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. EL00-83-000]

Take notice that on June 13, 2000, NSTAR Services Company (NSTAR), tendered for filing a Complaint Requesting Fast Track Processing and Prayer for Emergency Relief.

NSTAR petitions the Commission for an order directing the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) to amend its agreements and market rules to provide for a temporary $1,000/MWh bid cap in the energy and ancillary services markets operated by the Independent System Operator, New England, Inc., (ISO-NE). NSTAR further requests that the Commission direct NEPOOL to conduct studies analyzing the operation of the restructured market, and implement a structural screen that will mitigate market power. They request that both of these measures be implemented by April 1, 2001.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before June 23, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before June 23, 2000.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-15478 Filed 6-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Emtec, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Howlett, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 'SS' 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 'SS' 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/ John P. Howlett.
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                August 13, 2004
No. 10-10992.

#### Ruff *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### § 302-11.100 For which residence may I receive reimbursement for under this subpart?

You may receive reimbursement for the one residence from which you regularly commute to and from work on a daily basis and which was your residence at the time you were officially notified by competent authority to transfer to a new official station.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 23, 2015

p0416 

# Order

Clerk April 23, 2015

150029

RONNISCH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150029

COA: 314195

Oakland CC: 2009

- 105768

- CH

LOFTS ON THE NINE, L.L.C.,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

LOFTS ON THE NINE CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, HOTLINE ELECTRIC, INC.,

RAM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF

MICHIGAN, INC., EAM ENGINEERS, INC.,

MICHIGAN AIR PRODUCTS CO., STOCK

BUILDING SUPPLY, L.L.C., WILLIAMS

DISTRIBUTING CO., NORTH STAR

PARTNERS, L.L.C., and THE STATE BANK,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 24, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall

address whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the plaintiff contractor, who

file d a claim of lien under the Construction Lien Act (CLA), MCL 570.1101 et seq ., and

then filed a circuit court action against the defendant property owner, alleging breach of

contract, foreclosure of lien, and unjust enrichment claims, was entitled to an award of

attorney fees as a “prevailing party” under MCL 570.1118(2), when the plaintiff

prevailed in binding arbitration on its contract claim, but neither the arbitrator nor the

circuit court resolved the plaintiff’s foreclosure of lien claim. See HA Smith Lumber &

Hardware Co v Decina , 480 Mich 987 (2007).
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1613]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

     Notice is hereby given that on January 6, 2000, the United States 
lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the District Court for the 
Western District of Wisconsin, in United States v. Didion Milling 
Company, Inc., Case No. 99-C-261-C (W.D. Wis.), under Section 113(b) of 
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7413(b). The proposed Consent Decree 
resolves certain claims of the United States against Didion Milling, 
Inc., relating to its grain transfer facility that was located at St. 
Feriole Island in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. Under the proposed 
Consent Decree Didion will pay the United States a $107,500 civil 
penalty.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree for 30 days following publication of this 
Notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of 
Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044-
7611, and should refer to United States v. Didion Milling Company, 
Inc., Case No. 99-C-261-C (W.D. Wis.), 90-5-2-1-2219/1. The proposed 
Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States 
Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, 660 W. Washington Ave., 
Suite 200, Madison, Wisconsin and the Region V Office of the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be 
obtained by overnight mail addressed to the Department of Justice 
Consent Decree Library, 13th Floor, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20005, or by regular mail addressed to the Department of 
Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, 
Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check for 
reproduction costs (at 25 cents per page) in the amount of $3.75 for 
the Decree, payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-1613 Filed 1-21-00 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
503 P.2d 414

#### Frank O. OTERO, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Valley Construction Company, Respondent Employer, Employers Mutual Liability insurance Company of Wisconsin, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 656.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A.

Dec. 1, 1972.

Gilbert Gonzales, and Lawrence Ollason, Tucson, for petitioner.

William C. Wahl, Jr., Chief Counsel, The Industrial Comm, of Ariz., Phoenix, for respondent.

Shimmel, Hill & Bishop, P. C. by Merton E. Marks, Phoenix, for respondents employer and Ins. Carrier.

*457STEVENS, Presiding Judge.

This certiorari proceeding seeks to upset an award of The Industrial Commission of Arizona. We have read the record. The award is supported by the record and is affirmed.

CASE and DONOFRIO, JJ., concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1251 CA 12-00631 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

DANIEL MANCUSO, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROSE M. KIJ, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KALEIDA HEALTH, DOING BUSINESS AS MILLARD FILLMORE GATES HOSPITAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND TWIN CITY AMBULANCE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MACDONALD & HAFNER, ESQS., BUFFALO (PHYLISS A. HAFNER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BROWN CHIARI LLP, LANCASTER (DAVID W. OLSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered July 13, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of the motion of defendant Twin City Ambulance Corporation seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s seventh cause of action.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action against numerous defendants alleging, inter alia, that their negligence caused the wrongful death of Rose M. Kij (decedent). In addition, plaintiff alleged in the seventh cause of action that Twin City Ambulance Corporation (defendant) “was negligent in the medical transportation services that it provided to [decedent].” Defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 3212 for an order dismissing the amended complaint against it based upon the statute of limitations and plaintiff’s failure to attach a certificate of merit to the amended complaint ( see CPLR 3012-a). Supreme Court granted that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the claim for wrongful death against defendant in the fourth cause of action, but it denied that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the seventh cause of action, concluding that such cause of action sounded in ordinary negligence. We now affirm.
Plaintiff’s sole basis for liability against defendant in the seventh cause of action is that defendant failed to deliver to the hospital a medication list that was prepared by a member of decedent’s family and given to defendant’s employees by that family member. While we agree with defendant that a mistake in taking a patient’s-2- 1251 CA 12-00631
medical history is a claim that sounds in medical malpractice ( see generally Bleiler v Bodnar , 65 NY2d 65, 72), the claim here concerns the “failure to communicate significant medical findings to a . . . treating physician,” and that claim sounds in ordinary negligence ( Mosezhnik v Berenstein , 33 AD3d 895, 898; see Glasheen v Long Is. Diagnostic Imaging , 306 AD2d 515, 515, lv denied 3 NY3d 612; Yaniv v Taub , 256 AD2d 273, 274). Because the seventh cause of action sounds in ordinary negligence, it is governed by the three-year statute of limitations found in CPLR 214 and is thus timely. Furthermore, “[i]n ordinary negligence, a medical affidavit setting out merit is unnecessary” (Matter of Caracci v State of New York , 178 AD2d 876, 877; see generally CPLR 3012-a).

