alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29362-29363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission Meeting, 
June 24, 2010

    Authority:  41 CFR 102-3.150.

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the date for the June 24, 2010, Meeting 
of the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission.

DATES: The public meeting of the Commission will be held on Thursday, 
June 24, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. (Hawaiian Standard Time).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at McVeigh Social Hall, Kalaupapa 
National Historical Park, Kalaupapa, Hawaii 96742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Prokop, Superintendent, 
Kalaupapa National Historical Park, P.O. Box 2222, Kalaupapa, Hawaii 
96742, telephone (808) 567-6802, or electronically at the following 
Internet address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#693a1d0c1f0c36391b060206192907191a470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d3e19081b08323d1f0206021d2d031d1e430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda

    The June 24, 2010, Commission meeting will consist of the 
following:
    1. Previous history and Overview of the Kalaupapa National 
Historical Park Advisory Commission.
    2. Report from the Superintendent.
    3. Memorial Project.
    4. Hawaii Senate Bill No. 2771.
    5. Air Transportation Costs.
    6. Public Comments.
    The meeting is open to the public, and time will be reserved for 
public comment. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations 
to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be 
made to the Superintendent at least seven days prior to the meeting. 
Oral comments will be summarized for the record. If persons wish to 
have their comments recorded verbatim, they must submit them in 
writing. Before including your address, phone, number, e-mail address, 
or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should 
be aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may

[[Page 29363]]

be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your 
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public 
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: May 7, 2010.
Steve Prokop,
Superintendent, Kalaupapa National Historical Park.
[FR Doc. 2010-12474 Filed 5-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-GJ-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### JOHN H. WALBRIDGE, Respondent, *v.*SAMUEL KILPATRICK, Appellant.

*Execution of contract by agent*— W.&.O. *agent for B.K.■*— ■ *sufficient*— ExPt'aafs *copied from, letters*— *admissibility of.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the trial of this action by the court without a jury.

The action was brought to recover damages for the non-fulfillment of an alleged written contract, for the sale of certain real estate. The sale was made through an agent acting on behalf of the defendant, and the latter claimed that the contract was not executed in such a manner as to bind him thereby. As to this the court at General Term say:

*“*The claim that the contract is not well executed as a contract of the defendant is not well founded. The signature, ‘W. G. Campbell, agent for Samuel Kilpatrick,’ is an execution of the *136instrument in the name of the principal, and not in the name of the agent. ( *Worrall*v. *Munn,*5 N. Y\, 244.) * * *

Certain extracts copied from letters of the defendant were admitted in evidence under his exception, proof having been given of the loss of the originals. Judge HulbeRt was sworn as to the correctness of such extracts. He read the originals and knew their contents. He compared the extracts with the originals, and swears that they were correct. Campbell swears to the same thing: Hnder such a state of facts the extracts were competent as secondary evidence of the contents of the lost letters. The objection was that they were ‘extracts only, and not the whole letters.’ Written extracts from a letter are as competent secondary evidence of contents as statements founded on memory alone. Either Campbell or Judge Hulbert could have refreshed their memory by looking at the same extracts and testified to the same matter orally. But the difficulty is they were offered in evidence as extracts only. No attempt was made to prove the contents of the letters by Hulbert or Campbell. They testified merely to the correctness of the copies of certain passages, and thereupon without proof or attempt at proof of the remaining contents these extracts were offered, received and read in evidence. This ruling seems in conflict with *Sizer*v. *Burt*(4 Denio, 426), and must lead to a new trial. This seems a vexatious and useless formality, since in all probability the same evidence will be given with no more of the contents of such letters having the slightest bearing on the issue. But we are constantly reminded by our highest court that in actions at law the slightest error which might, by possibility, have influenced the decision will call for the reversal of the judgment. We cannot say that other contents of the letters may not explain these ‘ extracts,’ although Judge Hulbert swears to his opinion that they do not. In the case cited it appears that a similar opinion was held to be not evidence of the fact.

New trial granted, costs to abide the. event.”

