alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Forrester Environmental

Services, Inc. and

Keith E. Forrester

v. Civil No. 07-cv-404-JD

Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.

O R D E R

The plaintiffs, Keith E. Forrester and his company,

Forrester Environmental Services, Inc., brought suit against

Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., alleging claims of interference

with business relations under the Lanham Act and New Hampshire

law and patent infringement. Wheelabrator moved to dismiss the

claims. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and an

objection to the motion to dismiss. Wheelabrator filed a reply,

addressing the amended complaint.

An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint.

Connectu LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82, 91 (1st Cir. 2008). As

a result, once an amended complaint is filed, courts generally

treat a pending motion to dismiss as moot. See, e.g., Am.

Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co. v. CTA Acoustics, Inc., 2008 WL

1924229 at *2 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 29, 2008) (citing cases); Angel v.

Eldorado Casino, Inc., 2008 WL 1914330 at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 25,

2008); Collins v. Winex Invs., LLC, 2008 WL 927572 at *1 (Apr. 4,

Case 1:07-cv-00404-JD Document 18 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 2
2

2008); Gulf Coast Recycling, Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 2008

WL 434880 at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2008); Pouliot v. Town of

Fairfield, 2002 WL 989477 at *1 n.2 (D. Me. May 14, 2002).

In this case, Wheelabrator attempted to conform its motion

to the amended complaint by addressing the amended complaint in

its reply. Wheelabrator challenges some of the new allegations

in the amended complaint because they are based on “information

and belief.” In doing so, Wheelabrator is confusing the standard

for pleading a claim with the standard for opposing summary

judgment. Wheelabrator also compares the allegations in the two

complaints to suggest infirmities in the amended complaint. None

of those arguments are appropriate bases on which to consider a

motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss

(document no. 11) is denied as moot without prejudice to move to

dismiss the operative complaint in this case. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 21, 2008

cc: Michael R. Callahan, Esquire

Steven E. Grill, Esquire

Michael J. Markoff, Esquire

Sibley P. Reppert, Esquire

Case 1:07-cv-00404-JD Document 18 Filed 05/21/08 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1886 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1886

To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for appeals by third 
          parties in certain patent reexamination proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2001

  Mr. Coble introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for appeals by third 
          parties in certain patent reexamination proceedings.

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

SECTION 1. APPEALS IN INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS.

    (a) Appeals by Third-Party Requester in Proceedings.--Section 
315(b) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Third-Party Requester.--A third-party requester--
            ``(1) may appeal under the provisions of section 134, and 
        may appeal under the provisions of sections 141 through 144, 
        with respect to any final decision favorable to the 
        patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim 
        of the patent; and
            ``(2) may, subject to subsection (c), be a party to any 
        appeal taken by the patent owner under the provisions of 
        section 134 or sections 141 through 144.''.
    (b) Appeal to Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.--Section 
134(c) of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking the last 
sentence.
    (c) Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.--Section 
141 of title 35, United States Code, is amended in the third sentence 
by inserting ``, or a third-party requester in an inter partes 
reexamination proceeding, who is'' after ``patent owner''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act apply with respect to any 
reexamination proceeding commenced on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1925

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 15 (legislative day, MAY 9), 2002

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability

and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth Site

Area in Waco, Texas, as a unit of the National Park

System, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1925 RFS

1 SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT REGARDING WACO MAM2 MOTH SITE AREA.

3 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior, in con4 sultation with the State of Texas, the city of Waco, and

5 other appropriate organizations, shall carry out a special

6 resource study regarding the national significance, suit7 ability, and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth

8 Site Area located in the city of Waco, Texas, as a unit

9 of the National Park System.

10 (b) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Section

11 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall

12 apply to the conduct and completion of the study required

13 by this section.

14 SEC. 2. SUBMISSION OF STUDY RESULTS.

15 Not later than 3 years after funds are first made

16 available for this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the

17 Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives

18 and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of

19 the Senate a report describing the results of the study.

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2002.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training

The Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO) was established pursuant to Title II of the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-233) and Section 9 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-462, Title 5 U.S.C. app. II). The authority of the ACVETEO is codified in Title 38 U.S. Code, Section 4110.

The ACVETEO is responsible for assessing employment and training needs of veterans; determining the extent to which the programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Labor meet these needs; and assisting to conduct outreach to employers seeking to hire veterans. The ACVETEO will conduct a business meeting on Wednesday, October 22, from 7:30 a.m. to 2 p.m., at the offices of The Home Depot, USA, at 2455 Paces Ferry Road, C-21 Large Conference Room, Atlanta, Georgia. The ACVETEO will discuss programs to assist veterans seeking employment and to raise employer awareness as to the advantages of hiring veterans, with special emphasis on employer outreach and wounded and injured veterans.

Individuals needing special accommodations should notify Bill Offutt at (202) 693-4717 by October 13, 2008.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of September, 2008.

Charles S. Ciccolella,

Assistant Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service.

