alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          $64,106   
<SECURITIES>                                     27,539   
<RECEIVABLES>                                    20,338   
<ALLOWANCES>                                        203   
<INVENTORY>                                           0<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                137,291   
<PP&E>                                           20,892   
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5,232   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  168,994   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            34,413   
<BONDS>                                             609   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0<F1>   
<PREFERRED>                                           0<F1>   
<COMMON>                                          2,911   
<OTHER-SE>                                      130,516   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    168,994   
<SALES>                                               0<F1>   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 69,584   
<CGS>                                                 0<F1>   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    37,409   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 32,448   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    203   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  186   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1,592   
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5,114   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (3,522)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0<F1>   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0<F1>   
<CHANGES>                                             0<F1>   
<NET-INCOME>                                     (3,522)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.13)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.13)  
         
<FN>
<F1> Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line on the Statement 
     of Financial Position or Results of Operations are reported as 0 herein.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### Michael Baran et al., Respondents, v. City of Cohoes et al., Appellants.

Motion to add ease to calendar granted and case set down for argument on September 23, 1960; appellants to file record and brief on or before September 19,1960 and respondents to file typewritten brief on or before September 26, 1960. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131530 & (28)(29) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/ Justices Appellant,

v SC: 131530 COA: 266039 Oakland CC: 04-063179-CK TIMOTHY BROE, ELEANOR BROE and BROE REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs/ Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 16, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not p ersuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this C ourt. The motion to stay th e trial court proceedings is
DENIED.

p0725 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 26, 2006

Clerk
|                                                                                   |         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------
|Wachovia Corporation
						201 South College Street
						Charlotte, NC 28288-5578 | WACHOVIA

WACHOVIA ASSET SECURITIZATION ISSUANCE, LLC 2004-HE1
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF THE SERVICER

Wachovia Asset Securitization Issuance, LLC
						One Wachovia Center,
						Attention:  General Counsel
						Charlotte, NC  28288 

Wachovia Asset Securitization, Inc. 2004-HE1 Trust	
c/o Wilmington Trust Company			
Rodney Square North					
1100 North Market Street				
Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001Wachovia Bank, National Association
Structured Finance Trust Services
401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
  MBIA Insurance Corporation
						Attention: Insured Portfolio 
						Management-Structured Finance 
						113 King Street
						Armonk, New York  10504

U.S. Bank, National Association
60 Livingston Avenue, EP-MN-WS3D
St. Paul, MN 55107-2292Pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Servicing Agreement dated as of June 24, 2004, among Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Servicer, Wachovia Asset Securitization Issuance, LLC 2004-HE1 Trust, as Issuer, and U.S. Bank, as Indenture Trustee, the undersigned officer hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the Servicer from June 24, 2004 through December 31, 2004, and of its performance under any servicing agreements to which it is a party, including this Agreement, has been made under such officer's supervision and (ii) to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers and has fulfilled all of its material obligations in all material respects throughout such year.
Dated: March 31, 2005
  WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
						As Servicer,
						/s/ April Hughey
						April Hughey
						Vice President
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

JAMES KING, *

* No. 13-962V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: August 29, 2014

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

* respondent does not object.

Respondent. *

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

William E. Cochran , Jr., Black, McLaren, et al., Memphis, TN, for petitioner;

Darryl R. Wishard, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On August 22, 2014, petitioner filed a stipulation of fact concerning final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter. Previously, petitioner 

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent 

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections 

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended his 

application to request $21,000.00, an amount to which respondent does not object. 

The Court awards this amount.

On December 6, 2013, James King filed a petition for compensation alleging 

that the influenza vaccine, which he received on October 14, 2012, caused him to 

suffer from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) in his 

left shoulder. Petitioner received compensation based upon respondent’s proffer. 

 

1

The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Decision, issued June 30, 2014. Because petitioner received compensation, he is

entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

Petitioner seeks a total of $21,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for his

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states 

that he incurred no out-of-pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. 

