alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 88921 / May 21, 2020

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-19704

In the Matter of

Wells Fargo & Company,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING 

FUND ADMINISTRATOR 

AND SETTING BOND 

AMOUNT

On February 21, 2020, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist 

Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, 

and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”)1against Wells Fargo & Company (the 

“Respondent”). In the Order, the Commission found that from 2012 through 2016, the 

Respondent violated the federal securities laws by misleading investors regarding the success of 

the core business strategy of the Community Bank operating segment, its largest business unit. 

At all relevant times, Wells Fargo was a publicly traded financial services corporation with 

common stock registered under Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(“Exchange Act”) and quoted on the New York Stock Exchange (Ticker: WFC). According to 

the Order, Wells Fargo, among other things, failed to disclose to investors that the Community 

Bank’s sales model had caused widespread unlawful and unethical sales practices misconduct 

that was at odds with its investor disclosures regarding needs-based selling, and that the publicly 

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 88257 (Feb. 21, 2020).
2

reported cross-sell metric included significant numbers of unused or unauthorized accounts. The 

Commission found that Wells Fargo violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

thereunder and ordered it to pay a $500 million civil money penalty to the Commission. The 

Commission ordered the Respondent to pay a $500,000,000.00 civil money penalty to the 

Commission. The Commission also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the 

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalty can be distributed to harmed investors (the “Fair 

Fund”). The Fair Fund includes the $500,000,000.00 paid by the Respondent. 

The Division of Enforcement now seeks the appointment of Rust Consulting, Inc. 

(“Rust”) as the fund administrator and requests that the administrator’s bond be set at 

$500,000,000.00. Rust is included in the Commission’s approved pool of administrators.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Rust is appointed as the fund 

administrator, pursuant to Rule 1105(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Fair Fund and 

Disgorgement Plans (“Commission’s Rules”),2and shall obtain a bond in accordance with Rule 

1105(c) of the Commission’s Rules3in the amount of $500,000,000.00.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.4

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary 

 

2

 17 C.F.R. § 201.1105(a).

3

 17 C.F.R. § 201.1105(c).

4

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(17).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 88847 / May 11, 2020

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-18253

In the Matter of

Mergenet Medical, Inc., Bruce 

Matthew Sher, Shara Anne 

Hernandez, and Peter Anthony 

DeCicco, Jr.

 

Respondents.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING 

TAX ADMINISTRATOR

By order dated February 22, 2019, the Commission issued the “Omnibus Order 

Directing the Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that 

Establish Distribution Funds” (“Omnibus Order”),1 authorizing the Secretary to issue 

orders for calendar years 2019-2021 appointing, upon request by the Commission staff, 

Miller Kaplan Arase LLP (“Miller Kaplan”), a certified public accounting firm, with one 

of their offices located in San Fransciso, California, as tax administrator (“Tax 

Administrator”) in administrative proceedings where the distribution fund may incur 

tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) under the Department of 

the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

On May 4, 2020, the Commission staff requested, pursuant to the Omnibus 

Order, the appointment of Miller Kaplan as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the 

above-referenced proceeding. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Miller Kaplan, pursuant to and in accordance 

with the Omnibus Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the abovereferenced proceeding. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 85174 (Feb. 22, 2019).
# Official Journal L 66/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 66 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5911 March 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 66

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5911 March 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/323 of 24 February 2016 laying down detailed rules on cooperation and exchange of information between Member States regarding goods under excise duty suspension pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) No 389/2012 | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/323 of 24 February 2016 laying down detailed rules on cooperation and exchange of information between Member States regarding goods under excise duty suspension pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) No 389/2012

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
2012-09-20 15:41 

Beatriz Ortiz Otero 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Hon.Jaime Perello 7876224955 >> 

Beatriz Ortiz Otero 

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:37PM 

'LMN-publicmeeting@faa.g~v· 

2024932251 p 2/2 

Subject: Pre-Register (Public Hearing, lnternation.::.l Airport Luis Mu~oz Marin) 

On Friday, September 28, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration will conduct a public meeting in Puerto Rico about 

the privatization of Luis Munoz Marin International Airport. 

For that reason, as legislator, I want the opportunity to present my comments and concerns during this public meeting. 

Following the recommendations of FAA, I want to make a pre·register to participate in this hearing. 

My personal information is the following: 

Jaime R. Perello Borras 

Representative at Large 

House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

Elected Official 

(787) 622-4954, 622-4953 

Please, don't hesitate to contact us for further Information. Additionally, I want to know if there are oth~ 

requirements to participate in the hearing. · 

Cordially, 

Jaime R. Perello Borras 

(787) 622-4954, 622-4953 

1
#### In the Matter of Alfred T. Rowe, an Attorney.

Reffered to official referee. Order to be settled on notice. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
Indented Bill of Materials

V Body Systems

Level Symbol Name

V-Brace Rear Battery Final Washed asm Left

1 V-Brace Rear Battery Left Welding

2 V-Brace Rear Battery Stamping Left

3 V-Brace Rear Battery Stamped Material Left

2 V-Weld Nut Brace-Batt Rear

0 V Brace, Rear Battery Right Final Washed Part

1 V-Brace Rear Battery Right Welding

2 V-Brace Rear Battery Stamping Right

3 V-Brace Rear Battery Stamped Material Right

2 V-Weld Nut Brace-Batt Rear



Design Profit ®

Copyright 2005© Munro & Associates, Inc.
y Final Washed asm Left

tery Left Welding

Battery Stamping Left

ar Battery Stamped Material Left

ace-Batt Rear

y Right Final Washed Part

tery Right Welding

Battery Stamping Right

ar Battery Stamped Material Right

ace-Batt Rear




Number

V-Brace Rear Battery Final Washed asm Left

V-Brace Rear Battery Left Welding

V-Brace Rear Battery Stamping Left

V-Weld Nut Brace-Batt Rear

V Brace, Rear Battery, Right Final Washed Part

V-Brace Rear Battery Right Welding

V-Brace Rear Battery Stamping Right

V-Weld Nut Brace-Batt Rear

Assembly Totals

Analyzed Subs:

6

Unanalyzed Subs:

0

Parts:

4

Fasteners:

2

Parts+Unanalyzed:

4




Number

V-Brace Rear Battery Final Washed asm Left

V-Brace Rear Battery Left Welding

V-Brace Rear Battery Stamping Left

V-Brace Rear Battery Stamped Material Left

V-Weld Nut Brace-Batt Rear

V Brace, Rear Battery, Right Final Washed Part

V-Brace Rear Battery Right Welding

V-Brace Rear Battery Stamping Right

V-Brace Rear Battery Stamped Material Right

V-Weld Nut Brace-Batt Rear

Report Total




Qty Material 1

Steel - 1008

1

1 Steel - 1008 1 1 Commodity Prcing

1

1 Steel - 1008 1 Steel - 1008 1 1 Commodity Prcing

Report Totals

Piece Cost (Total):

Weight (Total): 1.6520 lb



Page 1 of 1
Material

Steel - 1008

Steel - 1008

Steel - 1008

Commodity Prcing

Steel - 1008

Steel - 1008

Steel - 1008

Commodity Prcing

Preassembled Totals

Analyzed Subs:

0

Unanalyzed Subs:

0

Parts:

0

Fasteners:

0

Parts+Unanalyzed:

0









Piece Cost Weight Piece Cost Weight (Total)

(Total)

