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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ID-5402-002]

Take notice that, on November 17, 2010, Cody Moore filed an application to hold an interlocking position, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act and Part 45 of the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible online at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 8, 2010.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-29850 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# 31.106 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**Subpart 31.1 - Applicability
** **THE SPE NEWS ON-LINE****
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         243,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 257,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     200,000<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   257,900
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               204,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  174,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                78,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 109,100
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    60,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Net assets in liquidation.
<F2>Net income per limited partnership unit.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6517

MICHAEL KEITH PETTAWAY, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:06-cv-00318-MHL) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Keith Pettaway, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Keith Pettaway seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pettaway has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
<page>
                                                            Exhibit 31.1

Certification required by Section 302(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Kevin T. Knight, President of Nordstrom Credit, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Nordstrom Credit,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: December 8, 2003                   /s/ Kevin T. Knight
      -------------------                 -----------------------------
                                          Kevin T. Knight
                                          President
22.1301 Definitions.

As used in this subpartActive duty wartime or campaign badge veteran means a veteran who served on active duty in the

U.S. military, ground, naval, or air service, during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a

campaign badge has been authorized under the laws administered by the Department of Defense.

Armed Forces service medal veteran means any veteran who, while serving on active duty in the

U.S. military, ground, naval, or air service, participated in a United States military operation for

which an Armed Forces service medal was awarded pursuant to Executive Order 12985 (61 FR

1209).

Disabled veteran means-

(1)A veteran of the U.S. military, ground, naval, or air service, who is entitled to compensation (or

who, but for the receipt of military retired pay, would be entitled to compensation) under laws

administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; or

(2)A person who was discharged or released from active duty because of a service-connected

disability.

Executive and senior management means-

(1) Any employee-

(i) Compensated on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week (or $380 per week, if

employed in American Samoa by employers other than the Federal Government), exclusive of board,

lodging, or other facilities;

(ii) Whose primary duty consists of the management of the enterprise in which the individual is

employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof;

(iii) Who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees; and

(iv) Who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and

recommendations as to the hiring or firing and as to the advancement and promotion or any other

change of status of other employees will be given particular weight; or

(2)Any employee who owns at least a bona fide 20-percent equity interest in the enterprise in which

the employee is employed, regardless of whether the business is a corporate or other type of

organization, and who is actively engaged in its management.

Protected veteran means a veteran who is protected under the non-discrimination and affirmative

action provisions of 38 U.S.C. 4212; specifically, a veteran who may be classified as a "disabled

veteran," "recently separated veteran," "active duty wartime or campaign badge veteran," or an

"Armed Forces service medal veteran," as defined by this section.

Qualified disabled veteran means a disabled veteran who has the ability to perform the essential

functions of the employment positions with or without reasonable accommodation.
Recently separated veteran means any veteran during the three-year period beginning on the date of

such veteran’s discharge or release from active duty in the U.S. military, ground, naval, or air

service.

United States, means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana

Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Wake Island.

Parent topic: Subpart 22.13 - Equal Opportunity for Veterans
**Exhibit 32****Certificationof Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**Robert M.Cashill, President and Principal Executive Officer of Investors Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)and Domenick A. Cama, Executive Vice President and PrincipalFinancial and Accounting Officer of the Company, eachcertify in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the quarterly report onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) and that to the best of hisknowledge: 1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date:  February 9, 2007 /s/ Robert M. Cashill   Robert M. Cashill        President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DAVID MANSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:20cv333-TKW-MAF

RICKY D. DIXON, Secretary,

Florida Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

__________________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 19). No objections were filed.

Upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation and the case file, 

the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that Petitioner’s §2254 

habeas petition is due to be denied because the record establishes that (1) the state 

court’s disposition of the exhausted claims was not based on an unreasonable 

application of clearly established federal law or an unreasonable determination of 

the facts, and (2) the unexhausted claims are procedurally barred (and meritless in 

any event). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 4:20-cv-00333-TKW-MAF Document 20 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Petitioner’s §2254 habeas petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of May, 2022.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00333-TKW-MAF Document 20 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 2
1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BRUCE LENOARD SMALL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv383-MW/HTC

