alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending August 2, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCITY FIRST ENTERPRISES, INC.                                                                                            4c8City First Entreprises, Inc., Washington, DC, to engage in lending and community development activities.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: 08/18/2008FIRST FINANCIAL BANK                                                                                                    Member
**Exhibit 32**

 

 

ISONICS CORPORATION

 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Principal Executive Officer

 

To myknowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31,2004, containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and theinformation contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of IsonicsCorporation for the periods presented.

 

 
| December 15,  2004                   |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                 |
|                                 |
| /s/ James E.  Alexander              |   |
| James E.  Alexander, Chief Executive |
| Officer                              |

 

 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Principal Financial Officer

 

To myknowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31,2004, containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and theinformation contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Isonics Corporation forthe periods presented.

 

 
| December 15,  2004                   |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                 |
|                                 |
| /s/ John  Sakys                      |   |
| John Sakys,  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02266-CMA-CBS

CANDICE BELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN FURNITURE WAREHOUSE,

Defendant.

ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CASE

This civil action comes before the court on Plaintiff Candice Bell’s letter (Doc.

# 8), filed November 17, 2011, indicating that after considering the advice of an

attorney, she wishes to dismiss this civil action. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s

letter, the case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises. 

Plaintiff’s letter may properly be construed as a notice to voluntarily dismiss this

civil action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) provides that “the plaintiff may dismiss an action

without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves

either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal

signed by all parties who have appeared.” ”Unless the notice or stipulation states

otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Here, no

proof of service of the summons and Title VII Complaint on the Defendant has been

filed with the Court. Defendant has not appeared in the case or filed an answer or a

motion for summary judgment. A voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) is

Case 1:11-cv-02266-CMA-CBS Document 9 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

effective immediately upon the filing of a written notice of dismissal, and no subsequent

court order is necessary. See Hyde Constr. Co. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501, 507

(10th Cir. 1968) (“Rule 41(a)(1) provides for a dismissal without order of the court by

filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an

answer.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The notice closes the file. 

See id. See also Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003) (“The filing of a

notice of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) does not require an order of the court.”)

(citation omitted); Marex Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 2 F.3d 544,

546 (4th Cir. 1993) (stating voluntary dismissal is “self-executing, i.e., it is effective at

the moment the notice is filed with the clerk and no judicial approval is required”). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s letter (Doc. # 8), filed November 17,

2011, indicating that after considering the advice of an attorney, she wishes to dismiss

this civil action, is construed as a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and this civil action is hereby voluntarily

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

DATED: November 21 , 2011

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02266-CMA-CBS Document 9 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
174 La. 802

#### Georgianna Gray SCOTT v. Joshua HOWELL et al.

No. 31771.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 25, 1932.

Ered G. Benton, Dewey J. Sanchez, and Dudley L. Weber, all of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Charles J. Mundy, of New Orleans, for ap-pellees.

O’NIELL, C. J.

The matter in dispute in this case is the title to a city lot in Baton Rouge. The suit was dismissed on a plea to the jurisdiction of the court; and the plaintiff has appealed. The defendants have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there is no allegation as to the value of the property sued for. In answer to the motion the plaintiff has filed affidavits of two real estate dealers, and his own affidavit, showing that the property is worth $2,500, which is $500 above the minimum limit of this court’s appellate- jurisdiction. As the affidavits are not contradicted, we assume that the property is appraised correctly at $2,500. This court has original jurisdiction to determine questions of fact affecting the appellate jurisdiction of any case before the court. Const. 1921, art. 7, § 10.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 197 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 197

 To require preemployment drug testing with respect to applicants for 
                          Federal employment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

 Mr. Sweeney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require preemployment drug testing with respect to applicants for 
                          Federal employment.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employment Applicant Drug 
Testing Act''.

SEC. 2. PREEMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING.