Entered: November 9, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### § 105-55.006 Subdivision of claims not authorized.

Debts will not be subdivided to avoid the monetary ceiling established by 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2). A debtor's liability arising from a particular transaction or contract shall be considered a single debt in determining whether the debt is one of less than $100,000 (excluding interest, penalties, and administrative costs) or such higher amount as the Attorney General shall from time to time prescribe for purposes of compromise, suspension or termination of collection activity.
Exhibit 32.1

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

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 American Vanguard Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|/s/    ERIC G. WINTEMUTE                                               
|Eric G. Wintemute Chief Executive Officer                              
|                                                                       
|/s/    DAVID T.
JOHNSON                                                
|David T. Johnson Chief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer

November 4, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to American Vanguard Corporation and will be retained by American Vanguard Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the
Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
497P12-3

#### State v. Jay Mikal Brooks-Bey

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Denied

Ervin, J.,

recused
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 808

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 16, 1999

Received

AN ACT

To extend for 6 additional months the period for which

chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, is reenacted.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 808 RDS

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

2 Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law

3 105–277 is amended—

4 (1) by striking ‘‘April 1, 1999’’ each place it

5 appears and inserting ‘‘October 1, 1999’’;

6 (2) in subsection (a)—

7 (A) by striking ‘‘September 30, 1998’’ and

8 inserting ‘‘March 31, 1999’’; and

9 (B) by striking ‘‘October 1, 1998’’ and in10 serting ‘‘April 1, 1999’’; and

11 (3) by striking subsection (c).

12 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

13 The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect

14 on April 1, 1999.

Passed the House of Representatives March 11,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Handout on How to Write an Evaluation Plan  

*Example write-ups for evaluation plan components*

5
#### § 302-12.5 For what relocation services expenses will my agency pay?

Your agency will pay the relocation services company's fees/expenses for the services you are authorized to use. If your agency pays the relocation services company for actual expenses the company incurs on your behalf, payment to the company is limited to what you would have received under the direct reimbursement provisions of this chapter.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18343, Apr. 1, 2011]
December 14, 2016

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 14th day of December, 2016.

10-15-00354-CV	ERIC RANDLE v. CLINT SANDERS - ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF McLENNAN COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 2015-0182-CV2 - AFFIRMED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment of the court below; it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the court below be, and hereby is, affirmed.  It is further ordered that appellant Eric Randle pay all costs in this behalf expended, and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
#### § 105-68.445 What action may I take if a primary tier participant knowingly does business with an excluded or disqualified person?

If a participant knowingly does business with an excluded or disqualified person, you as an agency official may refer the matter for suspension and debarment consideration. You may also disallow costs, annul or terminate the transaction, issue a stop work order, or take any other appropriate remedy.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Demarcus Darrelle Jones

, * From the County Court

o f Eastland County,

Trial Court No

. 1900117

Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00 082

- CR * March 10

, 20 2 2

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey

, C. J

. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
§ 105-70.024 Protective order. ( a ) A party or a prospective witness or deponent may file a motion for a protective order with respect to discovery sought by an opposing party or with respect to the hearing, seeking to limit the availability or disclosure of evidence.
( b ) In issuing a protective order, the ALJ may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1 ) That the discovery not be had;
( 2 ) That the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
( 3 ) That the discovery may be had only through a method of discovery other than that requested;
( 4 ) That certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters;
( 5 ) That discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the ALJ;
( 6 ) That the contents of discovery or evidence be sealed;
( 7 ) That a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the ALJ;
( 8 ) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, commercial information, or facts pertaining to any criminal investigation, proceeding, or other administrative investigation not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; or
( 9 ) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the ALJ.
#### § 302-3.301 May I transport my household goods to a location other than my actual place of residence when I separate from the Government?

Yes, if you have successfully completed your service agreement, you may transport your household goods to a location other than your actual place of residence when you separate from the Government. However, the cost cannot exceed what it would cost to your actual place of residence. Any additional cost will be borne by you.
No. 10-10955.

#### Stewart *v.*Trease.

Ct. App. Utah. Certiorari denied.
#### § 301-71.305 When must an employee account for a travel advance?

An employee must account for an outstanding travel advance each time a travel claim is filed. If the employee receives a travel advance but determines that the related travel will not be performed, then the employee must inform you that the travel will not be performed and repay the advance at that time.

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15974, Apr. 1, 1998. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57967, Sept. 13, 2002]
# Comments on: 20-1757: KUTT v. APPLE INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
§ 105-72.506 Procurement records. Procurement records and files for purchases in excess of the small purchase threshold shall include the following at a minimum: ( a ) Basis for contractor selection,
( b ) Justification for lack of competition when competitive bids or offers are not obtained, and
( c ) Basis for award cost or price.
# Comments on: 23-135: In Re APPLE INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential