alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1404. Alternative method of withdrawal liability payments

A multiemployer plan may adopt rules providing for other terms and conditions for the satisfaction of an employer's withdrawal liability if such rules are consistent with this chapter and with such regulations as may be prescribed by the corporation.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, §4224, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, §104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1242.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–406, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Titles I, III, and IV of such Act are classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.1207 The administrative record. ( a ) *Time limits.* The administrative record will be due 20 calendar days after issuance of the Notice and Order unless additional time is requested and granted.
( b ) *Contents.* The administrative record shall include non-privileged, relevant documents that SBA considered in making its final loan review decision or that were before SBA at the time of the final loan review decision. The administrative record need not, however, contain all documents pertaining to the appellant.
( c ) *Non-waiver.* In the event that privileged or confidential information is disclosed in the administrative record, such disclosure shall not operate as a waiver of any claim of privilege or confidentiality by SBA.
( d ) *Filing.* SBA will file the administrative record with OHA and serve it on appellant utilizing the OHA Case Portal.
( e ) *Objections.* ( 1 ) Any objection to the administrative record must be filed with OHA and served on SBA no later than 30 calendar days after the issuance of the Notice and Order, utilizing the OHA Case Portal. If additional time to file the administrative record was requested and granted by a Judge, appellant will have 10 calendar days from the date SBA is required to file the administrative record under the judge's order granting an extension in which to file an objection to the administrative record.
( 2 ) The appellant may object to the absence of any document from the administrative record that the appellant believes should have been included in the administrative record.
( 3 ) The Judge will rule upon such objections and may direct or permit that the administrative record be supplemented.
[No. 7118.

Decided February 26, 1908.]

#### Louis Hendelman, Appellant, v. Bernhard Kahan *et al.,*Respondents.1

Appeal — Review—Order Dissolving Attachment. An order dissolving an attachment issued on the ground of a conveyance of property with intent to defraud creditors, heard upon affidavits filed by each party, will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.

Attachment — Dissolution—Reasonable Cause. Upon dissolution of an attachment, the court need not enter a finding that there was reasonable ground for the attachment, the same being immaterial in such action.

Appeal from an order of the superior court for Spokane county, Huneke, J., entered May 4, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendants, dissolving a writ of attachment, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury.

Affirmed.

*550*Robertson*& *Rosenhaupt,*for appellant.

*Belt & Powell,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 93 Pac. 1074.

Root, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court dissolving an attachment. The writ issued upon an affidavit setting forth that defendants were about to convert their property, or a part thereof, into money for the purpose of defrauding their creditors. Upon the motion to dissolve the attachment, several affidavits were filed by each party. From these the trial court found the writ to have been improperly or irregularly issued, and made an order dissolving the same. Such an order will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless clearly erroneous. *Bingham v. Keylor, 25*Wash. 156, 64 Pac. 942; *Gehres v. Orlowski, 36*Wash. 156, 78 Pac. 792; *Bender v. Rinker, 21*Wash. 633, 59 Pac. 504. We think the action of the trial court in dissolving the attachment was justified.

Appellant requested that court to incorporate in the order of dissolution a recital that there was reasonable ground for suing out the attachment. The court having refused to do so, its refusal is assigned as error. The question of reasonable cause might be material in a suit upon the attachment bond; but it is not so in this action.

No error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Hadley, C. J., Fullerton, Chow, and Mount, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-CV-14264-ROSENBERG 

RAYMOND PERRY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MARK S. INCH, 

Respondent. 

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter is before the Court upon pro se Petitioner’s Petition which was previously 

referred to the Honorable Lisette M. Reid for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive 

matters. On August 7, 2020, Judge Reid issued a Report and Recommendation recommending 

that Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed. DE 7. Petitioner responded with various filings. The 

Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation 

and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. 

Upon review, the Court finds Judge Reid’s recommendations to be well reasoned and 

correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation and 

concludes that the Petition should be dismissed for the reasons set forth therein. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation [DE 7] is hereby 

ADOPTED; 

2. Petitioner’s Petition is DISMISSED; 

3. No certificate of appealability shall issue; 

Case 2:20-cv-14264-RLR Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2020 Page 1 of 2
4. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 15th day of 

September, 2020. 

