alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gerald J. Tucker, as Executor of Arthur Tucker, Deceased, Appellant, v Harold Weissman, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In an *1010action, *inter alia,*for specific performance of a partnership agreement, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 13, 1977, which, following a request for a ruling during an examination before trial, directed him to produce certain wage and hour records of employees covering a four and a half year period. Permission for the taking of the appeal is granted by Mr. Justice Shapiro (see *Siegal v Arnao,*61 AD2d 812). Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff is directed to produce the records in question on March 28, 1978 at 10:00 a.m. at the place set forth in the order under review or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. Since the crux of respondent’s case is his challenge to a written partnership agreement which he claims he did not sign, we believe it is both material and necessary that the circumstances surrounding the preparation of that agreement be revealed prior to trial. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### § 56.19110 Overhead protection for shaft deepening work.

A substantial bulkhead or equivalent protection shall be provided above persons at work deepening a shaft.
| **Business and Summary of Significant Accounting Principles (Pro-Forma Information) (Details) (ACS [Member], USD $)In Thousands, unless otherwise specified** | 12 Months Ended |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
||
| ACS [Member]                                                                                                                                                  |            |   |
| **Business Acquisition [Line Items]**                                                                                                                         |            |   |
| Pro forma consolidated revenue                                                                                                                                | $ 897,270       | $ 848,676 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_BusinessAcquisitionLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
The pro forma revenue for a period as if the business combination or combinations had been completed at the beginning of the period.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 805 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -Subparagraph (h)(2)-(3) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25497992&loc=d3e1392-128463
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_BusinessAcquisitionsProFormaRevenue**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**duration |
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
NESTE OIL OYJ, Appellant

v.

REG SYNTHETIC FUELS, LLC, Appellee

______________________

2015

- 1075

______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013

- 00178.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ICHAEL J. F LIBBERT
, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by M AUREEN D ONOVAN Q UELER
, C HARLES T HOMAS C OLLINS -C HASE
, M EGAN R OSE L EINEN

.

J EANNE M ARIE G ILLS
, Foley & Lardner LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appe llee. Also represented by M ICHAEL R OBERT H OUSTON
, J ASON B ERTA

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (W ALLACH
, C LEVENGER
, and T ARANTO
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

June 8, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9487 

AN ACT 

To amend the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 to 

authorize the Legislative Counsel of the House of Representatives to designate more than one of the attorneys 

of the Office of the Legislative Counsel as a Deputy 

Legislative Counsel, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 9487 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘House Office of Legis3 lative Counsel Modernization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF MULTIPLE DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE 

5 COUNSELS. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—Section 522(b)(1) of the Legisla7 tive Reorganization Act of 1970 (2 U.S.C. 282a(b)(1)) is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by amending the first sentence to read as 

10 follows: ‘‘The Legislative Counsel shall designate one 

11 or more of the attorneys appointed under subsection 

12 (a) as a Deputy Legislative Counsel.’’; and 

13 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘the 

14 Deputy Legislative Counsel shall perform the func15 tions of the Legislative Counsel.’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

16 functions of the Legislative Counsel shall be per17 formed by a Deputy Legislative Counsel. If there is 

18 more than one Deputy Legislative Counsel, the Dep19 uty Legislative Counsel who shall perform such func20 tions shall be determined in accordance with the 

21 order specified in a notice filed with the Speaker and 

22 the Minority Leader of the House by the Legislative 

23 Counsel.’’. 

24 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 522(b)(2) 

25 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 282a(b)(2)) is amended by striking 
3 

•HR 9487 EH

1 ‘‘Deputy Legislative Counsel’’ and inserting ‘‘Deputy Leg2 islative Counsels’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9487 

AN ACT 

To amend the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

and for other purposes. tive Counsel as a Deputy Legislative Counsel, one of the attorneys of the Office of the LegislaHouse of Representatives to designate more than 1970 to authorize the Legislative Counsel of the
##### 



Page 13 of 26Exhibit 99(e) KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-A OFFICERS CERTIFICATE Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, IT
60 Wall Street, 26th Floor  MS NYC60-2606
New York, NY 10005
ATTN: Corporate Trust & Agency Group
Phone: (212) 250-8522
Fax: (212) 797-8606 Pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Indenture between KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2004-A, as Issuer, and
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Indenture Trustee, dated August 1, 2004, the undersigned
hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the Issuer from the inception of the Trust,
through December 31, 2004, and of its performance under the Indenture has been made, and (ii) to
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Issuer has fulfilled all its obligations under
the Indenture throughout such period. KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-A,By:
    
    KeyBank National Association, successorin interest to Key Bank USA, NationalAssociation, as AdministratorDate: March 14, 2005
    
    
    
    By: /S/ DANIEL G. SMITHName: Daniel G. SmithTitle: Senior Vice PresidentBy: /S/ KRISTA C. NEALName: Krista C. NealTitle: Vice President
#### § 1219.516 When will ONRR disburse funds to Gulf producing States and coastal political subdivisions?

