alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 35903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17252]



[[Page 35903]]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 11809 and <greek-i> 11810]


Wisconsin Disaster <greek-i> WI-00019

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of WISCONSIN dated 07/15/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 06/18/2009 through 06/19/2009.

DATES: Effective Date: 07/15/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/14/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/15/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Kenosha, Racine.
Contiguous Counties:
    Wisconsin: Milwaukee, Walworth, Waukesha.
    Illinois: Lake, Mchenry.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere...................      4.875
Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere................      2.437
Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere...................      6.000
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11809 6 
and for economic injury is 11810 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are 
Wisconsin, Illinois.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    July 15, 2009.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-17252 Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed
under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding
the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: May 16, 2011
    By:
    /s/ David R. AllenDavid R. AllenChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1670** 

In R e: BRETT C. KIMBERLIN , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 8:13

- cv - 03059

- GJH )

Submitted : November 10, 2016 Decided: December 7, 2016

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Brett C. Kimberlin , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brett C. Kimberlin petitions for a wr it of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to vacate its protective order covering pretrial discovery and to allow hi m to publicly use discovery documents marked confidential that have not yet been filed in court. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v.
U
. S
. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003)
. The party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to attain relief, and he bears the burden of showing that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d at 517 (citations omitted). We have reviewed the petition and conclude that Kimberlin fails to make this showing. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny the motion to expedite as moot. We dispense with oral argument because th e facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D2024-0174 

LT Case No. 2020-CF-00304-A 

_____________________________ 

WILLIAM WILDER, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. 

James Hunt Daniel, Judge. 

Deana K. Marshall, of Law Office of Deana K. Marshall, P.A., 

Riverview, for Appellant. 

No Appearance for Appellee. 

August 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              28,207
<SECURITIES>                                         1,175
<RECEIVABLES>                                       23,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    83,010
<PP&E>                                              89,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                      23,703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     176,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               67,306
<BONDS>                                             50,520
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              1
<COMMON>                                               108
<OTHER-SE>                                          41,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       176,945
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   293,667
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      286,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (4,218)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      7,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7,328
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7,328
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.45
        

</TABLE>
# 2011-2017

Fatal occupational injuries involving trenches, 2011-2017 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries involving trenches, 2011-2017		

Fatal occupational injuries involving trenches, 2011-2017 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries involving trenches, 2011-2017		

Page &P
#### UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Nucor Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, and Essar Steel Limited, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2012-1621.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 13, 2013.

Ellen J. Schneider, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee, United States Steel Corporation. With *949her on the brief were Robert E. Lighthizer, Jeffrey D. Gerrish, and Luke A. Meis-ner. Of counsel was James C. Hecht.

Maureen E. Thorson, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee, Nucor Corporation. With her on the brief were Alan H. Price and Timothy C. Brightbill. Of counsel was Tessa V. Capeloto.

David D’Alessandris, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Devin S. Sikes, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

Mark P. Lunn, Arent Fox, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant.

RADER, Chief Judge, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is OrdeRed and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Case 3:11-cv-03788-MAS-LHG Document 73 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 639
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JAY L. THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAIRLEIGH DICKSON UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

Civil No. 11-3904 (WJM)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s submission of a civil

complaint and an application to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. Based on

Plaintiff’s affidavit of indigence, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges two statelaw claims: (1) breach of contract, and (2) breach of fiduciary duty. However, though

Plaintiff claims this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because

“[t]here is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in

controversy exceeds 75,000 exclusive of cost and interest,” Plaintiff goes on to identify

both himself and Defendant as citizens of the state of New Jersey. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5.)

Section 1332 only provides jurisdiction over state-law claims if the controversy is

between “citizens of different States.”

Federal courts are bound to determine whether they have jurisdiction even if none

of the parties to an action have challenged the asserted bases. Packard v. Provident

Case 2:11-cv-03904-WJM-MF Document 2 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 19
National Bank, 994 F.2d 1039 (3d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Upp v. Mellon Bank, N.A.,

510 U.S. 964, 114 S. Ct. 440, 126 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1993). Indeed, “a plaintiff, suing in a

federal court, must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of

whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court ... must

dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.” Smith v. McCullough,

270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S. Ct. 338, 70 L. Ed. 682 (1926). Here, since both parties are

citizens of New Jersey, complete diversity is lacking. As such, the Court can discern no

basis for asserting jurisdiction over this action. For the foregoing reasons;

IT IS on this 27th day of July 2011, hereby,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) and (b); and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint

without prepayment of fees or security; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

 s/ William J. Martini 

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

2

Case 2:11-cv-03904-WJM-MF Document 2 Filed 07/27/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 20
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel. ARRA Grant Opportunities (RC2) in CAM.                    

