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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-37,366]

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on February 22, 2000 in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at California Shirt Sales, Inc., Fullerton, California.

An active certification covering the petitioning group of workers is already in effect (TA-W-37,208A). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 10th day of April 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-10584  Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3750

To provide for the correct treatment of territories and possessions in the 

health care service supports under the Communications Act of 1934. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2004

Ms. BORDALLO (for herself, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. 

ACEVEDO-VILA ́, and Mrs. CHRISTENSEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To provide for the correct treatment of territories and possessions in the health care service supports under the Communications Act of 1934.

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 the ‘‘Pacific Insular Areas 

5 Rural Telemedicine Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FCC REGULATIONS REQUIRED. 

7 Section 254(h)(1)(A) of the Communications Act of 

8 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following new sentence: ‘‘For the purposes of 
2

•HR 3750 IH 

1 this subparagraph for American Samoa, the Common2 wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam, the 

3 Commission shall by regulation (i) designate Honolulu, 

4 Hawaii, as the urban area that shall be treated as if such 

5 urban area were in the same State as the rural areas of 

6 Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the 

7 Northern Mariana Islands, respectively; (ii) specify that 

8 the maximum allowable distance shall be the distance be9 tween the capital cities of these Pacific insular areas and 

10 Hawaii; and (iii) specify that the urban rate shall be based 

11 on the urban rate for Hawaii.’’.

Æ
§ 797.7 Procedures. Prior to collecting any debt by administrative offset or referring such claim to another agency for collection through administrative offset, NCUA shall provide the debtor with a written Notice of Intent to Collect by Administrative Offset (the Notice) at least 30 calendar days before administrative offset is to commence. The Notice shall provide the following information: ( a ) The nature and amount of the debt, the intention of NCUA to collect the debt through administrative offset, and a statement of the rights of the debtor under this section, including the right to request a waiver under 5 U.S.C. 5584;
( b ) An opportunity to inspect and copy the records of NCUA related to the debt or receive copies if personal inspection is impractical;
( c ) The payment due date, which shall be 30 calendar days from the date after receipt of the initial demand for payment;
( d ) An opportunity for the debtor to obtain a review of the determination of indebtedness. Any request for review by the debtor shall be in writing and shall be submitted to NCUA within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Notice. NCUA may waive the time limits for requesting review for good cause shown by the debtor. NCUA shall provide the debtor with a reasonable opportunity for an oral hearing when: ( 1 ) An applicable statute authorizes or requires NCUA to consider waiver of the indebtedness involved, the debtor requests waiver of the indebtedness, and the waiver determination turns on an issue of credibility or veracity; or
( 2 ) The debtor requests reconsideration of the debt and NCUA determines that the question of the indebtedness cannot be resolved by review of the documentary evidence, as for example, when the validity of the debt turns on an issue of credibility or veracity. Unless otherwise required by law, an oral hearing under this subpart is not required to be a formal evidentiary hearing, although NCUA shall document all significant matters discussed at the hearing. In those cases where an oral hearing is not required by this subpart, NCUA shall make its determination on the request for waiver or reconsideration based upon a review of the written record.
( e ) An opportunity to enter into a written agreement for the repayment of the amount of the claim at the discretion of NCUA;
( f ) That charges for interest, penalties, and administrative costs will be assessed against the debtor, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717, if payment is not received by the payment due date, unless excused by the FCCS;
( g ) That if the debtor has not entered into an agreement with NCUA to pay the debt, has not requested NCUA to review the debt, or has not paid the debt by the payment due date, NCUA intends to collect the debt by all legally available means;
( h ) The name and address of the Executive Director whom the debtor shall send all correspondence relating to the debt; and
( i ) Other information, as may be appropriate.
Exhibit 32.2

 

SECURED INVESTMENT RESOURCES FUND, L.P. II

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Quarterly Report of Secured Investment Resources Fund, L.P. II (the            “Partnership”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed            with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the            “Report”), I, Peter Wilkinson, Vice President and Principal Financial            Officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted            pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)            The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the            Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)            The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the            financial condition and results of operations of the Trust as of June 30, 2007 (the            last date of the period covered by the Report).

 

SECURED            INVESTMENT RESOURCES FUND, L.P. II

 

By:            Millenium Management, LLC

General            Partner

 

By:/s/ Peter Wilkinson

Peter            Wilkinson

Vice            President and

Chief            Financial Officer

Date:November 5, 2007
#### DOUGLASS V. MINTO.

(Decided January 15, 1914.)

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. Gaston Gunter

No counsel marked for appellant. Hill, Hill, Whiting & Stern, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
(LOGO) COLUMBIA NATIONAL
Incorporated


As of and for the year ended  December 31,  1998,  Columbia  National,  Inc. has
complied with the minimum servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers
Association  of  America's.  Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program for  Mortgage
Bankers.  Columbia  National,  Inc. had in effect a fidelity  bond policy and an
error  and  omissions  policy  in the  amount  of  $10,000,000  and  $9,500,000,
respectively,  for the period January l, 1998 through  December 30, 1998, and in
the amount of $11,000,000 and $11,000,00, respectively, as of December 31, 1998.


Mark C. Krebs
Senior Vice President and Controller

February 18, 1999



7142 Columbia  Gateway Drive
Columbia, MD 21046-2132
#### GUTSHALL v. SALSBERRY.

Chancery — prior equity — notice—purchaser of fee holds as trustee — injunction—costs of land.

A purchaser of the fee of land, with notice of a superior equity, takes and holds the title subject to that equity, and as trustee of it.

A party having recovered at law against such prior equity, will be enjoined from taking possession under the judgment, when the costs at law are paid, and decreed to release to the complainant.

In Chancery. The complainant, with one Margaret Gutshall, entered at the land office a quarter section of land in her name, *128under an agreement that each should pay half and have half. A division was made between them, and the complainant occupied and improved, and continues to occupy her part. The land was all paid for, and a patent obtained in 1827, to M. Gutshall. Mar* garet Gutshall had deeded to the complainant, when the money was paid, but before the date of the patent to herself. Before the date of the patent, the defendant recovered a judgment against Margaret Gutshall, on which he issued execution, levied on the entire quarter section of land, purchased it in, obtained a deed from the sheriff, recovered in ejectment, and threatens to turn the complainant out. The object of this bill is to enjoin the defendant from turning the complainant out of possession under his recovery in ejectmbnt, and to quiet the title.

Beebe, for the complainant.

*Tappan,*contra.

By the Court.

The complainant’s equity is established. Thfe respondent had notice, and if ‘he acquired any legal right at the sheriff’s sale, he took it subject to that equity, and holds it as trustee for the complainant. The claim of the respondent may, as a cloud upon the complainant’s title, affect his interest. *The*defendant is, therefore, decreed to release to the complainant half of the quarter section occupied by him, within ninety days, and he is perpetually enjoined from proceeding at law to recover the possession of that half on his judgment, upon the complainant’s paying the costs of the suit at law.
# C_2020433EN.01004301.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Hermann Albers v Commission

(Case T-597/18) (1)

(State aid - Public transport of passengers - Offsetting of the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations - Obligation to establish maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility - Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) - Decision not to raise objections - Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Transfer of financial resources from a Land to transport authorities at municipal level - Concept of aid - Obligation to notify)

(2020/C 433/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Albers e.K. (Neubörger, Germany) (represented by: S. Roling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs and S. Heimerl, acting as Agents) and Land Niedersachsen (Germany) (represented by: S. Barth and H. Gading, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 not to raise objections to the measure adopted by the Land Niedersachsen under Article 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law on local transport of the Land of Lower Saxony) [Case SA. 46697 (2017/NN)] (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hermann Albers e.K. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hermann Albers e.K. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Niedersachsen to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Niedersachsen to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS  FOR  THE PERIOD  ENDED  JUNE 26, 1999,   AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                     0000797463
<NAME>                       GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                               1,000,000

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-26-1999
<CASH>                                                         4,142
<SECURITIES>                                                  76,059
<RECEIVABLES>                                                128,222
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   3,376
<INVENTORY>                                                      682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   0
<PP&E>                                                        33,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 9,396
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               313,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              0
<BONDS>                                                       60,207
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                       10
<COMMON>                                                           1
<OTHER-SE>                                                    19,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 313,238
<SALES>                                                        3,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              25,761
<CGS>                                                          3,317
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               7,497
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 821
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             4,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                2,861
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     737
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            2,124
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   2,124
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.00


</TABLE>
#### LITTLE V. GIDLEY.