_______________________________ 

 ROBIN L. ROSENBERG 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record 

Case 2:20-cv-14264-RLR Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2020 Page 2 of 2
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-97-157 December 11, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC, PP&L TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT SUSQUEHANNA PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and Pennsylvania

Power & Light (PP&L) Company officials will meet on Tuesday,

December 16, to discuss apparent violations of agency

requirements at the utility’s Susquehanna nuclear power plant.

The infractions at the plant, located in Berwick, Pa., were

identified by NRC inspectors and involve equipment and quality

controls.

The predecisional enforcement conference is scheduled to

begin at 9 a.m. in the Public Meeting Room at NRC Region 1 office

in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public for

observation.

The apparent violations pertain to a failure to implement

effective controls for settings on the facility’s emergency

diesel generators. The generators would be needed in the event

of a loss of off-site power at the plant.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation

has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather,

the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity

to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at

this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at

a later time.

#
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–011 2005

109th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 109–51 

CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCY REGARDING EXPORT 

CONTROL REGULATIONS 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION THAT THE EMERGENCY REGARDING EXPORT CONTROL REGULATIONS IS TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT BEYOND AUGUST 17, 2005, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d). 

SEPTEMBER 2, 2005.—Referred to the Committee on International 

Relations and ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, August 2, 2005. 

Hon. DENNIS J. HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies 

Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), provides for the automatic termination of 

a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its 

declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and 

transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is 

to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance 

with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice to the Federal 

Register for publication, stating that the emergency caused by the 

lapse of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, is to 

continue in effect for 1 year beyond August 17, 2005. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

(3) 

NOTICE

CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCY REGARDING EXPORT CONTROL

REGULATIONS

On August 17, 2001, consistent with the authority provided me 

under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), I issued Executive Order 13222. In that order, 

I declared a national emergency with respect to the unusual and 

extraordinary threat to the national security. foreign policy, and 

economy of the United States in light of the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 

et seq.). Because the Export Administration Act has not been renewed by the Congress, the national emergency declared on August 

17, 2001, must continue in effect beyond August 17, 2005. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies 

Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national 

emergency declared in Executive Order 13222. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 2, 2005. 

Æ
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CERTIFIED PRIORITY RESTORATION a/a/o CHERYL COAKLEY
, Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 245

[ August 18, 2021 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Edward A. Garrison , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 502019CC000003XXXXMB and 502019AP000194CAXXMB

.

Kristin E. Marrero and Karla Lockwood of The Mineo Salcedo Law Firm, P.A., Davie

, for appellant.

Thomas A. Valdez and Vilma Martinez of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

K UNTZ , J

.

Certified Priority Restoration (CPR), an assignee of the insured

, Cheryl Coakley, appeals the county court’s order granting final summary judgment to the insurer, Universal Insurance Company of North America.

CPR raises one issue on appeal. CPR argues the county court erred when it granted summary judgment to the insurer based on the insurer’s accord and satisfaction affirmative defense. We addressed this argument in a case involving the same parties, and sam e insured, in an opinion also issued today. See Certified Pro p. Restoration a/a/o Coakley v. Universal

In s. Co

. of N

. Am

. , Case. No. 4D21

- 374 ( Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 18 , 2021).

In the related opinion, we concluded th at th e insurer failed to establish

accord and satisfaction. But we affirmed because the insurer argued a

second affirmative defense that supported summary judgment . As in th at case, here

, the insurer based its motion for summary judgment on two affirmative defenses. First, a defense that the in surer paid the total2 amount due. Second, a defense that summary judgment was required based on statutory accord and satisfaction. While the motions in the county court were similar, in this appeal

, the insurer relies solely on the

accord and satisfaction defense. As such, we must reverse. Our reversal is without prejudice to the insurer’s right to move for summary judgment on the defense that it paid the maximum amount due under the policy. We express no opinion on the merits of any such motion.

The county court’s summary judgment is reversed for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded

.

D AMOORGIAN and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### [§§570, 571. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7608(a)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4512]

Section 570, added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 620, granted United States marshals the power of a sheriff in executing laws of the United States in a State. See section 564 of this title.

