alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# WEBTech Notes

##  WEBTech Notes Category Index

                              - Classification/Cataloging Update (CC):   Represents Superintendent of Documents (SuDoc) classification number changes
                              - What Happened to? (WH):  Represents miscellaneous information (e.g., delays in distribution, production/publishing issues) that may be useful to depository coordinators as they maintain their depository collections. This category is used infrequently.
                              - Updates to the List of Classes, New Items (UN):  Represents new depository item numbers that have been recently created and added to the List of Classes.
                              - Updates to the List of Classes, Misc. (UM):  Represents miscellaneous updates to the List of Classes (e.g., title changes, discontinued or inactivated depository item numbers or SuDoc classification numbers).

For more information on WEBTech Notes, go to the article under Instructions.

Export as CSV

WEBTech Notes RSS Feed

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
-                Page            4 
-                Page            5 
-                Page            6 
-                Page            7 
-                Page            8 
-                Page            9 
- …
-  Next pageNext › 
-  Last pageLast »
###### Editorial Note on Part 399

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 399 appear at 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### §§ 399.10-399.11 [Reserved]
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. C & W LEKTRA BAT CO., Respondent.

No. 74-1600.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 26, 1975.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Bd., Peter G. Nash, John S. Irving, Jr., Patrick H. Hardin, Joseph E. Mayer, Alan D. Longman, Sandra McCandless, Washington, D. C., Bernard Gottfried, Director, Region 7, N. L. R. B., Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

Marvin Breskin, David B. Gunsberg, Breskin & Cox, Detroit, Mich., for respondent.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and HERMANSDORFER, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable H. David Hermansdorfer, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

ORDER

This case is before the court on the application of the National Labor Relations Board for the enforcement of its order issued against C & W Lektra Bat Company on April 3, 1974.

During negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement the Company insisted on a one year contract, while the Union insisted on a three year contract. The Union further stated that, in accordance with its policy, the contract would be submitted to the members for ratification. The Company met the three year demand, thus satisfying all items of mandatory bargaining. The Union decided against submitting the agreement to its members, but the Company refused to execute the agreement unless and until the Union complied with its original plan to submit the plan for ratification.

The Board held that the Company violated § 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (5), by refusing to execute the collective bargaining agreement. 209 N.L.R.B. No. 165, (April 3, 1974).

Upon consideration, the court concludes that the order of the Board is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and that enforcement is required by the decisions of this court in Houchens Market of Elizabethtown, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 375 F.2d 208 (6th Cir. 1967) and N. L. R. B. v. Big Run Coal & Clay Co., 385 F.2d 788 (6th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 824, 89 S.Ct. 83, 21 L.Ed.2d 95 (1968).

Accordingly, it is ordered that enforcement be granted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO

 as representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, et al.,

Debtors.

1

 PROMESA

 Title III

 No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

 (Jointly Administered)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR NOTICE

To the Honorable United States District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain:

COMES NOW, the undersigned counsel, and respectfully sets forth as follows:

1. Creditor and/or party in interest COOPERATIVA DE AHORRO Y CREDITO 

JUANA DIAZ has retained the services of the undersigned’s law firm to represent it in the 

instant case

2. Therefore, the undersigned respectfully requests that all pleadings, orders, notices, 

and documents filed and entered in this case be notified upon the undersigned counsel.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested from this Honorable Court to enter an order 

for all notices, pleadings, orders and documents filed in this case to be sent to the undersigned.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all 

CM/ECF participants. 

 

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each debtor’s respective Title III case number and the last four (4) 

digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are 9i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283- LTS) (Last Four Digits of federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales tax 

Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax 

ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last 

Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software 

limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3632 Filed:07/19/18 Entered:07/19/18 12:14:26 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 

In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 19th day of July , 2018.

ALMEIDA & DÁVILA, P.S.C.

