute of limitations applicable to the FDIC.

The rationale of the above cases is based on the rather universally followed proposition that an assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and has all the rights enjoyed by the assignor. *Dubbin v. Capital Nat’l Bank of Miami,*264 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972); *Dove v. McCormick,*698 So.2d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We agree with the reasoning of *UMLIC,*which is on all fours, as well as the cases on which *UMLIC*was reasoned. We therefore conclude that LLP’s foreclosure is not barred by Florida’s statute of limitations and reverse.

SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ„ concur.
### NUM BER 13-0 8-00 712- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG NORM A N DUSTIN REEDY, A PPE LLA NT, v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A PPEL LE E. On A pp eal f rom th e 1 03rd D istrict Co urt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e Just i ces Ro dr i guez, G ar za, and V el a M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am Appel lan t, Nor man Dust in Ree dy , attempts to appeal hi s c onv icti on for ag g ra v ated ass aul t. The tr ial co u rth a s cer ti fied th at t his “ is a pl ea- barg ain ca se, and the d efendant has NO rig ht of

app eal.” SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 25 .2(a)(2).2

On Dece mb er 17, 2 008 , this Court no tif ied ap pellan t’s coun sel of t h e t rial court’s cer ti ficat ion and ord ered counse l to: (1 ) rev iew the re cord; (2) determi ne w hether appel lan t has a rig ht to app eal; a nd (3) forw ard to th is Cou rt , by l etter , cou nsel ’s findi ng s a s t o w hether appel lan t has a ri g ht to appeal , or , alt er nati v ely , adv is e thi s Cou rtas to the ex is tenc e of any

amended cer

ti ficat ion

. On Dece mb er 30, 2 008 , coun sel f iled a lette r brief w ith this Court. Counsel’s respo nse d oes n ot est ablish th at th e certif ication currently on file w ith this Court is incorrect or thatappel lan t ot her

w is e has a r ig ht t o appea l. The Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Proc edure prov ide that an appeal mustbe d is mis sed if the trial court’s certif ication doe s not sho w thatthe d e fe n dan t has th e rig ht of app eal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25. 2(d); se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 37 .1, 4 4.3 , 44. 4. Acco rdingly , this app eal is DI SM ISSE D. An y

pendi ng moti ons are deni ed as moot.

PERC UR IAM

Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and fil ed th is the 15th day of Janua ry , 200 9.
<page>			            EXHIBIT 32.02


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Charter
Graham L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Kevin Perry, Chief
Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(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 results
of operations of the Partnership.







By:	  /s/	Kevin Perry

Name:		Kevin Perry
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		March 31, 2006
#### In the Matter of James P. FLAGELLA.

No. 155 DB 2002 (No. 11 RST 2003).

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 4, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2003, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated May 2, 2003, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that JAMES P. FLAGELLA, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, *663shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
STATE v. Bobby Dewayne HELMS

397A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Ann B. Petersen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Helms, Bobby Dewayne.

James R. Glover, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill.

Alexandra Gruber, Assistant Attorney General, Erin Gibbs, Associate Attorney General, Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 5th of December 2018 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."

*803Defendant shall have up to and including the 7th day of January 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE v. Duval Lamont BOWMAN

274A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 27, 2018

Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law, for Bowman, Duval Lamont.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of August 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of August 2018."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4235 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4235

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to remove the maximum payment 
    amount for certain qualified losses under the Traumatic Injury 
   Protection under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2014

    Mrs. Bustos (for herself and Mr. Braley of Iowa) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to remove the maximum payment 
    amount for certain qualified losses under the Traumatic Injury 
   Protection under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program.

    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 ``Taylor Morris Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF MAXIMUM PAYMENT AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN QUALIFIED LOSSES 
              UNDER TRAUMATIC INJURY PROTECTION UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS' 
              GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    Section 1980A(d) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and the maximum 
        payment'' and inserting ``and, except as provided by paragraph 
        (3)(A), the maximum''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(3)(A) The maximum payment amount described in paragraph (1) 
shall not apply to a qualifying loss directly caused by a traumatic 
event described in subparagraph (B). The Secretary shall determine the 
payment schedule for such qualifying losses as the Secretary determines 
appropriate without regard to such maximum payment amount.
    ``(B) A traumatic event described in this subparagraph is one of 
the following:
            ``(i) Armed conflict.
            ``(ii) Training under conditions simulating armed conflict.
            ``(iii) Hazardous service.
            ``(iv) A traumatic event caused through an instrumentality 
        of war.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Enrique REYNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-41164.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 16, 2003.

Katherine L. Haden and James Lee Turner, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roland E. Dahlin, II, Fed. Pub. Def., H. Michael Sokolow, Houston, TX, Thomas G. Lindenmuth, McAllen, TX, for Defendants Appellant.

*320Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A majority of judges in active service having determined, on the Court’s own motion, to rehear this case en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
PREISS, et al. v. WINE AND DESIGN FRANCHISE, LLC, et al.

390A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 18, 2018

R. Hayes Hofler, III, Attorney at Law, for Preiss, Emily N., et al.

Gloria T. Becker, Attorney at Law, Matthew Mariani, Attorney at Law, Kari R. Johnson, Attorney at Law, A. Charles Ellis, Attorney at Law, Winterville, Marla S. Bowman, Attorney at Law, Joseph A. Schouten, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Wine and Design Franchise, LLC, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 14th of December 2018 by Defendants:

*441"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of December 2018."

Defendants shall have up to and including the 24th day of January 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. David Ernest MALINZAK

No. 61P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018.

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. James R. O'Neill, District Attorney for State of North Carolina

Mr. David Ernest Malinzak, for Malinzak, David Ernest

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th of February 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Forsyth County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of February 2018 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of February 2018 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

*856"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4628 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 397
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4628

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                              May 18, 2010

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 216 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New Jersey, as the ``Sergeant 
              Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER R. HRBEK POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 216 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New Jersey, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 397

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4628

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 216 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New Jersey, as the ``Sergeant 
              Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 18, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 11

              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                   For Year Ended June 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                 For the Year Ended June 30,
                                                     --------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1998                 1997                     1996
                                                     ----------        -----------------         ------------
                                                         (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                                  <C>                   <C>                      <C>

Net income...........................................   $11,198                $6,886                   $7,841
                                                       ========              ========                  ======= 
Number of shares outstanding
Weighted average shares issued...................... 11,900,000            11,900,000               11,900,000
Less: Weighted average shares held in treasury......  2,268,513             2,233,752                1,231,068
Less: Average shares held by the ESOP...............    952,000               952,000                  952,000
Plus: ESOP shares released or committed to.......... 
        be released during the fiscal year..........    269,870               188,396                  112,600
                                                     ----------            ----------               ----------
         Average basic shares.......................  8,949,357             8,902,644                9,829,532
Plus: Average common stock equivalents..............    740,298               537,212                  296,902
                                                     ----------            ----------              -----------
        Average diluted shares......................  9,689,655             9,439,856               10,126,434
                                                     ==========            ==========              ===========
Earnings per common share
        Basic.......................................      $1.25                 $0.77                    $0.80
                                                         ======                ======                   ======
       Diluted.....................................       $1.16                 $0.73                    $0.77
                                                         ======                ======                   ======
</TABLE>
                                                            
                                       91
Exhibit 32.3

Written Statement of the Chief Operating Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned President and Chief Operating Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, the general
partner of Regency Centers, L.P.(the Partnership), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.

Date: March 28, 2008



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mary Lou Fiala                                     
|Mary Lou Fiala                                         
|Chief Operating Officer of Regency Centers Corporation,
|general partner of registrant