## 0.8260 lb## 0.8260 lb # 0.8260 lb # 0.8260 lb

# 0.8260 lb # 0.8260 lb

# 0.8260 lb # 0.8260 lb

# 0.0000 lb # 0.0000 lb

$0.67 0.8260 lb $0.67 0.8260 lb

# 0.8260 lb # 0.8260 lb

# 0.8260 lb # 0.8260 lb

# 0.8260 lb # 0.8260 lb

# 0.0000 lb # 0.0000 lb
§ 646.210 Classification of projects and railroad share of the cost. ( a ) State laws requiring railroads to share in the cost of work for the elimination of hazards at railroad-highway crossings shall not apply to Federal-aid projects.
( b ) Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 130(b), and 49 CFR 1.48: ( 1 ) Projects for grade crossing improvements are deemed to be of no ascertainable net benefit to the railroads and there shall be no required railroad share of the costs.
( 2 ) Projects for the reconstruction of existing grade separations are deemed to generally be of no ascertainable net benefit to the railroad and there shall be no required railroad share of the costs, unless the railroad has a specific contractual obligation with the State or its political subdivision to share in the costs.
( 3 ) On projects for the elimination of existing grade crossings at which active warning devices are in place or ordered to be installed by a State regulatory agency, the railroad share of the project costs shall be 5 percent.
( 4 ) On projects for the elimination of existing grade crossings at which active warning devices are not in place and have not been ordered installed by a State regulatory agency, or on projects which do not eliminate an existing crossing, there shall be no required railroad share of the project cost.
( c ) The required railroad share of the cost under § 646.210(b)(3) shall be based on the costs for preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction within the limits described below: ( 1 ) Where a grade crossing is eliminated by grade separation, the structure and approaches required to transition to a theoretical highway profile which would have been constructed if there were no railroad present, for the number of lanes on the existing highway and in accordance with the current design standards of the State highway agency.
( 2 ) Where another facility, such as a highway or waterway, requiring a bridge structure is located within the limits of a grade separation project, the estimated cost of a theoretical structure and approaches as described in § 646.210(c)(1) to eliminate the railroad-highway grade crossing without considering the presence of the waterway or other highway.
( 3 ) Where a grade crossing is eliminated by railroad or highway relocation, the actual cost of the relocation project, the estimated cost of the relocation project, or the estimated cost of a structure and approaches as described in § 646.210(c)(1), whichever is less.
( d ) Railroads may voluntarily contribute a greater share of project costs than is required. Also, other parties may voluntarily assume the railroad's share.
(55 South. 556.)

No. 18,361.

#### GLOBE & RUTGERS FIRE INS. CO. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS et al.

(June 5, 1911.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

Collection of Taxes.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. Case, 221 U. S. 346, 31 Sup. Ct. 550, 55 L. Ed. 762, the facts being similar, disposes of this case.

Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Walter B. Sommerville, Judge.

Action by the Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Company against the City of New Orleans and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Howe, Fenner, Spencer & Cocke and Bernard J. Mayer, for appellant. Geo. H. Terri-berry, for appellee Board of Assessors. I-I. Garland Dupre, for appellee City of New Orleans. Harry P. Sneed, for appellee State Tax Collector.

BREAUX, C. J.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment rendered in favor of defendants, condemning it to pay amounts claimed by the latter.

There was a question involved which falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the suit of Liverpool *&*London *&*Globe Insurance Company v. Board of Assessors (No. 16,690) 221 U. S. 346, 31 Sup. Ct. 550. 55 L. Ed. 762, on a writ of error, the question of the right of defendant to collect the amounts claimed, the Supreme Court of the United States passed upon the question involved, and decided adversely to the contention of plaintiff.

The question decided in this last case is similar to the question involved in this case, now before us for decision.

*865That decision must be held as controlling in the case before us.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed, at appellant’s costs.
,

OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN** Marah 14, 1939 Er. Fred Non-la c0mg haltor Polk County Ll~lngstoa,Texas

.. --I :\ ‘;

58 TOZ. 49, A&o

a oontraot,aa ia outlined abow, ie fez that reasonXr. Fred Norris, L'aroh 18. 1939, Page 2 unenforolbls for the reason that the aounty has no interest in the subjectmatter of the purported oontract and It is without oOnslderatlon.

We, therefore,hold that a Bounty Commissionera* Court oannot allow Or pay Interest on ordinary county warrants or sorlp issued for the payment of current expenses. %a further hold that a Comlssioners* Court oanuot oontraotwith a party to ~oashon aounty #rip ana agree to pay 

### interestthereon, .j V-F -4 Fapn
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7242 JAMES ROBERT KOZOMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GRADY J. HAYNES, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-hc-02112-D) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 24, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Robert Kozoman, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Robert Kozoman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kozoman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
§ 1275.9 States' responsibilities regarding compliance. ( a ) States are responsible for ensuring compliance with 23 U.S.C. 164 and this part.
( b ) A State that has been determined to be in compliance with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 164 and this part must promptly notify the appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator in writing of any change or change in enforcement of the State's repeat intoxicated driver law, identifying the specific change(s).
### §460l–6b. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–203, title V, §5201(d)(2), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–267

Section, Pub. L. 96–87, title IV, §402, Oct. 12, 1979, 93 Stat. 666; Pub. L. 96–487, title II, §202(3)(a), Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2382, prohibited entrance or admission fees in excess of amounts in effect Jan. 1, 1979, at any unit of National Park System and user fees for transportation services and facilities in Denali National Park, Alaska.
**Exhibit 32.1**

