alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23303]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,038]


Phoenix Leather, Inc., Brockton, MA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on September 12, 2008, in response to a 
worker petition filed by former workers of Phoenix Leather, Inc., 
Brockton, Massachusetts.
    The petition was only filed by two workers, which does not meet the 
requirement of three workers necessary to file a petition. As a result, 
the petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of September 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-23303 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendant.

 

ORDER EXONERATING BOND

This criminal action has proceeded to sentencing and a final judgment and conviction, and

the defendant was remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal at sentencing, or has selfsurrendered to the designated facility, as confirmed by the United States Bureau of Prisons. As a

result, all the conditions of an appearance bond imposed by the court as a pretrial matter to secure

the defendant’s release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c), have been satisfied. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the bond in this case is hereby exonerated and the surety or sureties, if

applicable, are released. It is further 

ORDERED that the bail funds or property deposited into the registry of the court shall

hereby be released by the clerk of the court, or a designated deputy, to the surety or the defendant. 

Dated this 9th day of December, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 357 Filed 12/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. BOBBIE LIONEL HENDERSON III, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 135 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 23rd day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### LOEB v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,792,000
<SECURITIES>                                16,780,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,822,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,791,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,319,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,435,000
<PP&E>                                      21,279,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,922,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              59,672,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,532,000
<BONDS>                                      4,806,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,218,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                59,672,000
<SALES>                                     13,264,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,264,000
<CGS>                                        8,382,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,382,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,441,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,485,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (394,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,091,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Sterling GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-2548

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1977.

Mark B. Poison, Birmingham, Ala. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Bill L. Barnett, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

George Sterling Griffin was convicted of the interstate transportation of stolen model trains of a value in excess of $5,000 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Griffin contends there was a variance in the description of the 8 models as given in the indictment and those established by the proof to have been involved in the transportation and sale by him. He also assigns as error the sufficiency of the evidence, a charge to the jury on inference of guilty knowledge from possession of recently stolen goods “if not satisfactorily explained,” and limitation of cross-examination.

*154The electric train models were each described on the indictment by gauge, model number and color. Witnesses established that all but one of the numbers as set out incorrectly failed to include the ending letter “E” to identify the first 7 engines as being equipped with an automatic reversing mechanism. The model number on one of these engines also had two digits transposed. In defense counsel’s opening statement he offered to stipulate that Griffin had these model trains in his possession, that he carried them across state lines, and that “[t]he government need not prove that.” The crucial questions, he maintained, were value and Griffin’s lack of knowledge that the trains were stolen. After proof disclosed that the model numbers were incorrect, defendant moved for mistrial based upon “obvious problems with the descriptions as alleged in the indictment.” The court overruled this motion, noting that the errors were not such as would mislead or misinform a collector of such equipment or one who traded in these types of engines, such as the defendant. On the following trial day, defendant entered into a stipulation with the prosecution that the train models “made the basis for the indictment” were transported across state lines and sold by him.

The variances did not affect substantial rights. They did not amount to the omission of any essential element of the crime charged. They were mistakes in numbers and no more. The defendant from the outset was not misled by these errors, and his defense was never predicated upon an inconsistent basis. He was not surprised, misled or prejudiced. The stipulation solved any possible problem as to future prosecution.

Defendant’s remaining assignments of error do not merit discussion.

AFFIRMED.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 9, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.217 Total Mortgages** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1162 

To amend the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act with respect 

to the labeling of cigarette packages, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2007 

Mr. LIEBERMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising 

Act with respect to the labeling of cigarette packages, 

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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cigarette Litter Pre5 vention Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIRED STATEMENT ON CIGARETTE PACKAGES. 

7 Section 4(a) of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and 

8 Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. 1333(a)) is amended by add9 ing at the end the following: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1162 IS

1 ‘‘(4)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to 

2 manufacture, package, or import for sale or distribu3 tion within the United States any cigarettes the 

4 package of which fails to bear, in accordance with 

5 the regulations promulgated by the Secretary under 

6 subparagraph (B), the following statement: ‘Please 

7 dispose of all cigarette waste properly. Do not lit8 ter.’. 

9 ‘‘(B) Not later than 180 days after the date of 

10 enactment of the Cigarette Litter Prevention Act of 

11 2007, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations 

12 with respect to the placement, format, and type style 

13 of the label statement required under subparagraph 

14 (A).’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02667-WYD-MJW

TAMMY ROBERTS, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

GRAND PERFORMER, INC., d/b/a The Beaver Creek Lodge, a Florida corporation,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Withdrawal of Motion to Compel (Docket

No. 45), which the court treats as a motion, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

(Docket No. 29) is hereby WITHDRAWN.