*Date:*                         August 5, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Martina Schmidt, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3456,                         *schmidma@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards; 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 14, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-17205 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7398.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Richard Lee Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Lee Adams appeals from his convictions and 240-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea. However, Adams has already unsuccessfully appealed his convictions and sentence. *See United States v. Adams,*No. 09-5008, 416 Fed.Appx. 233 (4th Cir.2011) (unpublished). Moreover, his appeal is untimely. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, we dismiss Adams’ appeal. 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.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

JOHN ALFY SALAMA MARKUS,
a/k/a "John Salama,"
a/k/a "John Alfy Salama,"

a/k/a "Habib," : Crim. No. 11-366 (JLL)
AHMED NOURI, :
a/k/a "Ahmed Bahjat," :
a/k/a "Hamada," :
ONISEM GOMEZ,
a/k/a "Oni Gomez,"
MITHAQ AL-FAHAL,
a/k/a "Mithag Mahmood Al-Fahal,"
and AMMAR AL-JOBORY,
a/k/a "Ammar Hussein
Muhammed Al-Jobory,"
a/k/a "Big Ammar"

ORDER

The parties in this matter having appeared for a status
conference before the Court (for the United States of America,
Sandra L. Moser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing; for
defendant John Alfy Salama Markus, Michael Rogers, Esq.,
appearing), at which the Government’s discovery obligations and
the progress of defendant’s review, as well as the scheduling of
motions and a trial date, were discussed:

IT IS on this Or th day of November, 2011,

ORDERED that:

The parties are to appear in Court for a status conference

on Februa 15, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.;



All parties shall file motions on or before March 9, 2012;

Responses to motions shall be filed on or before March 23,

2012;

Oral argument on motions shall take place on April 2, 2012
at 11 a.m.; and

Trial shall commence in this matter on April 16, 2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for good cause shown, the time
period from the date of this order to the date of the trial shall

be excluded from computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of

1974.

HON,“JOSE Ly LINARES
UNYTED“STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 17

- 1657 L

Filed: D ecember 21 , 2017

**************************************

*

ANDRUS, et al

. , *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

**************************************

ORDE R REGARDING JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENT

The Honorable Lydia Kay Griggsby

, of the United States Court of Federal Claims

, is

hereby assigned to manage a nd adjudicate all matters in the above

- captioned case . The Honorable

Elaine D. Kaplan is no longer assigned to the above

- captioned case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Susan G. Braden

SUSAN G. BRADEN

Chief Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7255

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY MERRICK, a/k/a C,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-94-163, CA-98-754-2)

Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Merrick, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Merrick appeals the district court’s order (1) directing the United States to respond to his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998) motion and (2) denying his motions for recusal

and appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ANTHONY BRIDGEFORD,

Petitioner

v.

G. ALLISON, CAPTAIN ABRASHOFF, S. ELLENBERGER, A. SHOPE, B. FISHER, K. KAUFFMAN, J. DUPONT, E. TICE, AND CAPTAIN EICHENLAUB,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 793 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
the Unpublished Order of the
Commonwealth Court at No. 1179 CD 2017 entered on September 26, 2017, dismissing the Order of the Huntingdon County Court of Common
Pleas at Nos. CP

- 31

- CV

- 1026

- 2017 and GG2587 entered on August 9,

2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1 st day of May, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is

REMANDED for consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s appeal. As the common pleas

court had not originally granted Petitioner in forma p auperis (IFP) status, the

Commonwealth Court’s reference to Rule of Appellate Procedure 551 in its defect

correction notice was in error. Instead, Rule of Appellate Procedure 552, which Petitioner

followed, controlled. See Pa.R.A.P. 552. Because Petitio ner’s post

- appeal IFP

application was pending before the common pleas court, the Commonwealth Court

should not have dismissed Petitioner’s appeal for failing to comply with the defect

correction notice. Furthermore, since the Commonwealth Court subsequent ly granted

IFP status to Petitioner, no filing fee shall be required for the appeal before that court.