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 given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                 

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 9, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                 

*1. The PrivateBancorp, Inc.*, Chicago, Illinois; to acquire The PrivateBank (a federal savings bank in organization), St. Louis, Missouri, and thereby operate a nonbank depository institution (a federal savings bank) pursuant to Section 4(c)(8) of the BHC Act and section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 11, 2000. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-12409 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Herbert Lindo, certifythat:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of KenilworthSystems Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements are made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused suchdisclosure controls to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

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

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

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

a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
| Date:  August 25, 2006 |   | By:    |   | /s/ Herbert Lindo       |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|                        |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**CERTIFICATION
      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 UC HUB Group, Inc., Inc. (the
      "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Larry D. Wilcox, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section. 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 Registrant.





/s/
                Larry D. Wilcox
              Larry
                D. Wilcox
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer & Principal Financial Officer)
              December
                13, 2007
[Civ. No. 2225.

First Appellate District.

October 22, 1917.]

#### ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al., Respondents.

Workmen’s Compensation Act—Finding of Commission—Evidence— Affirmance of Award.-—An award of the Industrial Accident Commission must be affirmed where there is evidence sustaining the finding that the claim of the applicant is covered by the policy of insurance.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Review originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District to annul an award of the Industrial Accident Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Watt, Thornton & Watt, and H. B. M. Miller, for Petitioner.

Christopher M. Bradley, for Respondents.

THE COURT.

Petition for a writ of review upon an award made by the Industrial Accident Commission.

The petitioner issued a policy of insurance covering the individual liability of one of two persons jointly engaged in farming, and contends in support of its objection to the award of the commission that the applicant in whose favor it was made was employed by a copartnership consisting of the two persons referred to, so that the applicant’s claim against the assured is not one covered by the policy; but we are satisfied—it being conceded that the finding of the commission is in effect a finding of a joint and several obligation—that there is evidence sustaining such finding. The writ is therefore dismissed and the award affirmed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 20, 1917.
# EUR-Lex - 32000R0358 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R0358

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 358/2000 of 16 February 2000 providing the result of applications for repayment of duties on dried boneless beef under Regulation (EC) No 2424/1999 **

*
Official Journal L 045 , 17/02/2000 P. 0029 - 0029 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 358/2000

of 16 February 2000

providing the result of applications for repayment of duties on dried boneless beef under Regulation (EC) No 2424/1999

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2249/1999 of 22 October 1999 opening a tariff quota for the import of meat of bovine animals, boneless, dried(1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2424/1999 of 15 November 1999 laying down detailed rules of application for an import tariff quota of dried boneless beef provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2249/1999(2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2589/1999(3), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,

Whereas:

Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2424/1999 lays down that the Commission shall decide on the applications for repayment of part of the customs duties paid on imports under the quota since 1 July 1999. The overall quantity of eligible products imported does not exceed the annual quota of 700 tonnes. Consequently, all valid applications for repayment of the specific amount of duty be accepted,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

All valid applications for repayment received under Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2424/1999 shall be accepted.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 February 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 275, 26.10.1999, p. 2.

(2) OJ L 294, 16.11.1999, p. 13.

(3) OJ L 315, 9.12.1999, p. 6.
§ 1955.40 Hearings. ( a ) ( 1 ) Except as may be ordered otherwise by the administrative law judge, the Department of Labor shall proceed first at the hearing.
( 2 ) The Department of Labor shall have the burden of proof to sustain the contentions alleged in the notice of proposed withdrawal, published under § 1955.10(b)(1) but the proponent of any factual proposition shall be required to sustain the burden of proof with respect thereto.
( b ) ( 1 ) A party shall be entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the administrative law judge shall exclude evidence which is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious.
( 2 ) The testimony of a witness shall be upon oath or affirmation administered by the administrative law judge.
( 3 ) If a party objects to the admission or rejection of any evidence, or to the limitation of the scope of any examination or cross-examination, or to the failure to limit such scope, he shall state briefly the grounds for such objection. Rulings on all objections shall appear in the record. Only objections made before the administrative law judge may be relied upon subsequently in the proceeding.
( 4 ) Formal exception to an adverse ruling is not required.
( c ) Official notice may be taken of any material fact not appearing in evidence in the record, which is among the traditional matters of judicial notice, or concerning which the Department of Labor by reason of its functions is presumed to be expert: Provided, that the parties shall be given adequate notice, at the hearing or by reference in the administrative law judge's and the Secretary's decision of the matters so noticed and shall be given adequate opportunity to show the contrary.
( d ) When an objection to a question propounded to a witness is sustained, the examining party may make a specific offer of proof of what the party expects to prove by the answer of the witness orally or in writing. Written offers of proof, adequately marked for identification, shall be retained in the record so as to be available for consideration by any reviewing authority.
( e ) Hearings shall be stenographically reported. Copies of the transcript may be obtained by the parties and the public upon payment of the actual cost of duplication to the Department of Labor in accordance with 29 CFR 70.62(c).
( f ) Corrections of the official transcript may be made only when they involve errors affecting substance and then only in the manner herein provided. Corrections may be ordered by the administrative law judge or agreed to in a written stipulation by all parties or their representatives. Where the parties are in disagreement, the administrative law judge shall determine the corrections to be made and so order. Corrections may be interlineated in the official transcript so as not to obliterate the original text.
#### EMERY v TOLEDO (city)

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas County

No. 2203.