****

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION  1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Hickok Incorporated (the "Company") on form 10-K  for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Bauman, Chief ExecutiveOfficer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C.section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

-        the Report 					fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

-        the 					information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all 					materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ R. L. Bauman

R. L. Bauman

Chief Executive Officer

December 19, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.7.4

                                PROMISSORY NOTE

$29,027.80                    Denver County, CO                November 20, 1998

Frank D. Richards
For value received, I promise to pay to the order of
Intek Information, Inc.
370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3950*
Denver, CO
Twenty-Nine Thousand Twenty-Seven and 80/100 dollars, with interest at the rate
of 8% per cent per annum, payable as follows:
*or such other address as noticed by Intek Information, Inc.

All interest will accrue and be due at maturity.

This Promissory Note will be due and payable in full upon the earliest of the
following:

1.  The end of Frank Richard's employment with Intek Information, Inc. for any
    reason;

2.  If $29,027.80 or more aggregate amount from the sale (on one or more
    occasions) of stock of Intek Information, Inc. is received by or for the
    benefit of Frank Richards or his spouse or family members; or

3.  November 20, 2003.

If this promissory note is not paid when due, subject to applicable laws Intek
Information, Inc. may apply as payment to this Promissory Note any amounts owing
to Frank Richards or his estate, including, but not limited to, in respect of
stock, options, bonus payments, life insurance proceeds, and salary).

Subject to applicable law and agreements to which Frank Richards, Intek
Information, Inc. or the shares of stock may be subject, Frank Richards or his
estate may pay this Promissory Note in full (but not in part) by delivery of
Intek Information, Inc. Preferred Stock or Common Stock valued at the delivered
stock's fair market value as determined in good faith by the Board of Directors
of Intek Information, Inc. at the time of delivery.

IT IS AGREED that if this note is not paid when due or declared due hereunder,
the entire principal and accrued interest thereon shall draw interest at the
rate of fourteen per cent (14%) per annum, and that failure to make any payment
of principal or interest when due or any default under any encumbrance or
agreement securing this note shall cause the whole note to become due at once,
or the interest to be counted as principal, at the option of the holder of the
note.  The makers and endorsers hereof severally waive presentment for payment,
protest, notice of non-payment and of protest, and agree to any extension of
time of payment and partial payments before, at or after maturity, and if this
note or interest thereon is not paid when due or suit is brought, agree to pay
all reasonable costs of collection including reasonable attorney's fees..

                                         /s/ Frank Richards
                                         ------------------
                                         Frank Richards
Due: November 20, 2003
This note is Unsecured
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14694-14695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6245]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of Funding Opportunity and Solicitation for Grant 
Applications (SGA) for National Farmworker Jobs Training Program (NFJP)

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA).

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

    Funding Opportunity Number: SGA-DFA-PY-10-05.
SUMMARY: The U. S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training 
Administration (ETA), Office of Workforce Investment, Division of Adult 
Services, announces a grant competition for operating the National 
Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP), under section 167 of the Workforce 
Investment Act (WIA), 29 U.S.C. 2912. WIA generally requires DOL to 
conduct a general grants competition every two years to select NFJP 
grantees.
    Under section 167(a) of WIA, the Secretary must award grants on a 
competitive basis to eligible entities for the purposes of carrying out 
the activities authorized under section 167. We are conducting this 
competition before the passage of the Department of Labor's Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2011 appropriation in anticipation of the appropriation of funds 
for Program Year (PY) 2011 NFJP grants, but we will not obligate any 
funds for PY 2011 grants unless and until they are appropriated. The FY 
2011 appropriations request for this program is $78,410,000, to be 
allocated among state service delivery areas for operation of NFJP. All 
interested applicants should read this notice in its entirety.
    The complete SGA and any subsequent SGA amendments are described in 
further detail on ETA's Web site at http://www.doleta.gov/grants or on 
http://www.grants.gov. The Web sites provide application information, 
eligibility requirements, review and selection procedures and other 
program requirements governing this solicitation.

[[Page 14695]]


DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications is May 2, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannette Flowers, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Room N4716, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-3322.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of March 2011.
B. Jai Johnson,
Grant Officer, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-6245 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P