    (a) In General.--All applicants for employment with the Federal 
Government shall be subject to preemployment drug testing in accordance 
with requirements which shall be prescribed by--
            (1) the President, with respect to applicants for 
        employment within the executive branch;
            (2) the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
        with respect to applicants for employment within the judicial 
        branch; and
            (3)(A) each House of Congress, with respect to applicants 
        for employment within such House; or
            (B) the appointing authority, with respect to applicants 
        for employment in any other office or agency within the 
        legislative branch.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term ``drug'' means 
a controlled substance as defined by section 102(6) of the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Any rules or regulations necessary to carry out this Act shall be 
issued in time so that they may be implemented beginning not later than 
the 90th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                             CAMPBELL RESOURCES INC.
                            SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES
                                December 31, 2001


The following significant subsidiaries are consolidated in the financial
statements submitted as a part of this report:

<TABLE>
<S>                                                            <C>                       <C>
                                                               Jurisdiction of           Percentage of
                                                               Incorporation             Voting Securities
                                                                                         Owned

Controlled by Campbell Resources Inc.:
         Meston Resources Inc.                                 Quebec                    100%
         MSV Resources Inc.                                    Quebec                    100%
         GeoNova Explorations Inc.                             Canada                    100%




Controlled by Meston Resources Inc.
         Meston Investments Limited                            Cayman Islands            100%
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 13**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS**

**Pursuant to 18****U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, Brian Charles Hartzer, certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 September 2015 of Westpac Banking Corporation (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Date: 2 November 2015 |
|--------|----------------------------|
|   |                       |
|   |                       |
|   | /s/ Brian Charles Hartzer  |
|   |                       |
|   | Brian Charles Hartzer      |
|   | Managing Director and      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer    |

 

 

I, Peter Francis King, certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 September 2015 of Westpac Banking Corporation (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Date:  2 November 2015 |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   |                             |
|   |                             |
|   | /s/ Peter Francis King           |
|   |                             |
|   | Peter Francis King               |
|   | Chief Financial Officer          |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Northeast Credit Union

v. Civil No. 09-cv-00088-JL

CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc.

O R D E R

As I have an account with the Northeast Credit Union, I

hereby recuse myself from presiding over this case.

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 1, 2009

cc: Russell F. Hilliard, Esq.

Lauren S. Irwin, Esq.

Bernard D. Posner, Esq.

Bradford R. Carver, Esq.

Derek D. Lick, Esq.

Case 1:09-cv-00088-SM Document 13 Filed 06/01/09 Page 1 of 1
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**December 2006**

Section A
Section B

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Section CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (10 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (6 KB)  C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (1 KB)  C.6. Trends in Farm Real Estate Values and Loan VolumeASCII (7 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.7. Trends in Farm Income and ExpendituresASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (7 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: January 08, 2007**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 02-cv-00311-RPM

CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOLYCHEM, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER ON CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS

On May 24, 2007, defendant Molychem, LLC filed a motion to set aside

document confidentiality designations for its listed trial exhibits. Climax Molybdenum

Company filed a response on June 13, 2007 and Molychem replied on June 15, 2007.

The protective order entered into for protection of information during discovery is not

controlling with respect to the exhibits to be considered at trial. Because the trial will

be conducted in a public forum, all exhibits are presumptively public and no longer

subject to the confidentiality provisions in the protective order. Requests for sealing of

documents at trial will be considered by the Court during trial. Counsel shall continue

to respect the confidentiality markings of those exhibits before they are offered and

received at trial. Because this procedure will be followed, it is

ORDERED that Molychem’s motion is denied.

Dated: July 27th, 2007

BY THE COURT:

s/ Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

 Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 233 Filed 07/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark McCurdy, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 716]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered May 17, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of marijuana in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant possessed an aggregate weight of more than 16 ounces of marijuana *(see*Penal Law § 221.25; *People v Nelson,*144 AD2d 714, 717 [1988]). Nonprohibited substances mixed with a proscribed substance can be included in determining the aggregate weight of the proscribed substance for the purpose of defining the degree of the crime *(cf. People v Mendoza,*184 AD2d 1055, 1056 [1992], *affd*81 NY2d 963 [1993]; *People v Konyack,*99 AD2d 588, 589 [1984]; *People v La Porta,*56 AD2d 983, 983-984 [1977]). There is thus no merit to the defendant’s contention that the People were required to exclude the mature stalks of marijuana plants when adducing evidence of the aggregate weight of marijuana in the defendant’s possession *(see*Sponsor's Mem, Bill Jacket, L 1979, ch 265; Penal Law § 220.00 [6]; Public Health Law § 3302 [21]).

