alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28586-28587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14124]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6663]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Watteau, Music, and Theater''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Watteau, Music, and Theater,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported

[[Page 28587]]

pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about 
September 21, 2009, until on or about November 29, 2009, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered 
to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: June 10, 2009.
C. Miller Crouch,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-14124 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### In re EASTERN BANKERS CORPORATION.

No. 1982a.

District Court, D. New Jersey.

June 18, 1942.

*490Emanuel P. Scheck, of Newark, N. J. (of Osborne, Cornish & Scheck, of Newark, N. J.), for trustee.

Robert R. Daly, of Newark, N. J. (of Brady & Daly, of Newark, N. J.), for creditor.

SMITH, District Judge.

The Gunder Common Law Trust, hereinafter referred to as the creditor, asserted against the debtor a claim in the amount of $4,199.15, and, pursuant to the order of the court, filed proof thereof with the Trustee, who controverted the claim and objected to its allowance. The court, pursuant to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, § 117, 11 U.S.C.A. § 517, referred the matter to a special master, directing that he hear the same and report thereon. The Trustee, apparently apprehensive of his inability to recover the costs, should they be assessed against the creditor, demands the deposit of adequate security; the creditor, a nonresident, resists the demand.

The right of the court to tax costs and render judgment therefor against the unsuccessful party is established by statute,1 and is, therefore, not open to question. It has been held that costs may be taxed against a creditor who is unsuccessful in the prosecution of his claim2 and that the master’s fees are a proper item thereof.3 In the case of In re All Star Feature Corporation, Judge Learned Hand, in discussing the question, stated: “ * * * when a trustee contests the claim of an outsider, the controversy is inter partes, and costs follow as in any other case. Why the creditors of a bankrupt should have any warrant for litigation free from the usual risks, I confess I have never been able to see. "If the bankrupt had resisted the claim unsuccessfully, no one would think of asking exemption for him; but, when it is the creditors, it seems to be very hard, at least in this district, to dislodge the notion that they are in some sense wards of the court and entitled to special consideration.”

Thus, it would seem to follow that if the court may tax costs and render judgment therefor, it may, in the exercise of sound discretion, require the deposit of adequate security to insure their payment. This would seem to be particularly true where, as here, the creditor is a non-resident and the assessment of costs might otherwise be futile.4

The creditor shall deposit with the clerk of the court, as security for costs, the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100), or in lieu thereof a proper bond.

1

 Bankruptcy Act, § 2, sub. a (18), 11 U.S.C.A. § 11, sub. a(18).

2

 In re Walker Grain Co., D.C., 19 F. 2d 795; In re All Star Feature Corporation, D.C., 232 F. 1004, 1009.

3

 In re Borok, 2 Cir., 50 F.2d 75; In re Rome, D.C., 162 F. 971; In re Todd, D.C., 109 F. 265; Ex parte Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 315, 40 S.Ct. 543, 64 L. Ed. 919.

4

 Cf. Robertson v. Langdon, 7 Cir., 72 F.2d 148; Long et al. v. Stites et al., 6 Cir., 63 F.2d 855.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STEWART MATTHEW, § § No. 613, 2015 Plaintiff-Below, § Appellant, § § Court Below: Court of Chancery v. § of the State of Delaware § CHRISTOPHE LAUDAMIEL, § C.A. No. 5957 FLÄKT WOODS GROUP SA, § FLÄKT WOODS LIMITED and § DREAMAIR LLC, § § Defendants-Below, § Appellees. §
Submitted: June 8, 2016 Decided: June 22, 2016

Before VALIHURA , VAUGHN , and SEITZ , Justices.

ORDER

This 22 nd day of June, 2016, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs
and the record on appeal, we find it evident that t he final judgment of the Court of
Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and forthe reasons stated in its posttrial Memorandum Opinion dated September 28, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the October 21, 2015 judgment
of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-QSB FOR SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          95,953
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,606
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,406
<INVENTORY>                                     34,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               311,413
<PP&E>                                         475,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                 271,961
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 593,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          617,586
<BONDS>                                        118,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,866
<OTHER-SE>                                   (189,927)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   593,175
<SALES>                                        271,569
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               568,598
<CGS>                                          407,297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  668,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                84,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (687,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (687,488)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (687,488)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.016)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.016)
        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

# ACTION:

Annual notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is given under 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) of the appointment of members to the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

# DATES:

Membership is effective on June 16, 2009.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Review Commission, as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5), has established a Senior Executive Service PRB. The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chairman of the Review Commission regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance adjustments. In the case of an appraisal of a career appointee, more than half of the members shall consist of career appointees, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(5). The names and titles of the PRB members are as follows:
    - Terry T. Shelton, Associate Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration;
    - Fran L. Leonard, Chief Financial Officer, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Office of the Director;
    - Cynthia G. Pierre, PhD, Enforcement Director, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights; and
    - Janice H. Brambilla, Director of Management Planning, Broadcasting Board of Governors.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra A. Hall, Deputy Director of Administration, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 1120 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 606-5397.

Dated: June 11, 2009.

Thomasina V. Rogers,

Chairman.