PO Box 191757

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00919-1757

Phone: (787) 722-2500

Fax: (787) 777-1376

/S/ ENRIQUE M. ALMEIDA BERNAL

USDC-PR 217701

Email: ealmeida@almeidadavila.com

/S/ ZELMA DÁVILA CARRASQUILLO

USDC-PR 218913

Email: zdavila@almeidadavila.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3632 Filed:07/19/18 Entered:07/19/18 12:14:26 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as added by

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Pulaski Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Pulaski Financial as of and for the period
covered by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                            
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: December 13, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ William A. Donius                      
|                        |  |  |  | Name: William A. Donius                    
|                        |  |  |  | Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of 1stNet Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period
ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James H. Watson, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|\s\ James H. Watson, Jr.                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|James H. Watson, Jr.                                        
|Chief Executive Officer                                     
|Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
|                                                            
|April 26, 2005                                              

---
EXHIBIT 32(A)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 accompanying Annual Report of Overnite Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leo H. Suggs, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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
Corporation.



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/  LEO H. SUGGS                    
|    |  | Leo H. Suggs                         
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and President



March 26, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4463 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4463

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include certain over-the-
   counter dietary supplement products as qualified medical expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 6, 2020

  Mr. Cramer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include certain over-the-
   counter dietary supplement products as qualified medical expenses.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENT PRODUCTS AS QUALIFIED 
              MEDICAL EXPENSES.

    (a) HSAs.--Section 223(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or dietary supplement products'' after 
        ``menstrual care products'' in the last sentence of 
        subparagraph (A); and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(E) Dietary supplement product.--For purposes of 
                this paragraph, the term `dietary supplement product' 
                means a nutritional product that is labeled with--
                            ``(i) a statement describing how the 
                        product is intended to affect the structure or 
                        function of the human body, or
                            ``(ii) a statement characterizing the 
                        mechanism by which the product acts to maintain 
                        such structure or function.''.
    (b) Archer MSAs.--The last sentence of section 220(d)(2)(A) of such 
Code is amended by inserting ``or dietary supplement products (as 
defined in section 223(d)(2)(E))'' after ``menstrual care products (as 
defined in section 223(d)(2)(D))''.
    (c) Health Flexible Spending Arrangements and Health Reimbursement 
Arrangements.--Section 106(f) of such Code is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or dietary supplement products (as 
        defined in section 223(d)(2)(E))'' after ``menstrual care 
        products (as defined in section 223(d)(2)(D))''; and
            (2) in the heading, by inserting ``and Dietary Supplement 
        Products'' after ``Menstrual Care Products''.
    (d) Effective Dates.--
            (1) Distributions from savings accounts.--The amendment 
        made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to amounts paid 
        after December 31, 2019.
            (2) Reimbursements.--The amendment made by subsection (c) 
        shall apply to expenses incurred after December 31, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court of Appeals

**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

___________

No. 21

- 20658

___________

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant

,

versus

**Daisy Teresa Rafoi Bleuler,**

Defendant

— Appellee

,

**consolidated with**

**___________**

**22**

**- 20377** 

**___________**

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant

,

versus

**Paulo Jorge Da Costa Casqueiro Murta,**

Defendant

— Appellee

. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

February 28 , 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

ClerkNo. 21

- 20658 c/w No. 22

- 20377

2 ______________________________

Appeal s from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 514

- 7

USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 514

- 8

______________________________

**ON PETITION FOR REHEARING**

Before **Graves, Willett,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**.**
**Per Curiam:**

**IT IS ORDERED** that the petition for rehearing filed by Paulo Jorge

Da Costa Casqueiro Murta is **GRANTED**

. Accordingly, o ur prior panel

opinion is **WITHDRAWN** , and this opinion is **SUBSTITUTED**

therefor

. 1

1 See **Fed. R. App. P.** 40 (a)(4)(A) (“If a petition for panel rehearing is granted, the court may ... make a final disposition of the case without reargumen t.”).
#### Charles J. Haas, Respondent, *v.*Home Indemnity Company, Appellant.

(Argued December 2, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.)

*284
      *Daniel Mungall*and *Fred H. Rees*for appellant.