Date: August 8, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02667-WYD-MJW Document 47 Filed 08/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 8, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**D.2 Borrowing by Sector** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20728 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE PEREZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-157-ALL

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Perez-Lopez (“Perez”) appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court should have suppressed evidence of his prior administrative deportation because he was deprived of due process during that 8 U.S.C. § 1228 administrative deportation proceeding. Perez also contends that he need not establish actual prejudice in order to collaterally attack his prior deportation.No. 01-20728 -2- Perez concedes that his appeal is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte , 186 F.3d 651, 657-60 (5th Cir. 1999) , but he seeks to preserve his arguments for Supreme Court review. Perez’s conviction is therefore
AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02565-WJM-BNB

SIGNE MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint [docket no. 11, filed January 27, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and the Clerk of the Court is directed to

accept for filing the attached Amended Complaint.

DATED: January 30, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02565-WJM-BNB Document 13 Filed 01/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Case 1:02-cv-00133-ZLW Document 37 Filed 06/05/06 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
1

 Plaintiff’s Motion was filed a day after this deadline and therefore violates the court’s

Minute Order. Plaintiff’s prior failures to comply with court-ordered deadlines resulted in the

court entering an Order to Show Cause in this matter. (See Doc. No. 20.) Nevertheless, the court

proceeds to the substance of Plaintiff’s Motion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02697–REB–KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MOUNTAIN STATES LINE CONSTRUCTORS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING

COMMITTEE, 

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to (Partially) Cancel CM/ECF Due

to Continual Unresoved [sic] Problems.” (Doc. No. 65, filed May 24, 2012.) Plaintiff’s Motion

is ostensibly responsive to the court’s May 9, 2012 Minute Order, which directed Plaintiff to file

a motion no later than May 23, 20121

 demonstrating good cause to support the revocation of her

Electronic Case Filing (ECF) privileges. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff’s Motion, however, seeks only

a partial revocation of her ECF registration and access—specifically, Plaintiff proposes that she

retain her ECF access to file documents electronically, but be served via United States mail. 

Case 1:11-cv-02697-REB-KMT Document 70 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

The court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion is properly denied. Registration as an ECF

participant “shall constitute consent to electronic service of all documents . . . .” See ECF

Procedures for the District of Colorado (Civil Cases) 3.2C (emphasis added). Thus, a registered

party’s consent to receiving electronic service is part and parcel of their privilege to file

documents electronically. Accordingly, the court is not at liberty, nor is it otherwise inclined, to

grant Plaintiff’s proposed partial revocation of her ECF registration and access.

Additionally, because Plaintiff has not sought to fully revoke her ECF privileges, the

court finds that Plaintiff’s ECF registration and access shall remain in effect. Hereafter, Plaintiff

shall file all documents electronically using the ECF System consistent with ECF Procedure

1.1—unless electronic service is excepted under ECF Procedure 1.2—and shall be served

electronically will be served electronically consistent with ECF Procedure 3.2C. In other words,

Defendant is no longer required to serve Plaintiff with any filings via U.S. Mail, nor will the

court be serving Plaintiff via U.S. Mail with paper copies of court-initiated filings.

It is ORDERED 

Plaintiff’s “Motion to (Partially) Cancel CM/ECF Due to Continual Unresoved [sic]

Problems” (Doc. No. 65) is DENIED.

Dated this 30th day of May, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02697-REB-KMT Document 70 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00632-CV

IN RE FUNDING PARTNERS, L.P., FPIC, L.L.C., JEAP Solutions, L.L.C., DPIC, L.L.C., 

DPLS, L.L.C., DPLS II, L.L.C., FBP, Inc., FPLS, L.L.C., FPLS II, L.L.C., FPMB, Inc., 

Dash Partners, LP and Prospect, L.L.C.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 5, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED; MOTION FOR ABATEMENT AND 

RESETTING DEADLINES DENIED

The court has considered the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by relators on August 

31, 2011, and the response of the real parties in interest and is of the opinion that relief should be 

denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Accordingly, relators’ petition for a writ of mandamus and 

the joint motion for abatement of the underlying case and resetting of the deadlines in the 

scheduling order are hereby denied.

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CI-03462, styled Javier A. Pena d/b/a Phi Contractors and d/b/a Phi 

Services and Juan Garcia v. Funding Partners, L.P. a/k/a FP Asset Group, L.P.; SPT Investments, Inc.; James R. 