CHIEF JUDGE SUPREME COURT,

ADMIN JUDGE SUPREME COURT,

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 5. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “The Complaint, ECF No. 1, is 

DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim 

Case 4:20-cv-00383-MW-HTC Document 6 Filed 09/17/20 Page 1 of 2
2

and as frivolous.” The Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 17, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00383-MW-HTC Document 6 Filed 09/17/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 5001.510 Subordination of lien position. ( a ) *Request for subordination.* A lender seeking a subordination of its lien position in collateral must submit a written request to the Agency. The lender must include in the request a financial analysis of the servicing action. The financial analysis must be fully supported by current financial statements, less than 90 calendar days old, of the borrower and guarantors. The lender must receive written Agency approval prior to the subordination.
( b ) *Agency approval.* Agency approval of the subordination request requires that: ( 1 ) The subordination of the lender's lien position enhances the borrower's business and is in the best financial interest of the Agency;
( 2 ) The lien to which the guaranteed loan is subordinated is for a fixed dollar amount or fixed credit limit and for a fixed term, after which the guaranteed loan lien priority will be restored;
( 3 ) Remaining collateral is sufficient to provide for adequate collateral coverage of the guaranteed loan. The Agency may require a current independent appraisal in accordance with § 5001.203 of this part. However, if the original appraisal is more than one year old, but less than two years old, the lender may provide an appraisal with a new effective date of evaluation in lieu of a completely new appraisal;
( 4 ) Lien priorities remain for the portion of the loan collateral that was not subordinated;
( 5 ) The subordination of collateral to a line of credit does not extend beyond the term of the line of credit and in no event exceeds more than three years.
( 6 ) Subordination to a tax-exempt obligation is strictly prohibited in compliance with OMB Circular A-129, “Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables.”
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Local 964, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Respondent, and Shirl-Ann Construction Corp., Appellant.

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, Shirl-Ann Construction Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated July 11, 1979, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination (1) that there was an existing agreement between the parties to arbitrate and (2) denying Shirl-Ann’s application to vacate the entire award. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and matter remanded to an arbitrator designated by the New York State Board of Mediation for a hearing *de novo*on all matters encompassed within the grievances. At the outset, we note our agreement with Special Term that the petitioner’s service by ordinary mail of a notice of intent to arbitrate was in derogation of the statute and a legal nullity (see CPLR 7503, subd [c]; see, also, *Matter of Standard Steel Section v Royal Guard Fence Co.,*62 AD2d 1040; *Jefferson v Government Employees Ins. Co.,*48 AD2d 855; *Matter of Chasin v Chasin,*37 AD2d 839). Consequently, the appellant was entitled to litigate the so-called "threshold” questions in this special proceeding (see CPLR 7511, subd [b], par 2). While we agree with Special Term that there existed a viable agreement to arbitrate, we hold that the agreement to arbitrate was not complied with as a matter of law, necessitating vacatur of the entire award, and not merely the part that Special Term rejected. It is well settled that where an arbitration agreement provides for the selection of the arbitrator, absent impossibility such method *must*be followed or the agreement cannot be said to have been complied with, within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (subd [b], par 2, cl [iii]) (see CPLR 7504; see, also, *Matter of Siegel [Lewis],*40 NY2d 687, 689, mot for rearg den 41 NY2d 901; *Matter of Astoria Med. Group [Health Ins. Plan of Greater N. Y.]*11 NY2d 128, 133; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 7504.01, pp 75-116). Although Special Term correctly noted that a *969remand was necessary before an arbitrator designated by the New York State Mediation Board with respect to the correct calculation of damages in accordance with the express terms of the 1974-1977 agreement, Special Term failed to appreciate that the proceeding before Mr. Weston, an improperly selected arbitrator, rendered *all*conclusions of law and fact a nullity. Accordingly, upon remand before the proper arbitrator, a hearing *de novo*is required, at which time questions of contractual breach as well as damages may be entertained. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
# 9.408 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**Subpart 9.4 - Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility