alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

                    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at                     *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.*                     Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).                

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than February 22, 2021.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago*                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

                    1.                     *PSB Holdings, Inc., Wausau, Wisconsin;*                     to merge with Waukesha Bankshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Sunset Bank & Savings, both of Waukesha, Wisconsin.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 14, 2021.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2021-01199 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this 

Court’s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by Local Rules 83.12 through 

83.14. 

In the Matter of Pearson v. Target Corporation Case Number: 

1 1

1:11-cv-07972 

 

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR: 

(In the space below, enter the name of the party or parties being represented) 

Theodore H. Frank 

NAME (Type or print) 

Debra J. Tucker 

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically) 

 s/Debra J. Tucker 

FIRM The Tucker Firm, LLC

STREET ADDRESS 1723 North Halsted Street

CITY/STATE/ZIP Chicago, Illinois 60614

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) 6230420 TELEPHONE NUMBER 312.202.0222

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? (Enter “Y” or “N”) N

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? (Enter “Y” or “N”)Y

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? (Enter “Y” or “N”) Y

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? (Enter “Y” or “N”) N

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, USE AN “X” TO DESCRIBE YOUR STATUS IN THIS CASE. 

 RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 126 Filed: 09/06/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2200
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0261p.06 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________
R OSA P ARKS , An Individual, Plaintiff, G REGORY J. R EED & A SSOCIATES , P.C.; T HE C OCHRAN F IRM ; S TEPHANIE L. H AMMONDS ; M ANSON , J ONES & A SSOCIATES , Attorneys-Appellants,

v. D ENNIS W. A RCHER , former guardian ad litem for Rosa Parks, Appellee, L A F ACE R ECORDS ; A RISTA R ECORDS , I NC .; BMG M USIC , doing business as BMG Entertainment; Jointly and Severally, Defendants. X - - - - > , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N No. 05-2297

Filed: July 11, 2007 Before: GUY, COLE, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

_________________ ORDER

_________________ The litigation underlying this attorney fee dis pute was resolved by settlement. At the root of this fee dispute is a conti ngency fee agreement entered into between Reed and Rosa Parks. Following the execution of this agr eement Reed entered into fee sh aring agreements with several other attorneys, three of whom are Reed’s co-appellants in this appeal. After the initial lawsuit settled, the court found the fee sharing agreements to be ambiguous and decided it could not allocate the fees “subject to” the agreements, as the settlement agreement required. The court subsequently adopted the fee distribution schedule proposed by the guardian ad litem, Dennis Archer. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the fee sharing agreements are not ambiguous and pursuant to the settlement agreement should be enforced.

1No. 05-2297 Parks v. LaFace Records, et al. Page 2

The record in this case was sent to us unde r seal and accordingly we release under seal our full opinion which sets forth the reasons for our decision. Although released under seal, this opinion may be made public by the parties subject to any agreement existing among the parties, and may be released to any other court in which litigation rela ted to this appeal is pending now, or may in the future be pending. We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

/s/ Leonard Green

___________________________________ Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stephen Carter, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from order of Wayne County Court denying defendant’s application for writ of error *coram nobis,*without a hearing.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
### MT Emission Inventories

Montana SO 2 Emission Inventory – 2002 and 2018

Baseline 2002 Future 2018 Net Change Percent

Change Point 36888 36749 -138 -0.4 Anthro Fire 500 278 -222 -44.4 Natural Fire 4634 4634 0 0.0 All Fire 5134 4912 -222 -4.3 Biogenic 0 0 0 0.0 Area 3236 3580 344 10.6 WRAP Area O&G 225 6 -219 -97.1 On-Road Mobile 1863 234 -1629 -87.4 Off-Road Mobile 4552 282 -4270 -93.8 Road Dust 11 13 2 19.5 Fugitive Dust 13 17 4 32.8 WB Dust 0 0 0 0.0 Total 51923 45794 -6128 -11.8

Montana NO xEmission Inventory – 2002 and 2018

Baseline 2002 Future 2018 Net Change Percent

Change Point 53416 33508 -19909 -37.3 Anthro Fire 1513 861 -652 -43.1 Natural Fire 13770 13770 0 0.0 All Fire 15283 14632 -652 -4.3 Biogenic 58354 58354 0 0.0 Area 4292 5535 1244 29.0 Off-Shore 0 0 0 0.0 WRAP Area O&G 7557 13880 6323 83.7 On-Road Mobile 53597 22036 -31560 -58.9 Off-Road Mobile 50604 32054 -18550 -36.7 Road Dust 25 29 4 16.6 Fugitive Dust 14 15 1 10.7 WB Dust 0 0 0 0.0 Total 243142 180043 -63099 -26.0Montana Organic Carbon Emission Inventory – 2002 an d 2018