[FR Doc. E8-22514 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-79-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James and Sue Scott, and

Stephen and Ellen St. Louis

v. Civil No. 06-cv-286-JD

First American Title

Insurance Company

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The parties moved for approval of their proposed settlement

of a class action. The motion did not address the requirements

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The court issued a

procedural order directing further briefing. In response,

counsel contacted the clerk's office, directing attention to

Exhibit 10 to the motion for approval, which is a memorandum of

law in support of the motion. 

As it appears that Rule 23(e) is addressed in the

memorandum, the procedural order requiring additional briefing

(document no. 54) is vacated.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 15, 2007

cc: Christopher D. Baucom, Esquire

Elizabeth T. Ferrick, Esquire

Wilbur A. Glahn, III, Esquire

Douglas W. King, Esquire

Charles A. Newman, Esquire

Edward K. O'Brien, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00286-JD Document 55 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1872

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a refundable credit

to individuals who donate their organs at death.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 2001

Mr. HANSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a

refundable credit to individuals who donate their organs

at death.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gift of Life Tax Credit

5 Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR ORGAN DONATIONS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart C of part IV of sub8 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of

9 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by redes-
2

•HR 1872 IH

1 ignating section 35 as section 36 and by inserting after

2 section 34 the following new section:

3 ‘‘SEC. 35. ORGAN DONATIONS.

4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an eligible indi5 vidual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax

6 imposed by this subtitle the amount of $10,000 for the

7 taxable year which includes the date of the individual’s

8 death.

9 ‘‘(b) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.—For purposes of this

10 section, the term ‘eligible individual’ means any individual

11 if—

12 ‘‘(1) before such individual’s death, such indi13 vidual made a clear declaration of intent to donate

14 any of such individual’s organs at death for trans15 plantation,

16 ‘‘(2) such declaration was made while the indi17 vidual was legally competent and at least 18 years

18 of age,

19 ‘‘(3) such individual’s death is not the result of

20 a suicide, and

21 ‘‘(4) one or more of such individual’s organs is

22 donated at death for transplantation under a pro23 gram approved by the Secretary of Health and

24 Human Services.’’

25 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
3

•HR 1872 IH

1 (1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title

2 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting be3 fore the period ‘‘, or from section 35 of such Code’’.

4 (2) The table of sections for subpart C of part

5 IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is

6 amended by striking the last item and inserting the

7 following new items:

‘‘Sec. 35. Organ donations.

‘‘Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.’’.

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

9 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the

10 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

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 Sma

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

1991...... 65.1 81.5 69.3 68.8 40.6 50.3 52.0 59.0 64.0 67.8 

1992...... 71.7 78.5 63.5 66.3 47.8 75.3 57.3 59.1 61.2 78.6 

1993...... 76.7 84.6 70.0 70.3 48.2 78.1 60.1 61.0 64.5 83.9 

1994...... 75.1 82.9 74.3 72.3 51.6 75.7 58.6 59.8 70.4 80.2 

1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 

1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 

1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 

1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 

1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 

2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 

2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 

2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 

1999: Q3... 70.2 44.6 69.1 71.5 48.8 86.3 50.2 51.4 62.3 86.4 

 Q4... 62.3 31.2 59.9 65.4 54.1 82.6 54.2 58.0 57.9 66.5 

2000: Q1... 63.0 46.4 69.2 59.4 80.6 70.8 51.8 52.4 53.0 69.7 

 Q2... 68.3 51.0 57.8 69.7 57.6 78.4 53.0 54.7 61.8 78.0 

 Q3... 71.0 60.0 59.5 78.9 38.6 72.9 57.3 57.9 67.8 79.2 

 Q4... 66.5 66.8 56.2 62.8 51.0 81.6 51.6 53.2 65.7 73.1 

2001: Q1... 67.7 64.7 73.7 73.4 50.8 63.9 60.0 60.4 66.4 70.4 

 Q2... 76.1 77.5 56.8 73.8 79.0 85.1 57.3 57.4 69.0 86.2 

 Q3... 76.5 72.5 72.6 75.5 54.9 86.9 58.0 63.5 70.7 86.6 

 Q4... 78.1 74.2 63.6 78.3 38.0 88.5 60.5 63.3 72.2 84.4 

2002: Q1... 72.3 62.1 64.1 69.7 57.9 88.1 64.2 57.5 64.4 79.5 

 Q2... 75.1 56.2 72.9 74.5 52.8 89.1 69.6 67.6 72.9 79.3 

 Q3... 72.2 53.6 57.8 78.2 75.1 67.9 68.5 68.7 68.5 74.8 

 Q4... 81.4 78.1 65.4 81.8 37.9 93.5 67.6 62.8 68.0 92.2 

2003: Q1... 74.7 64.0 79.5 75.4 61.7 86.0 68.2 67.5 63.7 80.8 

 Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual 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.
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |                                 |                                       |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Date:              August 26, 2005 | By:                        | /s/ Stephen              R. Anastasio |
|                               | Stephen              R. Anastasio    |
|                               | Chief              Financial Officer |

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 2094

ANTHONY G. BRYANT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Margaret B. Seymour , Senior District Judge. ( 2:20

- cv
- 03037

- MBS

- MGB )