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $21,000.00 in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, William E. Cochran of the law firm

Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, for attorneys’ fees and other 

litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357-

6353.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
#### § 401.606 Tenant-based assistance provisions.

If the Restructuring Plan provides for tenant-based assistance, each assisted family residing in a unit assisted under the expiring project-based assistance contract when the contract terminates will be offered tenant-based assistance if the family meets the eligibility requirements under part 982. Whenever permitted by section 515(c)(4) of MAHRA, the tenant-based assistance will be in the form of enhanced vouchers as provided in section 8(t) of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
#### § 1217.300 Audit or review of records.

The Secretary, or his/her authorized representative, will initiate and conduct audits or reviews relating to the scope, nature, and extent of compliance by lessees, operators, revenue payors, and other persons with rental, royalty, fees, and other payment requirements on a Federal geothermal lease. Audits or reviews will also relate to compliance with applicable regulations and orders. All audits or reviews will be conducted in accordance with this part.
#### § 92.600 Purpose.

This subpart describes the requirements for the HOME Program American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI). Through the ADDI, HUD makes formula grants to participating jurisdictions that qualify for allocations to assist low-income families achieve homeownership in accordance with the provisions of this subpart. Unless otherwise noted in this subpart, the HOME Program requirements contained in subparts B through L of this part do not apply to the ADDI.
### §1802. Consideration of issues affecting relations with United States

It is the sense of the Congress that pursuant to section 902 of the foregoing Covenant, and in any case within ten years from March 24, 1976, the President of the United States should request, on behalf of the United States, the designation of special representatives to meet and to consider in good faith such issues affecting the relationship between the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States as may be designated by either Government and to make a report and recommendations with respect thereto.

(Pub. L. 94–241, §2, Mar. 24, 1976, 90 Stat. 279.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Covenant, referred to in text, is the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, which is contained in section 1 of Pub. L. 94–241, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.

#### Codification

Section was formerly set out as a note under section 1681 of this title.
July 2008



### Background

On October 1, 2007, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection adopted the Dental Amalgam rules. These rules, under N.J.A.C. 7:14A-21.12, are applicable to all dental facilities that generate amalgam waste through placement or removal of amalgams, and discharge wastewater to the sanitary sewer. These regulations are designed to

curtail the release of mercury from dental

facilities to the environment.



### What is Required?

For existing dental facilities, Best Management Practices, or BMPs, are required to be implemented by October 1, 2008, and an amalgam separator is required to be installed by October 1, 2009. An amalgam separator is equipment designed to remove amalgam waste

contained in rinse or wastewater from chair-side water collection and discharge systems. The amalgam separator isrequired to be certified to perform at ninetyfive (95) percent or greater efficiency in accordance with the testing methodologies required by the International Standard Organization (ISO) 11143 protocol. The installation and proper operation of an amalgam separator will prevent at least ninety-five (95) percent of the amalgam waste from entering the sanitary sewer. New facilities (constructed on or after October 1, 2007) subject to the regulation shall immediately install an amalgam separator that meets the ISO 11143 criteria. Along with these requirements, each dental facility subject to this regulation shall register and certify compliance annually with the Department. The Department is currently developing an on-line

portal so that the registration and

certification requirements canbe completed online.



### Who is Exempt?

Exemptions are specified under

N.J.A.C. 7:14A21.12(a). Any facility that does not generate amalgam waste is exempt from these requirements. The following specialty practices are exempt provided no other types of dentistry are practiced at the facility: orthodontics; periodontics; endodontics; oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral and maxillofacial radiology; and oral and maxillofacial pathology.

For more information, contact:

NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Pretreatment and Residuals

P.O. Box 029 Trenton, NJ 08625-0029 (609) 633-3823 www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq Important Reminders:

October 1, 2008— Compliance with the BMP

required.

October 1, 2009—Amalgam separator must be installed in existing

facilities.