*James W. Ryan*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The policy upon which this action is brought provides broadly that the defendant will pay the assured for all loss of merchandise by robbery from a custodian. But it “ covers on two custodians while conveying property * * * it being agreed that the Company’s liability is limited to the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5000.00) on each custodian.” The policy, *285however, was issued and accepted as excess insurance only, and upon the express condition that if the assured should fail to carry other insurance against the same kind of loss, *“*in the amount of at least Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) on each custodian,” in the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, then the insurance in question should be null and void. The assured did not comply with the condition in two respects: (a) The policy of primary insurance which it carried was not in the specified company; and (b) it was only in the amount of $10,000 on one “ truck,” and not in the amount of $10,000 *“*on each custodian.” If we disregard the failure in respect to the particular insurer, we are still left with a material failure in respect to the amount of coverage. There is a distinct and substantial difference between primary insurance limited to $10,000 and primary insurance which, under given circumstances, might amount to $20,000; and the given circumstances existed here under the undisputed evidence of plaintiff’s own witness. The truck when robbed was in charge of two custodians within the policy definition. There is no evidence to support any other conclusion.

The judgments should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.
180904 SCH ORD RE FINCA MATILDE INC LIFT STAY VERSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

----------------------------------------------------------x

In re: PROMESA

Title III

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered)

et al.,

Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER SCHEDULING BRIEFING OF FINCA MATILDE INC LIFT STAY

The Court has received and reviewed the Lift Stay Notice (the “Motion”) filed by 

Finca Matilde Inc (the “Movant”). (Docket Entry No. 3851.) Opposition papers to the Motion 

must be filed by September 18, 2018. Movant’s reply papers must be filed by September 25, 

2018. The Court will thereafter take the Motion on submission, unless a party thereto requests a 

hearing.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2018

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

 1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation 

(“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 

17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System 

of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power 

Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax 

ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software 

limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3853 Filed:09/04/18 Entered:09/04/18 17:27:34 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.4

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection   with  the  Amendment  to  the  Annual  Report  of  KeySpan
Corporation (the  "Corporation")  on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2002 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Gerald Luterman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the  Corporation,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                            /s/ Gerald Luterman
                                            -------------------
                                            Name: Gerald Luterman
                                            Title: Executive Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            Date: July 24, 2003



Note: A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to KeySpan Corporation and will be retained by KeySpan Corporation
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
#### Broas *vs.*Mersereau.

A verdict may be taken *after the death*of a *sole*plaintiff, where the death happens on the first day of the circuit; the defendant in this case believing that the suit had *abated,*refused to appear, in consideration whereof, and on producing an affidavit of merits, a new trial was ordered on terms imposed by the court.

The plaintiff died the first day of the circuit; after which his attorney proceeded at the same circuit and took á verdict; though the death was objected by the defendant as an *abatement*of the suit. The defendant, relying on the objection, refused to appear at the trial, and now moves to set aside the verdict. He also presents an affidavit of merits.

*By the Court,*

Cowen, J.

The statute, 2 *R. S.*308, § *4, 2d ed.,*allows the entry of judgment within two terms from the verdict, though either party may die in the intermediate time. The whole time of the circuit relates to the first day, so that if the party die on any day during the circuit, though before the trial, this is regarded as a death after verdict, and may be followed by a judgment within the two terms. It is not denied that such would be the law of this case, were it not for § 5, which forbids the entry of judgment on a verdict *against*any party who dies before a verdict actually rendered. The v.erdict here is not *against*but *in favor of*the party deceased. It is plain, to my mind, that the statute intended to qualify the old rule of relation no farther than it respected the party *against*whom the verdict passed, but to leave it entirely operative in a case like this.

[654] The attorney for the plaintiff may perfect his judgment, and the present motion must be denied with costs. But the defendant swears to merits. He did not appear, at the circuit, in the belief that the statute had altered the law in his favor. On paying all costs from the notice of trial to judgment, and the costs of this motion, he may have a trial; but the judgment must stand in its present form, to avoid the error of a new verdict and judgment upon the record. On payment, the proceedings to stay till the plaintiff re-tries; the court to give such further directions as may be equitable on the coming in of the new postea.

Rule accordingly.
#### John W. Remer, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Corner Broadway-Maiden Lane, Inc., Appellant, *v.*170 Broadway Holding Corporation et al., Defendants, and City Bank Farmers Trust Company et al., Respondents.

(Argued May 28, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*445
      *Howard C. Kelly*for appellant.

*Edwin W. Cooney*and *Elmer J. Hoare*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.