alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21657]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1773-DR]


Missouri; Amendment No. 11 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated June 25, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of June 25, 2008.

    Callaway County for Individual Assistance.
    Chariton, Harrison, and Macon Counties for Individual Assistance 
(already designated for Public Assistance.)
    Adair, Monroe, and Putnam Counties for Individual Assistance and 
Public Assistance.
    Knox, Randolph, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, and Worth Counties 
for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21657 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CHRISTOPHER LEE KARSTEN,

Defendant.

CASE NO: 4:23CR3063

DETENTION ORDER

The defendant is charged with failing to register as a sex offender. On the 

government's motion, the court afforded the defendant an opportunity for a 

detention hearing under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The court 

concludes the defendant must be detained pending trial.

There is a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of 

conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at court 

proceedings and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to 

believe the defendant committed a felony involving failing to register under 18 

U.S.C. § 2250. The defendant has not rebutted this presumption.

Based on the information of record, the court finds by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the defendant's release would pose a risk of nonappearance at 

court proceedings, and by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's 

release would pose a risk of harm to the public.

Specifically, the court finds that the defendant has a criminal history of 

violating the law and court orders; violated conditions of release previously 

imposed by a court, including absconding from supervision; has a history of 

harming or threatening harm to others; is addicted to illegal drugs; has limited 

employment contacts; has failed to appear for court proceedings in the past; has 

4:23-cr-03063-JMG-CRZ Doc # 14 Filed: 06/08/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 26
mental health issues which will pose a risk of harm if the defendant is released; 

and presented no evidence opposing the presumption of detention. 

Conditions which restrict Defendant’s travel, personal contacts, and 

possession of drugs, alcohol, and/or firearms; require reporting, education, 

employment, or treatment; or monitor Defendant’s movements or conduct; or any 

combination of these conditions or others currently proposed or available (see 18 

U.S.C. § 3142(c)), will not sufficiently ameliorate the risks posed if the defendant 

is released.

Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or a 

designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to 

the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or held in 

custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity to consult privately with defense counsel. On order of the United 

States Court or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in 

charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to the United States 

marshal for a court appearance.

Dated June 8, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03063-JMG-CRZ Doc # 14 Filed: 06/08/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 27
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1991...... 31.86 60.97 25.25 15.56 15.08 129.31 3.64 14.90 46.59 539.87 1992...... 31.18 68.23 26.89 14.73 15.94 108.68 3.70 14.82 45.85 468.20 1993...... 34.28 79.68 23.07 15.25 13.91 111.99 3.71 14.94 46.12 490.33 1994...... 33.91 60.27 27.58 16.29 17.54 123.60 3.72 14.57 46.98 480.70 1995...... 33.77 49.68 26.74 18.46 15.59 93.60 3.73 14.72 44.94 451.25 1996...... 39.25 59.00 24.23 26.00 17.23 95.19 3.73 14.95 45.22 545.93 1997...... 31.40 42.33 25.99 16.82 17.79 97.18 3.76 14.86 45.78 385.35 1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 1999: Q4... 31.47 46.45 33.15 24.91 25.91 54.53 4.09 14.90 46.67 242.08 2000: Q1... 31.07 38.53 29.88 27.57 47.97 43.51 3.82 15.15 47.72 256.28  Q2... 25.36 40.29 23.29 20.10 23.30 58.50 3.97 14.76 45.62 255.62  Q3... 22.88 56.90 23.79 18.06 25.56 36.16 3.50 14.83 43.59 273.03  Q4... 25.90 40.24 27.02 18.56 20.65 54.79 4.16 15.11 44.23 252.17 2001: Q1... 33.29 30.14 25.26 24.29 34.58 78.43 3.91 15.23 46.59 274.01  Q2... 26.91 31.36 29.51 19.30 41.18 47.15 3.89 14.50 44.07 263.70  Q3... 23.23 43.62 27.17 16.20 23.42 46.14 3.70 14.68 43.97 255.59  Q4... 35.30 51.03 37.52 21.12 22.89 83.12 4.01 14.69 47.12 280.16 2002: Q1... 33.13 48.19 33.07 25.93 26.71 60.82 3.65 15.01 47.55 237.43  Q2... 23.72 41.55 32.41 18.55 19.26 48.30 3.69 15.06 45.28 216.61  Q3... 28.88 48.00 28.87 21.00 30.85 75.68 3.69 14.83 44.27 329.62  Q4... 31.46 52.06 38.39 22.16 17.78 67.64 3.85 15.19 46.02 333.67 2003: Q1... 35.98 68.86 32.35 27.73 38.74 62.19 3.72 14.88 46.71 249.54  Q2... 24.56 43.91 32.67 17.94 28.73 55.73 3.70 14.66 48.45 241.93  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