Baseline 2002 Future 2018 Net Change Percent

Change Point 101 267 167 165.3 Anthro Fire 3745 1837 -1908 -50.9 Natural Fire 38324 38325 1 0.0 All Fire 42069 40162 -1907 -4.5 Biogenic 0 0 0 0.0 Area 2788 2974 187 6.7 Off-Shore 0 0 0 0.0 WRAP Area O&G 0 0 0 0.0 On-Road Mobile 455 469 14 3.1 Off-Road Mobile 718 382 -336 -46.8 Road Dust 1271 1487 216 17.0 Fugitive Dust 687 760 73 10.7 WB Dust 0 0 0 0.0 Total 48089 46502 -1587 -3.3

Montana Elemental Carbon Emission Inventory – 2002 and 2018

Baseline 2002 Future 2018 Net Change Percent

Change Point 17 25 8 49.2 Anthro Fire 759 372 -386 -50.9 Natural Fire 7743 7744 0 0.0 All Fire 8502 8116 -386 -4.5 Biogenic 0 0 0 0.0 Area 413 447 34 8.2 Off-Shore 0 0 0 0.0 WRAP Area O&G 0 0 0 0.0 On-Road Mobile 519 159 -361 -69.5 Off-Road Mobile 2288 1001 -1287 -56.2 Road Dust 87 102 15 17.1 Fugitive Dust 47 52 5 10.7 WB Dust 0 0 0 0.0 Total 11873 9901 -1971 -16.6Montana Fine Particular Matter Emission Inventory –2002 and 2018

Baseline 2002 Future 2018 Net Change Percent

Change Point 182 294 112 61.6 Anthro Fire 279 137 -142 -51.0 Natural Fire 2911 2911 0 0.0 All Fire 3190 3047 -142 -4.5 Biogenic 0 0 0 0.0 Area 2472 2754 281 11.4 Off-Shore 0 0 0 0.0 WRAP Area O&G 0 0 0 0.0 On-Road Mobile 0 0 0 0.0 Off-Road Mobile 0 0 0 0.0 Road Dust 21671 25294 3623 16.7 Fugitive Dust 13276 15209 1933 14.6 WB Dust 36448 36448 0 0.0 Total 77239 83047 5807 7.5

Montana Course Particulate Matter Emission Inventor y – 2002 and 2018

Baseline 2002 Future 2018 Net Change Percent

Change Point 7818 11384 3566 45.6 Anthro Fire 713 312 -401 -56.3 Natural Fire 8496 8496 0 0.0 All Fire 9210 8808 -401 -4.4 Biogenic 0 0 0 0.0 Area 706 790 84 11.8 Off-Shore 0 0 0 0.0 WRAP Area O&G 0 0 0 0.0 On-Road Mobile 270 329 59 21.7 Off-Road Mobile 0 0 0 0.0 Road Dust 206863 241329 34467 16.7 Fugitive Dust 68373 85309 16936 24.8 WB Dust 328036 328036 0 0.0 Total 621276 675985 54709 8.8
#### Lynn Foti, an Infant, by Stella Foti, Her Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiff, and Stella Foti, Respondent, v. Nathan Quittel, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In a negligence action, the defendant Hath an Quittel appeals: (a) from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, rendered June 6, 1962 after trial upon a jury’s verdict of $3,000 in favor of the plaintiff, Stella Foti, the mother of the infant plaintiff Lynn Foti; and (b) from an order of said court, dated July 5, 1962, which denied said defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff mother and for a new trial as to her. The jury by its verdict also awarded $3,000 damages to the infant plaintiff. It appears that a separate judgment was entered in favor of the infant and paid. The infant’s recovery is not challenged or in issue on this appeal. Judgment appealed from and order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs; action severed as to the mother; motion granted and new trial ordered as to the mother (such new trial to be limited to the question of damages), unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, the plaintiff mother shall stipulate to reduce to $697.50 the jury’s verdict in her favor and to amend the judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment as so reduced and amended is affirmed, without costs. The plaintiff mother asserted a derivative cause of action based on the injuries sustained by her six-year-old daughter who fell and broke her wrist. The mother, claiming damages of $3,000, alleged that she incurred medical expenses on behalf of the infant and that she lost the services and the society and comfort of her child. Upon the trial the mother made no attempt to prove loss of the infant’s services but she did prove $697.50 in special damages. The court refused to charge that no loss of services had been proved and gave no instructions to the jury with respect to damages. The court, however, did repeat the plaintiff’s claim that she had heen damaged by the loss of the child’s services and society. The jury awarded the mother $3,000. It is clear that the amount by which this verdict exceeds the special damages proved, reflects either compensation for a loss of services which was not proved or for a loss of the child’s society which is not compensable *(Gilbert*V. *Stanton Brewery,*295 H. Y. 270). In view of the excessive verdict and the lack of any proper instruction with respect to damages, a new trial must be had on the question of damages unless the mother consents to reduction of the verdict in her favor to $697.50 *(MeCrain*v. *City of New York,*12 A D 2d 482; *Nieotra*v. *John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*268 App. Div. 1004; *Zeffiro*v. *Porfldo,*265 App. Div. 185). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §7806. Petition and review

#### (a) Petition and hearing

#### (1) Petition

A person subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition—

(A) stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law; and

(B) requesting a modification of the order or an exemption from the order.