ONRR will disburse GOMESA revenues as soon as authorized and practicable within the fiscal year following the year that we collect qualified OCS revenues (Phase II).
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.                  

###### State Justice Institute

# AGENCY:

State Justice Institute.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, December 7, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. ET. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 1st quarter of FY 2021, and other business.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, Reston, VA 20190, (571) 313-8843,                         *contact@sji.gov.*

Authority:                             Section 204(j) of the SJI Authorization Act (42 U.S.C. 10703*et seq.*), 5 U.S.C. Section 552b.                        

Jonathan D. Mattiello,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2020-26635 Filed 12-3-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

KENYON COVINGTON, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-1720 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed July 10, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Polk County; Michael E. Raiden, Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

 We affirm Kenyon Covington's convictions and sentences for fleeing or 

attempting to elude a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer without violence. 

Despite the court granting Covington's motion to correct a scrivener's error, Covington's 

amended written judgment erroneously reflects that he was convicted of aggravated 

fleeing or eluding. Accordingly, we remand for entry of a corrected written judgment. 
- 2 - 

See Moore v. State, 100 So. 3d 81, 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Covington need not be 

present when the correction is made. 

 Convictions and sentences affirmed; remanded for correction of the 

written judgment. 

KELLY, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****A call to action : preparing for asecond century of stewardship and engagement.
 
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014| 2015
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.2:C 13/
Item Number:0648 (online)
CGP System Number:001012734
 
 
September 15, 2017**
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3537 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3537

 To extend the boundary of the Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park in the 
                            State of Hawaii.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2005

   Mr. Case introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the boundary of the Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park in the 
                            State of Hawaii.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park 
Expansion Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. HAWAI`I VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY EXTENSION.

    The first section of the Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 781, 
chapter 530; 16 U.S.C. 391b) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``All of that certain parcel of land (being portion(s) of the 
land(s) described in and covered by Royal Patent Grant Number 2791 to 
C. C. Harris; Royal Patent Number 6454, Land Commission Award Number 
9156, Apana 1 to Kualaala; Royal Patent Grant Number 2787, Apana 1 to 
W. C. Shipman; and all of Royal Patent Number 5335, Land Commission 
Award Number 10514 to Naohe; Royal Patent Number 5925, Land Commission 
Award Number 8771 to Kila; Royal Patent Number 6452, Land Commission 
Award Number 11028-B, Apana 1 and 2 to Samuela Kuula; Royal Patent 
Number 6083, Land Commission Award Number 10842, Apana 1 and 2 to Pau; 
Royal Patent Number 6622, Land Commission Award Number 8772, Apana 1 
and 2 to Kaaloa; Royal Patent Number 5434, Land Commission Award Number 
9157, Apana 1 and 2 to Keliikanakaole; Royal Patent Number (None), Land 
Commission Award Number 8110 to Hamohamo; Royal Patent Number 6475, 
Land Commission Award Number 9209 to Kemu) situate, lying and being at 
Kahuku, District of Ka'u, Island and County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, 
being a portion of PARCEL 2, bearing Tax Key designation (3) 9-2-001-
001 and containing an area of 655.544 acres, more or less.
    ``All of that certain parcel of land (being all of Apana 3 of Royal 
Patent Number 6452, Land Commission Award Number 11028-B to Samuela 
Kuula) situate, lying and being at Kiao, District of Kau, Island and 
County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, bearing Tax Key designation (3) 9-3-
005-012 and containing an area of 1.300 acres, more or less.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1

May 23, 2008

 

John Lowber, (907) 868-5628; jlowber@gci.comBruce Broquet, (907) 868-6660; bbroquet@gci.comDavid Morris, (907) 265-5396; dmorris@gci.com

**GCI RECEIVES DELISTING NOTICE FROM NASDAQ**

ANCHORAGE, AK -- General Communication, Inc. ("GCI") (Nasdaq: GNCMA) announced that it received a Staff Determination Letter from Nasdaq on May 20, 2008 indicating that GCI’s common stock is subject to delisting from The Nasdaq Stock Market.  The letter stated that GCI is not in compliance with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14), which requires the company to file all required reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission within the required time periods, because GCI has not timely filed with Nasdaq its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Form 10-Q").