Martzall; Acquisition Funding Source, Inc.; FPIC, L.L.C.; Jeap Solutions, L.L.C.; DPIC, L.L.C.; DPLS, L.L.C.; D 

PLS II, L.L.C.; FBP, Inc.; FPLS, L.L.C.; FPLS II, L.L.C.; FPMB, Inc.; Prospect, L.L.C.; and Dash Partners, LP, 

pending in the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Martha Tanner presiding.
04-11-00632-CV

- 2 -

Relators shall pay all costs incurred in this proceeding. The clerk of this court is directed 

to transmit a copy of this opinion to the attorneys of record, the trial court judge, and the trial 

court clerk.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>



Yardville National Bancorp Subsidiaries                    Exhibit 10.31

1.                   Yardville National Bank

2.                   Yardville Capital Trust

3.                   Yardville National Investment Corporation
                     (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank)

4.                   YNB Real Estate Corporation
                     (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank)

5.                   Brendan, Inc.
                     (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank)

6.                   YNB Financial, Inc.
                     (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank)

7.                   Nancy-Beth, Inc.
                     (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank)

8.                   YNB Realty, Inc.
                     (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank)

9.                   Jim Mary, Inc.
                     (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank)

10.                  YNB Capital Development, Inc.
                     (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40383

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER MONTEMAYOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-202-ALL 

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Javier

Montemayor has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Montemayor has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our

independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02656-BNB

BRIAN M. GROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM CLEMENTS,

JOHN DAVIS,

ELLEN BLACKMORE,

MARY CARTER,

THOMAS FISHER,

MARY BETH KALYMER,

KERRY BARONI,

MARCIA MORTIN,

ARISTEDES ZARVARES,

SM VICALVI,

P. LASTRELL,

JOHN DOE,

JANE DOE, and

ANTHONY DeCESARO,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Brian M. Gross, is in the custody of the Colorado Department of

Corrections and currently is incarcerated at the Buena Vista Correctional Complex in

Buena Vista, Colorado. On October 12, 2011, Mr. Gross submitted to the Court a pro

se Prisoner Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion and Affidavit for

Leave to Proceed Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On October 17, 2011, Magistrate Judge

Boyd N. Boland directed Plaintiff to cure certain deficiencies. Specifically, he directed

Mr. Gross to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust fund statement for the six month

Case 1:11-cv-02656-LTB Document 9 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
period immediately preceding the filing. Mr. Gross submitted a certified copy of his

inmate trust fund statement on October 27, 2011. Magistrate Judge Boland granted Mr.

Gross leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 by order dated October 31, 2011.

The October 31 Order requires Mr. Gross to pay the full amount of the $350.00

filing fee in installments and directs him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $20.00 within

thirty days or to show cause why he has no assets and no means to pay the initial fee

by filing a current certified copy of his trust fund account statement. The Order warns

Mr. Gross that if he fails to have the initial partial filing fee sent to the Clerk of the Court

by the designated deadline or to show cause why he has no assets and no means by

which to pay the initial fee the Complaint would be dismissed without further notice.

Mr. Gross has failed either to pay the initial partial filing fee within the time

allowed, as designated in the October 31 Order, or in the alternative to show cause why

he has no assets and no means by which to pay the designated fee. Further, he has

not communicated with the Court since October 27, 2011. Accordingly, it is

 ORDERED that the Prisoner Complaint and the action are dismissed without

prejudice for Mr. Gross’s failure either to pay an initial partial filing fee of $20.00 or to

show cause why he has no assets and no means by which to pay the designated fee. It

is

Case 1:11-cv-02656-LTB Document 9 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 8th day of December , 2011.

 BY THE COURT: 

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court 

Case 1:11-cv-02656-LTB Document 9 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.43

                                   AMENDMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT dated the 30th day of March, 2000, by and between
IPVoice.com, INC., a Nevada corporation with offices at 5050 N. 19th Avenue,
Suite 417/416, Phoenix, Arizona 85015 ("Client") and Condor Worldwide, Ltd.,
with offices located at 328 Bay Street, Nassau, Bahamas ("Consultant"),
stipulates the following:

     Consultant agrees to waive its rights to any restricted shares of Client's
common stock as described in THE AMENDMENT made the 29th day of July, 1998, to
THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT made the 10th day of November, 1997.



CONDOR WORLDWIDE, LTD.                       IPVOICE.COM, INC.

BY: /s/ James K. Howson                      By: /s/ Barbara S. Will
    -------------------------------              -------------------------------
        James K. Howson                              Barbara S. Will
                                                     President