alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33509-33510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16480]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. C-3253]


KKR Associates, L.P.; Prohibited Trade Practices and Affirmative 
Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Set aside order.

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

SUMMARY: This order reopens a 1989 consent order--which required KKR 
Associates to divest, within twelve months, certain assets and 
businesses associated with RJR Nabisco or Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson, and 
prohibited them from making certain acquisitions without prior 
Commission approval--and sets aside the prior approval provisions of 
the consent order pursuant to the Commission's Prior Approval Policy 
Statement. Under that Policy Statement, the Commission presumes that 
the public interest requires reopening the

[[Page 33510]]

prior approval provisions in outstanding merger orders and making them 
consistent with the policy.

DATES: Consent order issued June 13, 1989. Set aside order issued 
October 31, 1995.\1\

    \1\ Copies of the Consent Order and Set Aside Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Piotrowski, FTC/S-2115, 
Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326-2623.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Matter of KKR Associates, L.P. The 
prohibited trade practices and/or corrective actions are removed as 
indicated.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 
Stat. 719, as amended; sec. 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 
45, 18)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16480 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Case No. 08-14159

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

CATHY SWANIGAN a/k/a 

CATHERINE MESSINA,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, SUSTAINING

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO GARNISHMENT, AND DISMISSING

GARNISHMENT

This is a student loan case filed by the United States to collect money due from

Defendant Cathy Swanigan, a/k/a Catherine Messina. A default judgment was entered

against Defendant in the amount of $5,388.22, together with post-judgment interest, on

November 10, 2008. (ECF No. 7.) The United States obtained a writ of continuing

garnishment on Elk Medical Equipment and Supplies on September 14, 2012. (ECF No.

15.) On October 3, 2012, Defendant filed objections to the garnishment and requested a

hearing, which this Court referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen.

Magistrate Judge Whalen scheduled a garnishment hearing for November 27,

2012. At the hearing, the parties reached an agreement for satisfaction of the default

judgment. Based on the parties’ settlement, on December 7, 2012, Magistrate Judge

Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommends that

Defendant’s objections to the garnishment be sustained, the garnishment dismissed, and

2:08-cv-14159-PJD-RSW Doc # 22 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 61
that Defendant pay the judgment under the terms of her agreement with the United States. 

(ECF No. 21.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Whalen informs the

parties that any objections to his R&R must be filed within fourteen days of service. (Id.

at 2.) He further advises that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver

of any further right of appeal.” (Id.) Neither party filed objections to the R&R.

The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions

reached by Magistrate Judge Whalen.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s

Report and Recommendation dated December 7, 2012;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant’s objections to the garnishment on

Elk Medical Equipment and Supplies (ECF No. 16) are SUSTAINED and the

garnishment (ECF No. 15) is DISMISSED.

DATED: January 8, 2013 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Charles Holzman, Esq.

Cathy Swanigan

29377 Jamestown Drive

Chesterfield, MI 48051-2161

2:08-cv-14159-PJD-RSW Doc # 22 Filed 01/08/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 62
INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate or Modify 

Seizure Warrants

Exhibit B Declarations Filed in Support of the Motion to Vacate 

or Modify Seizure Warrants

Exhibit C Request for Judicial Notice (without exhibits)

Exhibit D Notice of Related Cases

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 285-1 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sawadee Ventures (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rachna Khanna,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


/s/ Rachna Khanna
-------------------------------
Rachna Khanna
Chief Financial Officer
October 23, 2008

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14932]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 053096D]


Marine Mammals; Scientific Research Permit (P613)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of application.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Glenn Cota, Center for Coastal 
Physical Oceanography, Old Dominion University, 768 W. 52nd Street, 
Norfolk, VA 23529, has applied in due form for a permit to import 
marine mammal specimen materials for purposes of scientific research.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following 
office(s):
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and
    Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-
2289 (508/281-9250).
    Written data or views, or requests for a public hearing on this 
request, should be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 
20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the 
specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be 
appropriate.
    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine 
Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the 
authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).
    The applicant requests authority to import from Canada muscle and/
or adipose tissue taken from Narwhal (Monodon monoceros), Beluga whale 
(Delphinapterus leucas), Bearded seal (Erignahtus barbatus), and Ringed 
seal (Phoca sibirica). Samples will weigh approximately 100-300g each. 
The objective of the study is to determine the abundance, distribution, 
and identity of select radionuclides in biogenic particulate matter, 
zooplankton, and a variety of invertebrates, fishes, and mammals from 
arctic marine planktonic food weds, and provide data from key regions 
not currently samples which presumably represent high and low levels of 
contamination.

