alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B AKOS , A PPELLEE , v. I NSURA P ROPERTY & C ASUALTY I NSURANCE C OMPANY ET AL ., A PPELLANTS
. [Cite as Bakos v. Insura Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Certification of conflict dismissed for want of conflict within meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(B). (No. 97-2431 — Submitted October 28, 1998 — Decided December 30, 1998.) C ERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 71949.

__________________ Peterson & Zelasko and Bradford D. Zelasko , for appellee. McNeal, Schick, Archibald & Biro Co., L.P.A. , and Paul W. Ziegler , for appellant Insura Property & Ca sualty Insurance Company. Weston Hurd Fallon Paisley & Howley L.L.P., John G. Farnan, Hilary S. Taylor and William H. Baughman, Jr. , for appellant St. Pa ul Fire & Marine Insurance Company.

__________________ The cause is dismissed for want of conflict within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(B).
M OYER , C.J., D OUGLAS , R ESNICK , F.E. S WEENEY , P FEIFER AND L UNDBERG S TRATTON , JJ., CONCUR
. C OOK , J., dissents.

__________________ C OOK , J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the decision to dismiss this case as improvidently certified and, if addressing this case on the merits, would affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 2, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00125

- CV

Federal National Mortgage Association, Appellant

v.

Gerald R. Haddox and Sharon Haddox, and All Other Occupants, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM COUNTY CO URT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT ’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS DAY came on to be submitted to this Court appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal in the

above cause, and the Court having fully considered said motion, and being of the opinion that

same should be granted: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that said

motion is granted, and that the appeal is dismissed. It is FURTHER ordered th at the appellant

p ay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision

be certified below for observance.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0261. IN THE INTEREST OF A. M. et al, CHILDREN (MOTHER).

The mother of the above-referenced minor children seeks discretionary review

of the juvenile court’s order ruling that the Muscogee County Department of Family

and Children Servicesis not required to provide servicesintended to reunify her with

the children. The juvenile court’s order, however, is directly appealable. See In the

Interest of S. A. W., 228 Ga. App. 197, 199 (1) (491 SE2d 441) (1997). We will grant

a timely discretionary application if the lower court’s order issubject to direct appeal. 

See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, this application is hereby GRANTED. The

mother shall have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal with

the juvenile court. If she has already filed a notice of appeal, she need not file a

second notice. The clerk of the juvenile court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this

order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 23, 2019

01/23/2019
#### New York Surety Company, Respondent, v Joseph Costello, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 683]

—In an action to recover payment under the terms of an indemnity contract, the defendant Joseph Costello appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated June 21, 1996, which granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 20, 1996, in favor *353of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $76,024.59.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the papers submitted in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the claims therein, submitted by the defendant’s attorney, a person without actual knowledge of the facts, were not based on documentary evidence. As such, they were insufficient to rebut the plaintiff’s prima facie case and defeat the motion *(see, Akane Corp. v Fujimichi,*184 AD2d 300, 301; *Sheahan v County of Suffolk,*109 AD2d 832, 833; *Di Falco, Field & Lomenzo v Newburgh Dyeing Corp.,*81 AD2d 560, 561, *affd*54 NY2d 715). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home
 Licensing and Certification
 Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Status Changes
 On this page
OTI License Applications


2024
2023
2022
2021OTI License Revocations and Surrenders


Current Revocations and Surrenders
Previous Updates



This page contains notices on the status of Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) licenses. OTI License applications filed with the FMC and any later revocations, suspensions, surrenders, will be listed here.



This list may be used in combination with the List of FMC Licensed & Bonded OTIs. Notice: After 1/22/2020 you must refer to the OTI LIST to determine if a license has been reissued.



OTI License Applications


2024


Previous Page



2023


January 17, 2023January 9, 2023Previous Page

1
...
5
6
7



2022


January 18, 2022January 10, 2022January 3, 2022Previous Page

1
...
5
6
7



2021


Previous Page







OTI License Revocations and Surrenders


Current Revocations and Surrenders


June 30, 2024 [PDF, 84 KB]



May 31, 2024 [PDF, 78 KB]



April 30, 2024 [PDF, 123 KB]



March 31, 2024 [PDF, 124 KB]



February 29, 2024 [PDF, 121 KB]



January 31, 2024 [PDF, 123 KB]






Previous Updates


Archived OTI License Revocations and Surrenders Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

Brandon Moore-Montgomery 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A er, 2
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

FMC File No. 17204

This Agreement is entered into between:

(1) The Federal Maritime Commission, hereinafter referred to as Commission, and

(2) CL USA Inc., hereafter referred to as Respondent. 

WHEREAS, the Commission is considering the initiation of an assessment proceeding 

against Respondent for the recovery of civil penalties for alleged violation of 46 C.F.R. 515.18(c).

WHEREAS, such a proceeding would be based on the Commission’s allegation that 

Respondent engaged in certain practices, to wit: 

Respondent operated without a Qualifying Individual as required 

under 46 C.F.R. Part 515, for a period in excess of one year. 

WHEREAS, the Commission is authorized under section 13(c) of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41109(c), and Subpart W of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 46 C.F.R. § 

502.604, et seq. to compromise and collect civil penalties arising for the alleged violation set forth 

and described above; and

WHEREAS, Respondent has terminated the practice which was the basis of the alleged 

violation set forth herein, and has committed to maintaining measures designed to eliminate such

practice in the future; and

WHEREAS, Respondent has cooperated and disclosed to the Commission information, 

facts, and documents relevant to its transportation activities and practices;
2

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises herein, and in compromise of all 

civil penalties arising from the alleged violation set forth and described herein, Respondent and 

the Commission hereby agree upon the following terms of settlement:

1. Respondent shall make payment to the Commission by cashier’s check or certified 

check in the total amount of $22,500.

2. This instrument shall forever bar the commencement or institution of any 

assessment proceeding or other claim for recovery of civil penalties from 

Respondent, its officers, directors, employees, or agents arising from the alleged 

violation set forth above that occurred for a period in excess of one year prior to 

March 23, 2016.

3. It is expressly understood that this Agreement is not, and is not to be construed as, 

an admission by Respondent to the alleged violation set forth above.

4. This agreement is subject to approval by the Commission’s Managing Director in 

accordance with 46 C.F.R. § 502.604.

 CL USA Inc.

Signature: __________________________

Printed Name: ______________________

Title: ______________________________

Date: ______________________________
3

APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE

The above Terms and Conditions and Amount of Consideration are hereby approved and 

accepted:

By the Federal Maritime Commission:

____________________________________

Peter J. King, Director (Date)

Bureau of Enforcement

____________________________________

Vern W. Hill (Date)

Managing Director
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments                           ( print page 49816)                        must be received not later than November 13, 2017.                

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta*                     (Kathryn Haney, Director of Applications) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to                     *Applications.Comments@atl.frb.org:*

                    1.                     *Lawrence Andrew Proffitt, Gatlinburg, Tennessee;*                     to act as trustee and thereby vote the shares of Tennessee State Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly vote the shares of Tennessee State Bank, both of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 23, 2017.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-23357 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kenneth Hilowitz certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TrimFast
Group, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
aspects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

         4. Both myself and the chief executive officer are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

                  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

                  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. Based on our most recent evaluation:

                  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

         6. We have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls and in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.


<PAGE>

Date: March 12, 2004


/s/ Kenneth Hilowitz

-----------------------------------------
Kenneth Hilowitz, chief financial officer
TrimFast Group, Inc.
Exhibit 10.29                                         Date: October 26, 2000



                             DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


     In  consideration  of a loan received by ComLinx,  Inc.  ("Borrower")  from
Archer  Systems   ("Lender")  in  the  principal   amount  of  $17,000.00   (the
"Principal"),  Borrower  promises  to pay to the order of  Lender at 75  Lincoln
Highway,  Suite 203,  Iselin,  New Jersey 08830 the  Principal  plus interest on
unpaid  principal  at the rate of 5.35% per annum until the  Principal  has been
repaid in full.  Borrower agrees to pay all  outstanding  Principal and interest
upon demand of the Lender.


                                            COMLINX, INC.

                                            By:/s/Eric R. Korb
                                            ------------------
                                                  Eric R. Korb, President & CEO

                                        2
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         November 6, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 23 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-19, CP2018-41.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-24040 Filed 11-3-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Filed 2/12/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2015 ND 23

Huffman Inc., d/b/a Huffco Services, Appellant

v.

North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance, Appellee

No. 20140348

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Stephen D. Little, Gateway Office Building, 2718 Gateway Avenue, Suite 302, Bismarck, ND 58503-0585, for appellant.

Jacqueline Sue Anderson, Special Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Radisson Tower, 201 Fifth Street North, P.O. Box 2626, Fargo, ND 58108-2626, for appellee.

Huffman Inc. v. WSI

No. 20140348

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Huffman Incorporated (“Huffco”) appeals from a district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s order finding Huffco’s drivers are employees.  Huffco argues its drivers are independent contractors and not employees because the greater weight of the evidence shows that Huffco’s drivers agreed to work as independent contractors, continued working as independent contractors, were treated as independent contractors and accepted the benefits of being independent contractors.  We summarily affirm the district court judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5). 

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Lee FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-7016.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 26, 2013.

Decided: Dec. 4, 2013.

Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Thomas A. O’Malley, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*306PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lee Foster appeals the denial of his Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion for a new trial and the district court’s refusal to reconsider that denial. We affirm.

First, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Foster’s motion for a new trial. *United States v. Moore,*709 F.3d 287, 292 (4th Cir.2013). To receive a new trial based on an alleged Brady* violation, a defendant must “show that the undisclosed evidence was (1) favorable to him either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) material to the defense, *ie.,*prejudice must have ensued; and (3) that the prosecution had [the] materials and failed to disclose them.” *United States v. Wilson,*624 F.3d 640, 661 (4th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, to receive a new trial based simply on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must show that: (1) the evidence is newly discovered; (2) he has been diligent in uncovering it; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material to the issues involved; and (5) the evidence would probably produce an acquittal. *Moore,*709 F.3d at 292.

Here, the success of Foster’s request for a new trial based on the Government’s alleged violation of its disclosure obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(9) (2012) turned on the conclusion that the wiretaps used in the investigation of Foster’s crimes were not properly authorized by the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1) (2012). However, Foster’s failure to properly raise that issue at trial or on direct appeal prevented the district court from reaching such a conclusion absent exceptional circumstances. *United States v. Pileggi,*703 F.3d 675, 679-82 (4th Cir.2013) (discussing mandate rule). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that Foster failed to make the requisite showing because the evidence Foster claims the Government improperly withheld does not impugn the validity of the wiretaps in question.

Because the district court also correctly found that it lacked authority to reconsider its final order denying Foster’s motion for a new trial, *see United States v. Breit,*754 F.2d 526, 530 (4th Cir.1985), we affirm the district court’s orders. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

*Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).