TXU Corp.: 

 

We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited condensed consolidated interimfinancial information of TXU Corp. and subsidiaries (TXU Corp.) for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, as indicated in our report dated May 9, 2005; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on thatinformation. 

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is includedin TXU Corp.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-37652, 333-64504, 333-64504-01, 333-64504-02, 333-71004, 333-71004-01, 333-71004-02, 333-84418,333-84418-01, 333-84418-02, 333-110125 and Amendment No. 1 thereto, 333-103922, and 333-115159 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-32833, 333-32837, 333-45657, 333-46671, 333-62014, 333-92260 and 333-105133 on Form S-8. 

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under theSecurities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

May 9, 2005
SCWC

- 17

- 00005 98

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

NOEL MADAMBA CONTRACTING LLC

, Petitioner / Movant / Cross

- Respondent / Appellant

,

vs.

RAMON ROMERO and CASSIE ROMERO

, Respondent s / Respondents / Cross

- Petitioners / Appellees,

and

A&B GREEN BUILDING, LLC,

Respondent/Cross

- Respondent / Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 1 7

- 0000 598 ; S.P. NO. 12

- 1

- 0210 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins

, JJ.)

Petitioner/ Movant

- Cross

- Respondent

- Appellant Noel

Madamba Contracting LLC’s Application for Writ of Certiorari

filed on March 6, 2022 , is rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i

, May 2 , 202 2

.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000598

02-MAY-2022

10:38 AM

Dkt. 13 ODAC
#### VILLE PLATTE CONCRETE CO. v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. et al.

No. 3105.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 19, 1949.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1949.

*669A. B. Guthrie, Ruston, for appellant, .

Taté & Fusilier, Ville; Platte, for appel-lees.

ELLIS, Judge.

In this case, as "to the question of liability see our decision this day rendered in the case of O’Connor v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company et al., 40 So.2d 663.

The testimony is undisputed that the truck of plaintiff which was demolished as a result of the accident had a value prior to the accident of $1,500, and after the acj-cident the salvage value of this truck was only $50.

Therefore, the. judgment of $1,450 rendered by the District Court is correct and is hereby affirmed, defendants to pay all costs.
November 4, 2002



EXHIBIT 10-w



[BAUSCH & LOMB LOGO]


 

 

November 12, 2003


	
TO:
	
Paul Howes



	
FROM:
	
Ronald L. Zarrella



	
RE:
	
Employment Terms







The company provides corporate officers with certain severance benefits set forth in its Corporate Officer Separation Plan, as amended effective April 1, 2003.  As part of our offer to you to join Bausch & Lomb, we have agreed to grant you an enhancement to the Plan.  Specifically, we have agreed that if your employment is terminated on or before July 1, 2006, and if you are terminated under circumstances which entitle you to severance protection under the Plan, you will be provided a cash payout equal to the fair market value at severance date of the restricted stock grant of 25,000 shares you received as part of your hiring package.


As of July 1, 2003, you have entered into a Change of Control Agreement with the Company.  In the event of a Change of Control as defined in that Agreement, the benefits provided herein shall be superseded by the Change of Control Agreement, such that you will not be entitled to a duplication of any amounts payable or benefits provided under this agreement and the Change of Control Agreement.


Please indicate your agreement with these terms by signing in the space below.


 

	 	
/s/ Ronald L. Zarrella    

Ronald L. Zarrella



	
/s/ Paul Howes                    

Paul Howes



Date: November 12, 2003
#### Mrs. Ethel H. MILLER v. COMMERCIAL STANDARD INSURANCE CO. et al.

No. 2525.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 27, 1943.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1942.

See 14 So.2d 313.