[FR Doc. E9-14138 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7600-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            537,002 
<SECURITIES>                                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,685,164 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       72,926 
<INVENTORY>                                       892,844 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,266,112 
<PP&E>                                          8,034,756 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,988,664 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,829,771 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,687,728 
<BONDS>                                         5,539,694 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0 
<PREFERRED>                                     2,783,493 
<COMMON>                                          231,594 
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,697,126)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,829,771 
<SALES>                                         7,159,022 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,159,022 
<CGS>                                           4,662,908 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,399,460 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   38,017 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                254,090 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0 
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (157,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     (157,436)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.05)
        


</TABLE>
#### Mitchell Cole JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis R. MOORE, II, Defendant-Appellee, and Joel Ira Sher, Trustee.

No. 10-1444.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Jan. 11, 2011.

Curtis C. Coon, Coon *&*Cole, LLC, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Gerald Danoff, Danoff *&*King, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

*656Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mitchell Cole Jordan appeals from the district court’s order upholding the bankruptcy court’s determination that Jordan’s debt to Dennis R. Moore, II, is nondis-chargeable in bankruptcy. Our review of the record and the briefs filed by the parties discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the lower courts. *Jordan v. Moore,*Nos. 1:09-cv-02882-WMN; BK-07-15516; AP-07-00684, 2010 WL 997065 (D.Md. Mar. 16, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick B. DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-14770

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 23, 2006.

Michelle P. Smith, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Sandra Woodall Deisler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*872Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government, appellant pled guilty to possession of two firearms after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g),1 and the district court sentenced him to a prison term of 168 months.2 In this appeal, appellant challenges his sentence on the following grounds:

1) *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531,159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), effectively overturned *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and thereby rendered his sentence unconstitutional;

2) The felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), is facially invalid; and

3) The district court erred in enhancing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).

Appellant’s first challenge is foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Greer,*440 F.3d 1267,1273 (11th Cir.2006).

Appellant’s second challenge is foreclosed by several of our decisions, including *United States v. Scott,*263 F.3d 1270, 1272 (11th Cir.2001).

We do not consider appellant’s third challenge because, under the plea agreement he executed and as the district court found, appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the district court’s application of the Guidelines.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The indictment listed 12 felonies appellant had committed between July 1987 and November 2002. All the felonies but one involved cocaine.

2

. Appellant was subject to an enhanced prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to-wit: a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years and a maximum sentence of life. Under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a), a defendant who is subject to an enhanced sentence under § 924(e) is an armed career criminal. Based on appellant's total offense level of 31 and his criminal history category of VI, the Guidelines prescribed a range of imprisonment of 188 to 235 months. According to the judgment it entered after imposing sentence, the district court sentenced appellant to a term of 168 months "with credit for time served in Florida State custody on related offenses.”
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-65,817]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 20, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of BAE Systems Controls, Inc., Irving, Texas.

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

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13905 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Larry RUTHER, Appellant v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 06-7098.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 19, 2006.

Larry Ruther, Manassas, VA, pro se.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed May 8, 2006, and May 25, 2006, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prejudice on the ground that it did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) as the complaint did not contain a “short and plain statement” of the basis for the federal court’s jurisdiction and a “short and plain statement” of the claim or claims showing that he is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1), (2); *see Ciralsky v. CIA*355 F.3d 661, 668-70 (D.C.Cir.2004). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of the dismissal of the case. *See Firestone v. Firestone,*76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
***NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION***

***MICS AUDIT CHECKLIST***

***TIER B-SURVEILLANCE (BSV)***

Page 8 of 13
EXHIBIT 10.8
                                                                    ------------


                 FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
                 ----------------------------------------------

         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to a certain Purchase and Sale Agreement last
dated September 16, 1999 by and between Birmingham Utilities, Inc. as Seller and
The Trust for Public Land (Inc.) as Buyer (the "Agreement') is made as of the
31st day of December 2000.

                                    Recitals
                                    --------

         WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer did enter into that certain Agreement wh
erein Seller agreed to sell to Buyer and Buyer did agree to purchase from Seller
certain real property located in the Town of Seymour and City of Ansonia, for
the consideration and upon the terms and conditions as are more fu lly set forth
in the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for an outside Closing date of December
31, 2000; and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend said Closing date as provided for
herein in order to permit Buyer to obtain the final approval of all federal,
state and/or local funding needed to acquire the real property.

         NOW WHEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above, the
Buyer and Seller hereby agree that the December 31, 2000 Closing date set forth
in paragraph 4 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and the date of march 31, 2001
is hereby substituted therefore.

         The Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with
all of its terms and conditions as amended hereby.

         The First Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon
the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.

         IN WITNESS of the foregoing provisions, the parties have executed and
delivered this Agreement as of the date first set forth above.


Seller:                                     Buyer:

Birmingham Utilities, Inc.                  The Trust for Public Land (Inc.)

By  /s/  John S. Tomac                      By  /s/  A. Badger Blackett
    ------------------                          -----------------------
    Title: President                            Title: VP & Regional Director
    Date: December 27, 2000                     Date: December 31, 2000
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

M.S.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-1844

April 3, 2024

Appeal from the Department of Children and Families.

M.S., pro se.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.