Submitted : January 19, 2021 Decided: January 21, 2021

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anthony G. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony G. Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order requi ring him to pay the full filing fee in his civil action . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Lo an Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949).
The order Bryant seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2018


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: March 5, 2019
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of CoJax Oil and Gas Corporation, a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey J. Guzy, Chief Executive 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;  (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.  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.  Date: June 13, 2022By/s/Jeffrey J. GuzyName:Jeffrey J. GuzyTitle:Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
19

A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters 

Percent except as noted 

 USDA Farm Production Region 

 NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA 

Proportion of farm loans 

 outstanding, 2002 Q4 survey, 

 region share of national 

 total 2.6 9.2 27.8 17.8 8.6 4.8 4.8 9.1 5.7 9.7 

Sample coverage, 2002 Q4 

 survey, sample share of total 

 regional loans 18.2 6.2 21.1 11.1 20.0 14.9 6.8 9.9 7.5 20.7 

Avg. loan size, 2002 Q4 survey 

(thousands of dollars) 34.2 16.4 48.3 17.8 38.6 34.1 115.2 45.6 21.5 67.3 

 

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week 

 1996: Q3 8.3 9.9 8.9 9.4 7.6 9.4 10.0 9.4 8.9 8.1 

 Q4 10.1 9.9 9.3 9.0 7.5 9.3 9.9 9.1 9.0 8.6 

 1997: Q1 8.8 9.5 9.5 9.3 8.0 9.9 9.5 9.5 10.1 8.7 

 Q2 9.4 10.1 9.2 9.5 8.3 9.9 10.2 9.7 10.0 8.7 

 Q3 9.3 9.8 9.6 9.9 8.5 10.1 9.9 9.7 10.5 8.7 

 Q4 9.2 9.5 9.3 9.8 7.5 9.8 9.4 9.4 10.1 8.8 

 1998: Q1 9.3 9.0 9.4 9.8 7.3 10.0 10.3 9.8 9.6 8.5 

 Q2 9.2 9.4 9.2 9.7 7.6 10.2 10.3 9.6 9.8 8.4 

 Q3 10.2 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.8 9.5 9.7 9.5 9.6 8.5 

 Q4 9.4 9.2 8.7 9.0 8.3 9.4 9.7 9.2 9.1 8.0 

 1999: Q1 8.4 8.9 8.9 9.1 8.2 9.0 9.6 9.1 9.0 7.5 

 Q2 9.6 9.1 8.8 9.0 8.0 9.0 9.8 9.0 8.7 8.0 

 Q3 10.2 8.9 8.7 9.3 8.2 8.9 10.0 8.8 9.0 8.5 

 Q4 9.1 9.2 8.8 9.4 8.3 8.8 9.8 9.0 9.5 8.8 

 2000: Q1 9.4 9.2 9.2 9.6 8.4 9.8 9.3 10.0 9.8 8.4 

 Q2 10.7 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.1 9.1 10.5 10.0 10.1 9.5 

 Q3 10.5 10.30 10.0 10.3 9.7 9.2 10.5 10.0 10.6 9.7 

 Q4 10.7 9.3 9.9 10.1 9.2 9.4 9.2 10.3 10.3 9.8 

 2001: Q1 9.3 9.1 9.4 9.7 8.4 7.8 9.5 9.0 9.8 8.8 

 Q2 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.8 7.4 8.1 8.3 9.2 8.6 7.9 

 Q3 8.3 9.8 7.9 8.2 6.3 7.6 8.7 8.8 7.8 7.2 

 Q4 6.9 7.9 6.3 7.0 5.2 6.3 8.7 7.6 6.1 5.2 

 (.23) (.78) (.38) (.29) (.36) (1.71) (.42) (.79) (.33) (.35) 

 2002: Q1 6.9 7.8 6.7 7.2 5.2 5.5 7.3 7.4 6.8 4.9 

 (.12) (.37) (.26) (.22) (.63) (1.14) (.39) (.45) (.26) (.25) 

 Q2 6.8 7.4 6.4 7.2 5.0 5.9 7.6 7.5 6.5 5.1 

 (.14) (.29) (.27) (.21) (.48) (1.03) (.23) (.34) (.36) (.26) 

 Q3 6.4 7.5 5.8 6.5 4.6 6.0 7.5 7.3 6.5 5.3 

 (.43) (.29) (.50) (.68) (.67) (1.19) (.34) (.68) (.41) (1.06) 

 Q4 5.7 6.9 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.6 6.4 4.5 

 (.35) (.45) (.47) (1.01) (.56) (.62) (.68) (.35) (.47) (.62) 

 2003: Q1 5.3 7.0 5.6 5.7 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.4 6.1 4.5 

 (.15) (.26) (.31) (.73) (.65) (.63) (.54) (.66) (.35) (.40) 

 Q2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.6 6.1 7.3 5.7 6.4 5.2 

 (.29) (.17) (.37) (.34) (.71) (.63) (.45) (.71) (.36) (.50) 

 

 Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is Delta States, 

SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. They are calculated from 

100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.