Annually—Register and Certify Compliance with the BMP and Separator Requirements. 

### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY

BUREAU OF PRETREATMENT AND RESIDUALS

REQUIREMENTS FOR DENTAL FACILITIESNEWJERSEYDEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nathaniel Johnson, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Bergan, JJ.
### §30106. Time limit on bringing maritime action for personal injury or death

Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of a maritime tort must be brought within 3 years after the cause of action arose.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §6(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1511.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 30106 | 46 App.:763a. | Pub. L. 96–382, §1, Oct. 6, 1980, 94 Stat. 1525. |

Section

The words "civil action" are substituted for "suit" for consistency with rule 2 of the Federal Rules or Civil Procedure (28 App. U.S.C.). The words "or both" are omitted as unnecessary. The words "must be brought" are substituted for "shall not be maintained unless commenced" for clarity and consistency. The word "arose" is substituted for "accrued" for consistency in the revised title.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of FCStone Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 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, as amended; and



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



|    |  |                                         
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    PAUL G.
ANDERSON                 
|    |  | Paul G. Anderson Chief Executive Officer



Date:
November 14, 2008



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3249 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate reconsideration 

as an intervening step between initial benefit entitlement decisions and 

subsequent hearings on the record on such decisions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2005 

Mr. GOODE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

reconsideration as an intervening step between initial 

benefit entitlement decisions and subsequent hearings on 

the record on such decisions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘Social Security Disability 

5 Determination Simplification Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 3249 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF RECONSIDERATION IN THE RE2 VIEW PROCESS GOVERNING DECISIONS ON 

3 BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 205(b)(1) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(b)(1)) is amended by adding 

6 at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘Opportunity for 

7 a hearing under this title in accordance with this sub8 section with respect to any initial decision or determina9 tion under this title shall be available without any require10 ment for intervening reconsideration.’’. 

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 205(b) of 

12 such Act is amended— 

13 (1) by striking paragraph (2); and 

14 (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para15 graph (2). 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply with respect to initial decisions and 

18 determinations (subject to opportunity for a hearing to the 

19 extent provided under section 205(b) of the Social Secu20 rity Act) issued after 1 year after the date of the enact21 ment of this Act. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7787

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CHI ANTONIO RAY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:08-cr-00117-JFM-1; 1:13-cv-03057-JFM)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chi Antonio Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Kristi 

Noel O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chi Antonio Ray seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Ray has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Ray’s motion for 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 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Archie Miles, Appellant.

Motion for reconsideration of motions for leave to appeal as a poor person and for assignment of counsel on appeals from two orders denying *corcrn nobis*applications. - Motion granted. Motions for leave to appeal as a poor person will be treated as motions to dispense with printing. Motions granted. The appeals will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeals is enlarged to the October 1960 Term, beginning October 3, 1960, for which term the appeals are ordered to be placed on the calendar. Motions for assignment of counsel granted. Richard C. Cahn, Esq., 375 New York Avenue, Huntington, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeals. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
§ 1229.101 Petition for delegation. ( a ) The governor or other authorized official of any State which contains Federal oil and gas leases, or Indian oil and gas leases where the Indian tribe and allottees have given the State an affirmative indication of their desire for the State to undertake certain royalty management-related activities on their lands, may petition the Secretary to assume responsibilities to conduct audits and related investigations of royalty related matters affecting Federal or Indian oil and gas leases within the State.
( b ) A State may enter into a delegation of authority under this part without affecting a State's ability to enter into a cooperative agreement under part 228 of this title.
( c ) The Secretary shall carry out all factfinding and hearings he may decide are necessary in order to approve or disapprove the petition.
( d ) In the event that the Secretary denies the petition, the Secretary must provide the State with the specific reasons for denial of the petition. The State will then have 60 days to either contest or correct specific deficiencies and to reapply for a delegation of authority.
[49 FR 37350, Sept. 21, 1984. Redesignated and amended at 49 FR 40025, Oct. 12, 1984]