Section 571, added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 621; amended Pub. L. 95–598, title II, §§222, 223, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2662; Pub. L. 97–258, §2(g)(2), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1060, related to disbursement of salaries and moneys.
Exhibit 2

(Total Compensation and Expenses Requested)

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1246-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 1 of 2
Professional Firm Category Hours Fees Expenses Total Billed

Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & 

Kolaya, PLLC Attorneys 970.6 $307,576.50 $8,115.49 $315,691.99

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & 

Raspanti, LLP Attorneys 1,905.9 $631,071.50 $61,742.00 $692,813.50

Development Specialists, Inc. Operations Consultant 535.2 $245,228.36 $1,186.08 $246,414.44

Lawgical Insight, LLC eDiscovery Specialist 30.8 $9,718.75 $1,067.03 $10,785.78

HD Investigative Group, LLC Investigations Firm 55.0 $12,375.00 $0.00 $12,375.00

3,497.5 $1,205,970.11 $72,110.60 $1,278,080.71

Total Compensation and Expenses Requested

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1246-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C.SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Shoe Carnival, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
November 3, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark L. Lemond, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

|1. |  | The Report fully complies with
      the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and                               
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. |  | The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: December 13, 2007 |  | By: /s/ Mark L.
      Lemond | 
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------- | 
|                        |  | Mark L. Lemond               | 
|                        |  | President and                | 
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer      | 

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Shawna Morgan Recto r

,

Appellant,

v.

Mitchell Rector

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00 1 73

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court

of Winkler C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2012

- 2350 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ee ’s third motion for extension of time within which to file

the brief until September 2 , 202 2

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE THE APPELL EE ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. James Huggler

, the Appell ee ’s attorney, prepare the

Appell ee ’s brief and forward t he same to this Court on or before September 2 , 202 2

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4 th day o f August , 202 2

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox , and Alley , JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MAXXIS GROUP, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          20,000
<SECURITIES>                                    10,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,771,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   302,000
<INVENTORY>                                    354,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,963,000
<PP&E>                                       5,842,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 501,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,286,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,905,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    200,000
<COMMON>                                       612,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,826,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,286,000
<SALES>                                     12,344,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,344,000
<CGS>                                        3,775,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,524,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,373,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             356,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,536,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,536,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,536,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.96)


</TABLE>
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-77 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, April 16, 1999)

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

TO MEET IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS) has scheduled a technical meeting May 5-8 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held in conference room T-2B3 of the

agency’s Two White Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike.

Here is the complete meeting schedule:

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7

1:00 - 1:15 p.m. -- Opening remarks by the ACRS Chairman;

1:15 - 1:45 p.m. -- Electric Power Research Institute application of risk-informed methods to

inservice inspection of piping;

1:45 - 2:45 p.m. -- Proposed final revision to 10 CFR 50.59 (changes, tests and experiments);

3:00 - 4:30 p.m. -- Safety evaluation for the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant license renewal

application;

4:30 - 7:00 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports.

THURSDAY, MAY 6

8:30 - 8:35 a.m. -- Opening remarks by ACRS Chairman;

8:30 - 9:15 a.m. -- Proposed resolution of generic safety issue 158, “performance of safety

related power-operated valves under design bases conditions;”

9:15 - 10:00 a.m. -- Proposed resolution of generic safety issue 165, “spring-actuated safety

relief valve reliability;”

10:15 - 11:45 a.m. -- Fire protection functional inspection program;

12:45 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. -- Westinghouse Owners Group proposal for modification of core

damage assessment guidelines and post-accident sampling system requirements;

2:15 - 6:30 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports.
FRIDAY, MAY 7

8:30 - 8:35 a.m. -- Opening remarks by the ACRS Chairman;

8:35 - 9:30 a.m. -- Tutorial on instrument setpoints;

9:30 - 9:45 a.m. -- Reconciliation of ACRS comments and recommendations;

9:45 - 10:15 a.m. -- Report of the planning and procedures subcommittee;

10:30 - 11:00 a.m. -- Future ACRS activities;

11:00 a.m. - 7:30 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports.

SATURDAY, MAY 8

8:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports;

2:00 - 2:30 p.m. -- Miscellaneous

Although meetings of the ACRS are open, they are not part of the agency’s public

hearing process. The ACRS, an advisory committee group to the Commission, conducts

independent, highly technical reviews of safety considerations related to nuclear facilities.

While anyone may attend, the committee will consider only oral or written statements

arranged in advance and limited to specific matters set forth in a Notice of Meeting published in

an upcoming edition of the Federal Register. ACRS meeting agendas, transcripts, and letter

reports are available on the internet, at http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW.

Those seeking information on whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled

should contact Dr. Richard P. Savio, 301-415-7363.

###
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the 12 months ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Charles N. Martin, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

            (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                        of the Exchange Act; and

            (2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.                      Charles N. Martin, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 13, 2005