    Dated: May 31, 1996.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14932 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TROY BRYANT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2813

[ January 9, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara Anne

McCarthy , Judge; L.T. Case No. 89

- 16457 CF10A

.

Troy Lee Bryant, Bushnell, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, K LINGENSMITH and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF CROWE CHIZEK AND COMPANY LLC





We consent to the incorporation by reference on Forms S-3 (Reg. No. 333-109363 and 333-130363), and Forms S-8 (Reg. No. 333-128814, 333-132897 and 333-140384) of Sun American Bancorp of our report dated March 27, 2007 on the financial statements of Sun American Bancorp appearing in the 2006 Form 10-K of Sun American Bancorp.



/s/ CROWECHIZEKANDCOMPANYLLC

CROWECHIZEKANDCOMPANYLLC



Fort Lauderdale, Florida

March 27, 2007
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony Michael Koch, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Brad Jacobs, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-08068-PCT-DLR (ESW)

ORDER 

 

 On August 7, 2018, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting January 2, 2019 

as the discovery deadline. (Doc. 14 at 2). The Court later extended the deadline to April 

2, 2019. (Doc. 19). On April 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Extension of Time 

for Discovery” (Doc. 39). Plaintiff states that he is “having trouble obtaining things such 

as medical reports, police body cam footage, having trouble contacting EMT’s, hospital 

staff . . . .” (Id.). Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for a 90 to 120 day extension of 

the discovery deadline. (Doc. 42). 

Under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court is 

required to establish a schedule that sets pretrial deadlines. A Rule 16 scheduling order 

may be “modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). This is because “[a] scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

quotations marks omitted). “Disregard of the order would undermine the court’s ability 

to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward the 

indolent and the cavalier.” Id. Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers 

the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Id. at 609. If the movant “was not 

diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 

Here, the Court set April 2, 2019 as the discovery deadline. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff 

has not shown the requisite diligence justifying a modification of the Scheduling Order. 

See, e.g., Zivkovic v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(plaintiff’s delay in seeking relief from dates in scheduling order evidenced lack of 

sufficient diligence to modify scheduling order deadlines). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

Request (Doc. 39) will be denied. 

The Court also has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Request for Copies of Document 

Numbers 35 and 36” (Doc. 40). In their Response (Doc. 43 at 1), Defendants explain that 

they served copies of those documents at Plaintiff’s previous address and have re-served 

the documents at Plaintiff’s current address. Plaintiff’s Request (Doc. 40) will be denied 

as moot. 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Request for Extension of Time for 

Discovery” (Doc. 39). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s “Request for Copies of 

Document Numbers 35 and 36” (Doc. 40). 

Dated this 14th day of May, 2019.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Interwoven, Inc. has the following subsidiaries:

     Interwoven UK Ltd.

     Interwoven Australia Pty. Ltd.

     Interwoven Software Pte. Ltd.

     Interwoven Hong Kong Ltd.

     Interwoven GmbH

     Interwoven Japan KK

     Interwoven BV

     Interwoven Canada Ltd.

     Interwoven SAS

     Interwoven Korea Inc.

     Interwoven AB

     Interwoven Software SL

     Interwoven Srl

     iManage, Inc.

     iManage Limited

     iManage GmbH

     iManage SARL

     Interwoven Software Services India Private Limited
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Diane J. Humetewa Date: August 4, 2023

USA v. Michael Lacey et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Andrew C. Stone, Kevin M. Rapp, Margaret Perlmeter, Peter Kozinets

Attorney for Defendants: Paul J. Cambria Jr., Retained for Defendant Lacey, present; Joseph N. Roth, 

Timothy J. Eckstein, Retained for Defendant Larkin; Bruce S. Feder, Retained and Eric W. Kessler, 

CJA for Defendant Spear, present; Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Retained for Defendant Brunst, present; 

David S. Eisenberg, CJA for Defendant Padilla, present telephonically; Joy M. Bertrand, CJA for 

Defendant Vaught, present telephonically. 