(Decided January 13, 1914.)

Appeal from Anniston City Court.

Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Coleman, Jr.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Henry C. Groves, Doing Business as Anti-Monopoly Drug Store, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. H. McLaurin and James D. Baker, Under the Firm Name of Southern Fixture & Supply Company, Defendants in Error.

Writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Marion County.

Edwin Spencer, Jr., for Plaintiff in Error.

Writ of error dismissed on praecipe of counsel for plaintiff in error, on March 27th, 1913.
§ 7.2014 Indemnification of national bank and Federal savings association institution-affiliated parties. ( a ) *Indemnification under State law.* Subject to the limitations of paragraph (b) of this section, a national bank or Federal savings association may indemnify an institution-affiliated party for damages and expenses, including the advancement of expenses and legal fees, in accordance with the law of the State the bank or savings association has designated for its corporate governance pursuant to § 7.2000(b) (for national banks), 12 CFR 5.21(j)(3)(ii) (for Federal mutual savings associations), or 12 CFR 5.22(j)(2)(ii) (for Federal stock savings associations), provided such payments are consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The term “institution-affiliated party” has the same meaning as set forth at 12 U.S.C. 1813(u).
( b ) *Administrative proceedings or civil actions initiated by Federal banking agencies.* With respect to an administrative proceeding or civil action initiated by any Federal banking agency, a national bank or Federal savings association may only make or agree to make indemnification payments to an institution-affiliated party that are reasonable and consistent with the requirements of 12 U.S.C. 1828(k) and 12 CFR chapter III.
( c ) *Written agreement required for advancement.* Before advancing funds to an institutional-affiliated party under this section, a national bank or Federal savings association must obtain a written agreement that the institution-affiliated party will reimburse the bank or savings association, as appropriate, for any portion of that indemnification that the institution-affiliated party is ultimately found not to be entitled to under 12 U.S.C. 1828(k) and 12 CFR chapter III, except to the extent that the bank's or savings association's expenses have been reimbursed by an insurance policy or fidelity bond.
( d ) *Insurance premiums.* A national bank or Federal savings association may provide for the payment of reasonable premiums for insurance covering the expenses, legal fees, and liability of institution-affiliated parties to the extent that the expenses, fees, or liability could be indemnified under this section.
[85 FR 83735, Dec. 22, 2020]
# C_2018104EN.01001102.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/11

---

Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Thomas Murphy against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2017 in Case T-90/16: Murphy v EUIPO

(Case C-538/17 P)

(2018/C 104/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Thomas Murphy (represented by: N. Travers SC, J. Gormley, BL, M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nike Innovate CV

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 30 January 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
TRANSCRIPTS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

November 1893.]

Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ.

#### Smith v. Smith.

Amendment of Defective Transcript.

An accurate copy of the recorder a justice of the peace, properly signed hut not certified- may be amended under section 5114 Revised Statutes, on proper motion to the court, and under section 6731 Revised Statutes, the court has power to require a complete transcript to he furnished.

, *J. W. O'Harr a,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*Irvin & Messinger,*for Defendants in Error.

Smith, J.

We are of the opinion tbat the paper filed with the petition in error in the court of common pleas, and which is conceded to have been an accurate copy of the record of the justice of the peace in the case, the judgment in which was sought to be reversed, and which paper purporting to be a transcript of the record, was signed, but not certified in the usual form by the justice who made it, was such a transcript as might properly be amended under section 5114 Revised Statutes, and that under section 6731, the court had power in such case to require a complete transcript to be furnished. And that when a true and correct transcript, as conceded, was produced to the court and permission asked to file it, it should have been allowed in furtherance of justice, and the refusal to do so, and the dismissal of the petition in error, on the ground that there was no sufficient transcript, was erroneous, and such judgment should be reversed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2519

ROGERS MOORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Hansford T. Johnson,

Acting Secretary of the Navy,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-154-7-F)

Submitted: January 6, 2006 Decided: January 23, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest J. Wright, Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Joshua B. Royster, Assistant United States

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rogers Moore appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of the defendant in his action alleging

claims of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A § 2000e et seq.; the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq.; and

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 791 et seq.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Moore v. Department of the Navy, No. 03-CV-154 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27,

2004). 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. 

AFFIRMED