alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,  that the  undersigned  constitutes and
appoints Richard G. Meise and Richard R. Douglas, and each of them, his true and
lawful   attorney-in-fact   and  agent  with  full  power  of  substitution  and
resubstitution,  for  him  and in his  name,  place  and  stead,  in any and all
capacities,  to sign the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the  fiscal  year ended
December 31, 1996,  for filing with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission by
Microtest, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with any and all amendments to
such  Form  10-K,  and to file  the  same  with all  exhibits  thereto,  and all
documents in connection therewith,  with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting to such  attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the  premises,  as fully and to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or each of them,  may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.


         DATED:   March 3, 1997


                                                     /s/  Roger C. Ferguson
                                                     ----------------------
                                                      Roger C. Ferguson


STATE OF ARIZONA                    )
                                    ) ss.
County of Maricopa                  )


         On this 3rd day of March,  1997,  before  me,  the  undersigned  Notary
Public,  personally  appeared  Roger C.  Ferguson,  known to me to be the person
whose name is  subscribed  to the within  instrument  and  acknowledged  that he
executed the same for the purposes therein contained.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.


                                                     /s/  Betty Peterson
                                                     -------------------
                                                     Notary Public

My commission expires 7-31-97
IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0212 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LOUIS TED CAYE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s moti on for extension of time, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 14, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 20 2023

07/20/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0212
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership VI-A for
the quarter ended June 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 220,263
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             0
<PP&E>                                              20,735,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                       7,590,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      14,200,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        0
<BONDS>                                             11,839,891
<COMMON>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        14,220,882
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1,057,911
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,021,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     289,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (215,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (215,018)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0


</TABLE>
FILED

August 25, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court

Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

NATIONSBANK OF TENNESSEE, ) HAMILTON CHANCERY

) (No. 73919)

Plaintiff/Apellant )

)

v. ) NO. 03A01-9808-CH-00279

)

FORMPAK, INC. and ) HON. HOWELL N. PEOPLES

RON CAMPBELL, ) CHANCELLOR

)

Defendants/Appellees )

O R D E R

The Opinion in this case filed on June 25, 1999 is hereby withdrawn.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

___________________________________

William H. Inman, Senior Judge

___________________________________

Herschel P. Franks, Judge

___________________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2715 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2715

   To suspend temporarily the duty on neopor expandable polystyrene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

Mr. Lautenberg introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on neopor expandable polystyrene.

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

SECTION 1. NEOPOR EXPANDABLE POLYSTYRENE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Neopor expandable   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        polystyrene (CAS                                                   31/2011.......
                        No. 9003-53-6)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3903.11.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### BROWNE-VINTNERS CO., Inc., et al. v. NATIONAL DISTILLERS PRODUCTS CORP.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Oct. 26, 1953.

*206Beekman Aitken, C. P. Goepel, New York City, of counsel, for, plaintiffs.

Morris Kixmiller & Baar, Washington, D. C., Breed, Abbott *&*Morgan, New York City, for defendant.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

In this action for trade mark infringement, the defendant moves for leave to interpose a counterclaim based upon “evidence discovered after the filing of its answer.” The substance of the proposed counterclaim is that defendant’s supplier, and not the plaintiffs, has the exclusive use of the trade marks which are the subject of the litigation. The defendant’s supplier is not before the Court and has not joined in the motion.

Although the motion is based upon a claim of the alleged discovery of evidence after the service of defendant’s answer, no facts have been set forth to support the proposed counterclaim. The moving affidavit consists of conclusory statements by an attorney for the defendant, said to be based on depositions of various witnesses. There has been much backing and filling as to who is to supply those portions of the depositions allegedly supporting the conclusions. The duty to furnish the information rested upon the moving party, particularly in the light of the challenge as to the existence, or the accuracy, of the information upon which the conclusions are bottomed.

 ' A number of contentions now advanced by the defendant appear to have been the subject of a decree entered by Judge Woolsey in 19351 in favor of one of the plaintiffs. That decree makes it appear questionable that the defendant recently acquired knowledge of the facts as it now asserts. Furthermore, the decree may be conclusive upon the defendant’s supplier. Defendant acknowledges that one. Godefroy H. v. Mumm, a shareholder and apparently a principal of its supplier, was Vice President of the defendant in the former litigation, although it contends he was only a nominal officer. The broad sweep of the injunction granted by Judge Woolsey appears to encompass all officers and agents of the defendant in that litigation; but it is unnecessary to determine the issue here. In any event, in the absence of evidence to support the present motion, it is denied in the exercise of discretion. It is true that as a general rule leave to amend shall be given freely, but this does not dispense with the necessity of showing that justice so requires.

The denial, however, is without prejudice to an application by the defendant’s supplier to move to intervene upon a proper showing under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A.

Settle order on notice.

1

. Societe Vinicole De Champagne v. Mumm Champagne & Importation Co., D.C., 13 F.Supp. 575. See also Societe Vinicole De Champagne v. Mumm Champagne & Importation Co., D.C., 10 F. Supp. 289; Societe Vinicole De Champagne v. Mumm, 2 Cir., 143 F.2d 240.
NAL |.
K\ONAL Ig,

= y
: :
2}
>
Z S
VG comm’

June 20, 2013

Notice of Consultation on Reinterpretation
Dear Tribal Leader:

On behalf of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission), we invite you to
participate in a consultation meeting on a notice of proposed reinterpretation of NIGC regulations
and IGRA.

Through this notice, the Commission is seeking comment on a proposed reinterpretation of an
agency decision regarding the classification of server based electronic bingo system games that
can be played utilizing only one touch of a button (“one touch bingo”). The NIGC is not
proposing a new rule or regulation classifying games, but rather is proposing to reconsider one
decision related to one type of game — one touch bingo. The proposed reinterpretation finds that it
is Class II.

The NIGC recognizes and respects the sovereignty of Indian tribes and the government-to-
government relationship that exists between the United States and tribal governments.
Accordingly, the NIGC is committed to implementing the President’s November 5, 2009
Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation with Indian tribes and Executive Order 13175
prior to and during any rulemaking process.

As such, we invite all tribal leaders to share their views with the Commission these regulations
and the Draft Consultation Policy at a consultation scheduled for July 18, 2013 in conjunction
with the NIGC’s public meeting in, Tulalip, Washington, from 9:00 am to 11:00 a.m., at the
following location:

Tulalip Resort Casino

Conference room Chinook III and IV
10200 Quil Ceda Blvd.

Tulalip, WA

For those tribal leaders unable to attend this consultation, we invite you to submit written
comments by e-mail to reg.review@nige.gov, or by U.S. mail to National Indian Gaming
Commission, Attn: Regulatory Review, 1441 L Street, NW. Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005.

The Commission intends to post comments received and transcripts of each consultation on the
NIGC website under the heading “Tribal Consultation,” on the left-hand side of the NIGC home

page, www.nige.gov.

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1447 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.GoV

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK


For planning purposes, and to accommodate all who want to attend the consultation, please RSVP
to Rita Homa, Executive Administrator, at (202) 418-9807 or by e-mail at

consultation.rsvp@nige.gov. Information regarding the time and location of each tribal
consultation will be posted on our website.

We are committed to working together on a government-to-government basis to maximize the
results of this process. We look forward to meeting with you should your schedule allow.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Sincerely,

f Lo WL’ Sits

Tracie L. Stevens Daniel J. Little
Chairwoman Associate Commissioner
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00193-CV

EDNA CORTEZ F/K/A EDNA CHAPA

v.

DAVID CHAPA

On Appeal from the

444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2007-10-004974-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal 

are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 14, 2021
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

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,793]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 14, 2009, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Home Fashion International, Taylorsville, North Carolina.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

      ( print page 27356)    
Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13453 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1996
<CASH>                                            1000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


        

</TABLE>
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of CHS Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodended May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, John D. Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.     /s/John D. Johnson           John D. Johnson *President and Chief Executive Officer*July 8, 2005
EXHIBIT 11.1


                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Six Months Ended June 30,                 Three Months Ended June 30,
                                             1999                 1998                 1999                   1998
                                          ----------         -----------            -----------         ------------
<S>                                       <C>                <C>                    <C>                 <C>
Net income (loss)                         $1,315,604         $(6,486,583)           $ 1,175,494         $ (3,289,158)
   Less: Preferred stock dividends         (145,064)               -                   (85,096)               -
         Deduction related to Series C
          Convertible Preferred Stock       133,320)               -                  (133,320)               -
                                          ----------         ------------           -----------         -------------

Net income (loss) applicable to
 common stock                             $1,037,220         $(6,486,583)           $   957,078         $ (3,289,158)
                                          ==========         ============           ===========         =============

Basic:
      Weighted average number of
       common shares outstanding          28,685,000           28,673,000            28,686,000            28,685,000
                                          ==========         ============           ===========         =============
       Basic net income (loss) per common
        and common equivalent share             $.04               $(.23)                  $.03                $(.11)
                                          ==========         ============           ===========         =============

Diluted:
       Weighted average number of
        common shares outstanding         28,685,000           28,673,000            28,686,000            28,685,000
       Weighted average number of
        dilutive common equivalents          789,000               -                  1,195,000                 -
                                          ----------         ------------           -----------         -------------
       Weighted average number of
        common and common
        equivalent shares outstanding     29,474,000           28,673,000            29,881,000            28,685,000
                                          ==========         ============           ===========         =============

       Diluted net income (loss) per
        common and common
        equivalent share                        $.04               $(.23)                  $.03                $(.11)
                                          ==========         ============           ===========         =============
</TABLE>
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

95-2558.

#### Sparks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Franklin App. No. 95APE03-339. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of the joint application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.