Defendants: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☐ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ

STATUS CONFERENCE: 

1:49 p.m. Status Conference held. Counsel and Defendants present. Discussion re: continuing trial. 

Government’s counsel represents that they could conclude trial by November 3rd if trial begins on

August 22nd. Government makes an oral Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment against 

Defendant James Larkin only. IT IS SO ORDERED. Counsel heard re: continuance. 2:10 p.m. Recess. 

2:20 p.m. Court reconvenes. Counsel and Defendants are present. Taking into consideration the position 

of the parties, the Court finds that Defense counsels’ necessity to redistribute work related to trial 

preparation warrants a continuance. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED continuing the Jury Trial to August 

29–November 9, 2023. There will be no additional changes to the trial schedule. IT IS FURTHER 

ORDERED that by Wednesday, August 9, 2023, the Government shall produce its revised witness list 

and share it with defense counsel. 2:36 p.m. Recess. 

LATER, OFF THE RECORD: The existing jury pool will be provided with an additional two 

screening questions on August 8th. Additional jurors will also be pre-screened and those completed 

questionnaires will be made available to counsel by close of business on August 15th. Counsel shall 

email their stipulated strikes for cause and hardship to chambers by August 17th, at 4:00 p.m. IT IS 

ORDERED that a Hearing to review the completed Juror Questionnaires shall be held on August 18, 

2023, at 9:30 a.m. in the Special Proceedings Courtroom, 2nd Floor, 401 West Washington Street, 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Diane J Humetewa.

Court Reporter Cathy Taylor

Deputy Clerk Liliana Figueroa

Start: 1:49 PM

Stop: 2:36 PM

Total: 37 min

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1673 Filed 08/04/23 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
13.2

CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT 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 Austral
Pacific Energy Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, David Gerard McKeogh, acting Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, 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, as amended;
  and                   
| |    |                                                                                                                                                         
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly
  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
  operations of the Company.

|                                                                                         | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|D
  McKeogh                                                                            | 
|                                                                                         | 
|                                                                                         | 
|                                                                                         | 
|Name: David Gerard McKeogh
  Title: acting Chief Financial Officer
  Date: June 13, 2007 | 

A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the
Form 20-F to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 20-F), irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 34807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16926]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 10934-003; New Hampshire]


William B. Ruger, Jr.; Notice of Availability of Final 
Environmental Assessment

June 27, 1996.
    A final environmental assessment (FEA) is available for public 
review. The FEA reviewed the application for amendment for the Sugar 
River II Project (FERC No. 10934). The application proposes to shorten 
the bypass reach of the Sugar River by 650 feet by relocating the 
proposed dam in a downstream direction and replacing an open canal with 
a seven-foot-diameter buried steel penstock. The FEA finds that 
approval of the amendment application would not constitute a major 
federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment. The Sugar River II Project is located on the Sugar River, 
in Sullivan County, in Newport, New Hampshire.
    The FEA was prepared by staff in the Office of Hydropower 
Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Copies of the FEA can 
be viewed at the Commission's Reference and Information Center, Room 
2A, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. Copies can also be 
obtained by calling the project manager, Mr. Joseph C. Adamson at (202) 
219-1040.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16926 Filed 7-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Order entered September 13, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00735-CV

IN RE ADRIAN BOOKER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-18807

ORDER

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus. We also DENY relator’s motion to stay as moot.

/s/ LESLIE OSBORNE

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6627

RAHEEM RAHMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; 

LIEUTENANT DOLLY; SERGEANT WHITACRE; OFFICER HOOVER; GARY 

MAYNARD, Secretary; DR. GREGORY TAYLOR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District 

Judge. (1:11-cv-03497-WMN)

Submitted: August 7, 2013 Decided: August 21, 2013

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raheem Rahman, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy P. Tennis, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Michelle 

Jacquelyn Marzullo, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, 

P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raheem Rahman appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and 

denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rahman

v. Stouffer, No. 1:11-cv-03497-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2013; Apr. 

22, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marty L. CREW, Appellant.

No. WD 40982.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 27, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 1, 1989.

Jim Lynn, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and CLARK and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from jury conviction of receiving stolen property and sentence as a persistent offender to seven years imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).