#### (2) Hearing

The petitioner shall be given the opportunity for a hearing on a petition filed under paragraph (1), in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary. Any such hearing shall be conducted in accordance with section 7808(b)(2) of this title and be held within the United States judicial district in which the residence or principal place of business of the person is located.

#### (3) Ruling

After a hearing under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall make a ruling on the petition, which shall be final if in accordance with law.

#### (4) Limitation

Any petition filed under this subsection challenging an order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order, shall be filed within 2 years after the effective date of the order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition.

#### (b) Review

#### (1) Commencement of action

The district courts of the United States in any district in which a person who is a petitioner under subsection (a) resides or conducts business shall have jurisdiction to review the ruling of the Secretary on the petition of the person, if a complaint requesting the review is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling by the Secretary.

#### (2) Process

Service of process in proceedings under this subsection shall be conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

#### (3) Remand

If the court in a proceeding under this subsection determines that the ruling of the Secretary on the petition of the person is not in accordance with law, the court shall remand the matter to the Secretary with directions—

(A) to make such ruling as the court shall determine to be in accordance with law; or

(B) to take such further action as, in the opinion the court, the law requires.

#### (c) Enforcement

The pendency of proceedings instituted under this section shall not impede, hinder, or delay the Attorney General or the Secretary from obtaining relief under section 7807 of this title.

(Pub. L. 106–387, §1(a) [title XII, §1207], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–92.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                      9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                  Jan-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                                     Jan-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                       Oct-27-1996
<CASH>                                                                  37,937
<SECURITIES>                                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                           25,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                            200,257
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       282,361
<PP&E>                                                                 431,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                                          42,762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         774,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                  264,798
<BONDS>                                                                400,000
<COMMON>                                                                   253
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                                            (335,901)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           774,006
<SALES>                                                              2,146,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     2,146,720
<CGS>                                                                1,631,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        1,631,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       495,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      63,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        (85,984) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           (30,427)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    (55,557)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          1,175
<CHANGES>                                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           (56,732)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                            (2.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            (2.26)
        

</TABLE>
#### 1852.216-73 Estimated cost and cost sharing.

As prescribed in 1816.307-70(a), insert the following clause:

# Estimated Cost and Cost Sharing (DEC 1991)

(a) It is estimated that the total cost of performing the work under this contract will be $__________.

(b) For performance of the work under this contract, the Contractor shall be reimbursed for not more than ____ percent of the costs of performance determined to be allowable under the Allowable Cost and Payment clause. The remaining ____ percent or more of the costs of performance so determined shall constitute the Contractor's share, for which it will not be reimbursed by the Government.

(c) For purposes of the ______________ [insert “Limitation of Cost” or “Limitation of Funds”] clause, the total estimated cost to the Government is hereby established as $________ (insert estimated Government share); this amount is the maximum Government liability.

(d) The Contractor shall maintain records of all contract costs claimed by the Contractor as constituting part of its share. Those records shall be subject to audit by the Government. Costs contributed by the Contractor shall not be charged to the Government under any other grant, contract, or agreement (including allocation to other grants, contracts, or agreements as part of an independent research and development program).

(End of clause)

[62 FR 3484, Jan. 23, 1997]
Case: 1:12-cv-01270 Document #: 13 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:57
Case: 1:12-cv-01270 Document #: 13 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:58
**Exhibit32.1**

CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002

I,William L. Bridgford, Chairman of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:

(1)                                 theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period endedJuly 13, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or780(d)); and

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

Dated:August 27, 2007
|        |   | /s/    William L. Bridgford |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | William L. Bridgford, Chairman             |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)              |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01375]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone 
Lines Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free 
Phone Lines Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 
202-317-4115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone 
Lines Project Committee will be held Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 
4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or 
submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and 
structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Rosalind Matherne. For more information please contact 
Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115, or write TAP 
Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or 
contact us at the website: http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will 
include various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 15, 2021.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2021-01375 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Edward H. Lubin, Appellant, v Ann Lubin, Respondent.

Order Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 13, 1978 which, *inter alia,*awarded a counsel fee, *pendente lite,*in the sum of $7,500, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to reduce the counsel fee to $3,750, payable within 20 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon with notice of entry, and, except, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Although it is axiomatic that no award of counsel fees, *pendente lite,*may be made to a wife who is financially able to pay *(Kann v Kann,*38 AD2d 545), we do not view the wife’s ownership of stock, valued at $35,000, to be a barometer of her ability to pay. She has two young children, ages six and two, to take care of, and has no source of income other than temporary alimony and support. A sale of the stock, a gift from her father, poses inevitable tax consequences which might well prove to be an economic disaster. However, we do consider the award here to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Silverman, J. P., Fein, Markewich, Lynch and Sullivan, JJ.