 

GCI will appeal the determination and request a hearing before a Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel (the “Panel”), which will automatically stay delisting of the company’s common stock pending the Panel’s review and determination.

 

As previously announced, GCI was unable to file its Form 10-Q by the prescribed due date because it is currently assessing the impact of an error in calculating depreciation in the initial year an asset is placed in service, and for capitalizing interest on certain assets.  GCI is currently engaged in resolving this error and preparing the financial statements and disclosures for the Form 10-Q.

 

GCI is the largest Alaska-based and operated integrated telecommunications provider.  A pioneer in bundled services, GCI provides local, wireless, and long distance telephone, cable television, Internet and data communication services. More information about the company can be found at www.gci.com.
#### Ben Alpert, appellee, v. Augusta Matson, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,547.

Forcible detainer to recover possession of the second and third floors rented as hotel or rooming house, tenant holding over on *610expiration of lease, and action by subsequent lessee. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Nichols & Gernon, for appellant. Emory J. Smith, for appellee; Louis Salinger, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 18.1


November 5, 2009









Board of Directors of General Communication, Inc. and GCI, Inc.


2550 Denali St, Suite 1000


Anchorage, AK  99503-2751









Dear Directors:




We are providing this letter solely for inclusion as an exhibit to General Communication, Inc.’s and GCI, Inc.’s (collectively the “Company”) Form 10-Q filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.




As stated in Note 1 to the unaudited consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, the Company changed the date of its annual goodwill impairment test from December 31 to October 31.  Note 1 also states
management’s belief that the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because the change allows the Company to complete its annual goodwill impairment testing in advance of its year-end closing activities.




With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, it should be understood that authoritative criteria have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method and, in expressing our concurrence below, we have relied on management’s business planning and
judgment and on management’s determination that this change in accounting principle is preferable.




Based on our reading of management’s stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle as disclosed in the Form 10-Q, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with management that the newly adopted method of
accounting is preferable in the Company’s circumstances.




We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period.




Very truly yours,




/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
#### Anna Camins et al., Appellants, v. Superior Trucking Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Order, entered April 20,1960, denying plaintiff’s motion for a reconsideration of the denial of an application for a preference under subdivision 5 of rule IV of the Bronx County Supreme Court Rules, unani*1008mously reversed on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion for a preference granted, with $10 costs. Considering the nature of the injuries, which were not controverted by any physician’s affidavit in opposition, and the special damages, plaintiffs made a sufficient showing to. warrant a general preference under rule IV. The appeal from the ex parte order entered on October 15, 1958 is dismissed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
#### MILLER v. MESTANIZ.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Trial—Amendment of Pleadings—New Notice of Trial—Necessity.

Where a complaint was amended after the cause had been noticed for trial and placed on the calendar, and no order of the court was made directing the case to retain its place on the calendar, or dispensing with the service of a new notice of trial, as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 723, plaintiff was not entitled to a trial until a new notice of trial had been served, and note of issue filed.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by William' Miller against Liubomir R. Mestaniz. From a judgment of the City Court in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

House, Grosman & Vorhaus, for appellant.

W. C. Reddy, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff’s motion made at the opening of trial to strike this cause from the calendar on the ground that no notice of trial had been served, no note of issue filed, and no order made placing the cause on the short-cause calendar since the amendment of the complaint under the order of City Court filed May 1, 1903, should have been granted. No order of the court had been made, directing that the case retain its place upon the calendar, or dispensing with the service of a new notice of trial, as provided in section 723, Code Civ. Proc. A defendant cannot in this summary way be deprived of a right to due notice of trial to which he is entitled under the law. Woollett v. The Seaman’s Bank, 36 Misc. Rep. 494, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1005; Ostrander v. Conkey, 20 Hun, 421; Grindal v. De Lano (City Ct. N. Y.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 823.

The judgment, therefore, must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Frank Caponigri, also known as F. Caponigri, and J. De Leonardis, appellants.

Gen. No. 28,597.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.