*A.*Pond, for the appellant. *R. O. Betts,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

BoardmaN, J.

Present — Learned, P. J., Boardman and Bocees, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1723

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER BACHMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael A. Flowers, Judge.

September 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Bachman appeals a “Final Order” denying almost 

all of his seventeen claims for postconviction relief raised pursuant 

to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The circuit court 

issued the order after holding an evidentiary hearing. 

One of the arguments Mr. Bachman asserts on appeal is that 

the court erred by not addressing one of his claims for relief. The 

claim alleged that defense counsel failed to object to certain 

improper and prejudicial arguments by the State. 

Mr. Bachman is indeed correct that the court’s order did not 

address the second of two claims that were labeled “Ground Six”

in his motion. Rather than forming a basis to reverse the order,

however, the lack of a ruling on this claim deprives this court of 

jurisdiction. See Hanner v. State, 228 So. 3d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 
2

2017) (dismissing where “[o]n appeal, Appellant argues that the 

postconviction court erred by failing to address all of the claims in 

his motion”). “It is well-settled that an order disposing of some, but 

not all of the claims in a motion for postconviction relief is not an 

appealable final order.” Lake v. State, 53 So. 3d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 

1st DCA 2011). See also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(C) (“The order 

issued after the evidentiary hearing shall resolve all the claims in 

the motion . . . .”). We therefore dismiss this appeal without 

prejudice to Mr. Bachman’s ability to file a future appeal after the 

circuit court has ruled on all of his claims.

DISMISSED.

WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Rachael E. Reese, O’Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT B 6

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1662-7 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 17:03:55 Page 1

of 25
# ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19-0589
STATE Of MONTANA

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. CLARENCE REDMOND LOGUE JR.,

Defendant and Appellant. 

# FILED JUN 2 3 2020
Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Within a span of one week, self-represented Appellant Clarence Redmond Logue filed a Supplemental Briefand Argument re: Transcripts for DC-17-339-B and a Motion for Credit for Time Served. The State ofMontana has filed a response in opposition,stating that Logue's motions are inappropriate and untimely. M.R.App.P. 16(2)and 12(10). Upon review of our docket, this appeal was sent to this Court on June 19, 2020, because briefing was completed the day before. We also observe that this Court has denied Logue's several attempts to include such supplemental information after Logue filed his opening brief. A decision will be issued in due course. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Logue's Supplemental Briefand Argument re: Transcripts for DC-17-339-B and a Motion for Credit for Time Served in Case No.DC-17-339-B with Good Cause are DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk ofthe Supreme Courtis directed to provide a copy ofthis Orderto counsel ofrecord and to Clarence Redmond Logue Jr. DATED this A.:2
— day ofJune, 2020. For the Court,

ChiefJustice 06/23/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0589
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12025]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 12, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Cordia Bancorp Inc., Washington, DC; to become a bank holding 
company through the acqusition of up to 52.3 percent of the voting 
shares of Bank of Virginia, Midlothian, Virginia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 14, 2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-12025 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
**Exhibit23.1**

 

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-84818 on Form S-4 and Registration Statement No. 333-06133, No.333-06145, No. 333-42280, No. 3113-81491, No. 333-90209, No. 333-88340 and No.333-88342 on Form S-8 of Zomax Incorporated, of our reports dated March 11,2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedules of Zomax Incorporated as of and for the years ended December 26, 2003and December 27, 2002, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ZomaxIncorporated for the year ended December 26, 2003.

 
| **/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP** |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|
| Minneapolis, Minnesota            |
| March 11, 2004                    |

 

----
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

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Humboldt Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Eureka, California. The committee meeting is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to orient new committee members to the Secure Rural Schools Act, guidelines for Title II, and Federal Advisory Committee Act and receive public comment on the meeting subjects and proceedings.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held June 9, 2010, from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Six Rivers National Forest Office, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA 95501.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Julie Ranieri, Committee Coordinator, Six Rivers National Forest, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA 95503; (707) 441-3673; e-mail                         *jranieri@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Welcome and Committee introductions; (2) Federal Advisory Committee Act overview; (3) review of Secure Rural Schools Act and discussion of requirements related to Title II funding; (4) discussion of Committee member, Designated Federal Official and RAC Coordinator roles; (5) selection of RAC Chair; (6) next meeting agenda, location, and date; and (7) receive public comment. An opportunity will be provided for the public to address the Committee.