Lewis & Lewis, of Opelousas, for appellant. :

Durrett & Hardin, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion in the Consolidated cases of Ernest Emil Miller, Mrs. Ethel H. Miller and Mrs. Margaret B. Hill v. Commercial Standard Insurance Company et al., La.App., 13 So.2d 733, this day handed down, it is ordered that the judgment in the case of Mrs. Ethel H. Miller v. Commercial Standard Insurance Company et al. be amended by reducing the amount of the award from $10,000 to the sum of $7,500, and as thus amended the judgment is hereby affirmed; plaintiff to pay the cost of the appeal, and the- defendants to pay other costs.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




June 2017


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: November 9, 2017
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-136-PB

Juan Jose Castaner II

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

August 21, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery, engage in plea

negotiations or prepare a defense. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from August 21, 2007 to November 6, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

Case 1:07-cr-00136-PB Document 14 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on October

25, 2007 at 4:15 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

July 30, 2007

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Clyde Garrigan, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00136-PB Document 14 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 2
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a reviewof the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period December 12, 2018 through March 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofDecember 12, 2018 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-C Owner Trust, tobe conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’sCertificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to suchterms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the27th day of June, 2019. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 04-181-PB

Kenneth Knight

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the July 6, 2006 trial

in the above case, citing the need for additional time to engage

in further plea negotiations. The government does not object to

a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from July 6, 2006 to September 6,

2006. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

Case 1:04-cr-00181-PB Document 50 Filed 07/03/06 Page 1 of 2
2

No further continuances will be allowed in this matter.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

July 6, 2006

cc: Stephen Jeffco, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:04-cr-00181-PB Document 50 Filed 07/03/06 Page 2 of 2
175 La. 1

#### GRIMES v. POSECAI.

No. 31522.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 23, 1932.

E. M. Stafford and Daniel Wendling, both of New Orleans, for appellant,

Morris P. Le Compte, of New Orleans, for appellee. • ■

BRUNOT, J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for a separation from bed and board. The defendant, in her answer to the suit, reconvened and prayed for alimony pendente lite. Alimony was awarded the defendant, in the sum of $50 per month, and the plaintiff appealed from that judgment.

The plaintiff is an employee of the New Orleans Fire Department. His salary is $157 per month. The plaintiff testified that, after the deductions for pension dues, insurance, firemen’s charitable association, burial of members, and floral designs, his net salary is $139 per month, and that he is burdened with exceptional features which bring him within the rule announced in Abrams v. Rosenthal, 153 La. 459, 96 So. 32, and, for that reason, the award of $50 per month as alimony is excessive.

 The award of alimony during the pendency of the suit is made under C. C. art. 148, and it rests in the discretion of the trial judge. It is not a final judgment, but one which, at any time, is open to re-examination and change by the trial judge as changed conditions and circumstances may warrant. On appeal from such a judgment, it must appear that the trial judge acted arbitrarily in the matter, otherwise this court will not 'substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge, acting within his discretionary powers. Counsel for the appellant seem to recognize this rule'for they say:

> “Appellant, by rule, sought a reduction of alimony since this appeal * * *, which was wrongfully continued indefinitely by the trial judge because of this appeal.”

Whether or not the action of the trial judge in indefinitely continuing the said rule was proper or legal is a matter which is not now before us. It will be our duty to consider it when it is presented in an application for a writ of mandamus.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFOPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Linens HoldingCo. for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert J.DiNicola, as Chief Executive Officer of Linens Holding Co., and Francis M.Rowan, as Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of LinensHolding Co.
| /s/ Robert J.  DiNicola |                                               |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| **Name:**               | Robert J. DiNicola                                 |
| **Title:**              | Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer              |
| **Date:**               | November 14, 2006                                  |
| ** **              |                                               |
| ** **              |                                               |
| /s/ Francis M.  Rowan   |                                               |
| **Name:**               | Francis M. Rowan                                   |
| **Title:**              | Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
| **Date:**               | November 14, 2006                                  |
|                         |                                                    |  |

 

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID CLERVEAUX,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-767

[July 1, 2021]

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

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Mariya Weekes, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 16-000915CF10A.

David Clerveaux, Pompano Beach, pro se.

No appearance filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.