The trial court providently granted the People’s challenge for cause of a prospective juror, even though the challenge was made after the defendant had already completed his challenges for cause *(see*CPL 270.15 [2], [4]; *People v Gaines,*258 AD2d *572921 [1999]). In any event, there was no prejudice to the defendant *(see People v Soto,*267 AD2d 15, 15-16 [1999]; *cf. People v Powell,*13 AD3d 975, 976-977 [2004]). The trial court properly instructed the jury, in connection with the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, that it could find that the defendant acted in concert with an unindicted accomplice (see *People v Rivera,*84 NY2d 766, 769-771 [1995]; *People v Gaston,*13 AD3d 96, 97 [2004]; *People v Monahan,*114 AD2d 380, 380-381 [1985]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### GREEN v. FIRESTONE TIRE *&*RUBBER CO.

*7*Div. 98.

Court of Appeals of Alabama,

June 4, 1935.

*834' A. L. Crumpton, of Ashland, for appellant.

Pnxet & Glass, of Ashland, and Robt. E. Smith, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SAMFORD, Judge.

This was an action on the common counts for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered on open account and on account stated. The defendant sets up by way of set-off and recoupment the breach of a contract in the sale of from eight to twelve thousand dollars worth of merchandise, and claiming damages for the breach in the sum of $3,000.

There were demurrers to these pleas, replications, rejoinders, and surrejoinders, and demurrers to each pleading as filed, and finally issue was joined and verdict rendered for plaintiff for $440.03, being an amount of something like $300 less than plaintiff’s claim. Defendant thereupon filed motion alleging that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence, and that the recovery on the plea of set-off was inadequate. This motion was overruled.

Nq question is raised on the pleading on this appeal, nor on the given or refused charges of the court, so those questions are eliminated from consideration here.

The only question presented on this appeal is the inadequacy of the recovery on the plea of set-off. As to this there is no way for the court to know how the jury arrived at its verdict.

But we are clear to the conclusion, that however or by what process the jury arrived at the verdict allowing defendant a credit of some $300 on the account sued on, such act was not to the injury of defendant, and he therefore cannot complain.

The contract alleged to have been breached and for which damages were claimed by defendant on his plea was for the sale of not less than $8,000 worth of merchandise, no part of which was delivered, nothing was given in earnest to bind the contract or in part payment, and no note or memorandum of the sale was in writing and signed by the party sought to be charged. The contract was therefore unenforceable. Acts 1931, pp. 570, 571, §1⁄8

Another reason why defendant could not recover on his plea is an entire absence .of any evidence as to the true measure of damages. The contract was for the sale of automobile tires and accessories to the school board for its school busses in Clay county, which tires and accessories were to be paid for with school warrants of the county sent direct to plaintiff by 'the county superintendent, and plaintiff was then to pay defendant his profit. What this profit was to be nowhere appears in the evidence. It is true the evidence discloses that these school warrants were .only worth 75 cents on the dollar, but that fact would not fix defendant’s profit or entitle him to the 25 per cent, discount on the goods sold. If plaintiff was willing to accept the warrants at par and wait for payment, that was a matter not affecting defendant.

Under the evidence in this record, the defendant was not injured by the verdict rendered. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2027 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2027

To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to extend for the 2001 
  and 2002 crop years the temporary eligibility of producers for loan 
deficiency payments when the producers, although not eligible to obtain 
       a marketing assistance loan, produce a contract commodity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2001

    Mr. Moran of Kansas (for himself, Mrs. Emerson, and Mr. Berry) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                              Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to extend for the 2001 
  and 2002 crop years the temporary eligibility of producers for loan 
deficiency payments when the producers, although not eligible to obtain 
       a marketing assistance loan, produce a contract commodity.

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

SECTION 1. LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR CONTRACT COMMODITY PRODUCERS 
              INELIGIBLE FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.

    Section 135(a)(2) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
U.S.C. 7235(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``only for the 2000 crop 
year'' and inserting ``for the 2000 through 2002 crop years''.
                                 <all>
```