Dated: May 12, 2010.

Tyrone Kelley,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2010-11803 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of TheMajor Automotive Companies, Inc., (the‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the periodending December  31,  2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Bruce Bendell, President,Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuantto ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

|  |           |                                                                                                                                 |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company. |

|                 |  |                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |
|-----------------|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| January27, 2006 |  | /s/ BruceBendell                                                                 |
|            |  | BruceBendellPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Acting ChiefFinancial Officer |
|                 |

----
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11

                 CardioTech International Inc. and Subsidiary

           Statement Regarding Computation of Loss Per Common Share

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                            FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
                                         1995           1996           1997
                                         ----           ----           ----
<S>                                   <C>           <C>            <C>
Net Loss                              $ (598,940)   $(2,188,030)   $(1,655,574)
                                      ===========   ============   ============
Number of Shares outstanding
at beginning of year                   2,831,941      2,831,941      2,831,941

Effect of shares issued in 
June 1996 to PMI                             --             --       1,133,610

Effect of shares issued in
July 1996 for services                       --             --          17,516
                                      -----------   ------------   ------------
Weighted average number of
shares outstanding                     2,831,941      2,831,941      3,983,067
                                      ===========   ============   ============
Loss per common share                 $    (0.21)   $     (0.77)   $     (0.42)
                                      ===========   ============   ============
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1





                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
and to all references to our Firm included in or made a part of the Forms S-8
made by Xeta Technologies, Inc. on August 28, 1995 and August 25, 2000. It
should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of the Company
subsequent to October 31, 2000, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to
the date of our report.



                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Tulsa, Oklahoma
  June 14, 2001
# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5068 September Term, 2024 1: 21-c v -024 12-RBW Filed O n: Sep tem ber 4 , 20 24 Darry l Burke, App ellant
v . United Sta tes De partm entof Justice , App ellee

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Conso lidate d with 23-5 146

ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED ST A TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Hend erson , W alker, an d Childs, Circuit Jud ges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the brief f iled b y ap pellan t. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s March 2, 2 023 de nial o f leave to f ile an d Ju ne 9, 2 023 orde r be af f irmed . A ppe llant’s n otices of ap pea l are unt ime ly as t o th e u nde rly ing dismissa l of his civil actio n. See Fed . R. A pp. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Ap pellan t ha s no t sho w n th at t he district cou rt erred in reco unt ing the proce dura l history of

the case in its Ju ne 9 o rder. A dditio nally, app ellantha s no t argued tha t th e d istrict court a buse d its d iscretion in de nying him leave to f ile a m otion or in d enying his subse quent requests for proce dura l relief , an d h e th us h as forfeited any such argume nt. Se e Unite d S tate s ex rel. T otte n v. Bom bard ier Corp., 380 F.3d 488 , 49 7 (D.C. Cir. 20 04) (“Ordina rily , argum ent s tha t pa rties do no t m ake on app eal are d eem ed to h ave bee n waived. ”).

# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5068 September Term, 2024
Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12316]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6974]


Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Meeting Notice; Closed 
Meeting

    The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State 
Department--Overseas Security Advisory Council on June 16 and 17 at the 
U.S. Department of State and the Boeing Company, Arlington, Virginia. 
Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. Appendix), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), it 
has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The 
meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and 
procedures and will involve extensive discussion of trade secrets and 
proprietary commercial information that is privileged and confidential, 
and will discuss law enforcement investigative techniques and 
procedures. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a global 
threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector security 
policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business 
information overseas.
    For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security 
Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, 
phone: 571-345-2214.

    Dated: May 10, 2010.
Jeffrey W. Culver,
Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-12316 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P