Decided May 1, 1929

Chas. A. Thatcher, Toledo, for Emery.

Geo. W. Ritter, Director of Law, Toledo, for City.

RICHARDS, J.

In the opinion of this court the waiver and estoppel which stood in the way of *392the plaintiff prosecuting the former injunction suit still exists and may be asserted against her notwithstanding the appropriation action has been appealed. However, the judgment of the Probate Court having been suspended by the appeal, the defendants are not entitled to take possession of the property sought to be appropriated until the final conclusion of the appropriation proceedings and the payment of the amount awarded. Nieman, et al, vs. Board of Education, 22 Ohio App. 457. It follows, therefore, that the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction as sought but only to the extent of enjoining the defendants from taking possession of the property until the final conclusion of the appropriation case and the payment of the amount awarded into court.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.
| (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. |

| By: /s/David L. Cheek                                                                         David L. CheekPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 17, 2011 | By: /s/Bert E. Downing, Jr.                                                                                  Bert E. Downing, Jr.Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Controller and TreasurerMarch 17, 2011 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# L_2014350DE.01001501.xml

| 6.12.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 350/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 350/15

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1346/2000 des Rates vom 29. Mai 2000 über Insolvenzverfahren

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 160 vom 30. Juni 2000
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 160 vom 30. Juni 2000

Auf Seite 6, Artikel 5, Titel:

anstatt:

„Dingliche Rechte Dritte“

muss es heißen:

„Dingliche Rechte Dritter“

;

auf Seite 7, Artikel 14 letzter Absatz:

anstatt:

„so richtet sich die Wirksamkeit dieser Rechtshandlung dem Recht des Staates, in dessen Gebiet dieser unbewegliche Gegenstand belegen ist oder unter dessen Aufsicht das Register geführt wird.“

muss es heißen:

„so richtet sich die Wirksamkeit dieser Rechtshandlung nach dem Recht des Staates, in dessen Gebiet dieser unbewegliche Gegenstand belegen ist oder unter dessen Aufsicht das Register geführt wird.“

---
§ 1902.20 Decision following informal proceeding. ( a ) This section deals with a situation where the Assistant Secretary has ( 1 ) Afforded interested persons an opportunity to submit written data, views, or arguments concerning a proposal, subject, or issue concerning a plan; or
( 2 ) Has in addition provided an informal hearing concerning a proposal, subject, or issue concerning a plan.
( b ) ( 1 ) ( i ) After consideration of all relevant information which has been presented, if the Assistant Secretary approves a plan he shall issue a decision to that effect.
( ii ) In the event the plan is approved under § 1902.2(b), the decision shall state that the plan does not fully meet the criteria set forth in § 1902.3, and shall summarize the schedule and any other measures for bringing the plan up to the level of such criteria.
( iii ) The decision shall also reflect the Assistant Secretary's intention as to continued Federal enforcement of Federal standards in areas covered by the plan. Provisions for continued Federal enforcement shall take into consideration: ( a ) Whether the plan is approved under § 1902.2(a) or § 1902.2(b);
( b ) The schedule for coming up to Federal standards in any § 1902.2(b) plan; and
( c ) Any other relevant matters.
( 2 ) After consideration of all relevant information contained in any written or oral comments received in any informal proceeding, if the Assistant Secretary proposes to disapprove a plan, or the disposition of a subject or issue permits the possible disapproval of a plan, he shall publish a notice to that effect, and commence a proceeding meeting the requirements of § 1902.19.
DENY; and Opinion Filed July 26, 2016
. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 1 6
- 00 590
- CV
IN RE PULTE HOMES OF TEXAS , LP , Relator Original Proceeding from the 416 th Judicial District Court Collin Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 04147
- 201 3



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers , Fillmore , and Schenck Opinion by Justice Lang

- Miers Before the Court is relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus in wh ich relator seeks review
of the denial of a motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel

. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them here. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court h as clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we
conclude relator has not shown it is entitled to the rel ief requested. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a);
Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

- 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).2 Accordingly, we DENY relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus.

160590F.P05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
#### § 63.15a [Reserved]
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12519]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA 112-4084; FRL-6702-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On February 2, 1999 (64 FR 5015), EPA proposed to approve the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's regulations for Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX) Allowance Requirements (commonly referred to as the 
NOX Budget Rule) as a revision to the State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). Prior to our taking any final rulemaking, the Commonwealth 
informed us that it was revising the rule. On December 27, 1999, the 
Commonwealth submitted a new SIP revision request to EPA which consists 
of the revised version of its NOX Budget Rule. Because the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has now submitted the revised version of 
its NOX Budget Rule as a SIP revision, we are withdrawing 
our February 2, 1999 proposed rule on the old version. EPA will 
initiate a new and separate rulemaking on the Commonwealth's December 
27, 1999 SIP revision submittal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cristina Fernandez, (215) 814-2178, or 
by e-mail at [email protected].

    Dated: March 19, 2000.
Bradley M. Campbell,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 00-12519 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
```