alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 1093 Directorate ID : 2011 - SW - 020 -AD Helicopter Model: Brantly International, Inc. Model B - 2, Model B - 2A, and Model B - 2B Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 76 Helicopters in the US Registry. Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent loss of the main rotor blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $7,500 per main rotor blade Labor per Helicopter ( 1 x $ 8 5 / work -hour for the daily pre - flight inspection) (4 x $85/work -hour for the eddy current inspection) (3 x $85/work -hour for the visual & tap test inspection) (2 x $85/work -hour for a main rotor blade inspection) $ 85 per inspection cycle $ 340 per insp ection cycle $255 per inspection cycle $170 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 85 for the daily pre - flight inspection per inspection cycle $340 for the eddy current inspection per inspection cycle $255 for the visual & tape test inspection per inspection cycle $7,670 to replace a main rotor blade Total US Fleet Cost $6,460 for the daily pre - flight inspection per inspection cycle $25,840 for the eddy current inspection per inspection cycle $19,380 for the visual & tape test inspection per in spection cycle Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action? ” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Marc Belhumeur
No. 59800.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

protests 169050-K and 180706-K (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift*& *Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

May 8, 1967

No. P67/142.

No. P67/143.

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 65/2333 (New York).

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 65/8998 (New York).

*887No. P67/144.

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 66/41221 (New York).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rubber bulb horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin International, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In the Matter of State Farm Insurance Company, Respondent, v John Brosnan et al., Appellants.

[632 NYS2d 628]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of the appellants’ underinsured motorist claim under an umbrella policy, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated December 22, 1993, which granted the petition and denied the appellants’ cross motion to compel arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, with costs, the petition is denied and the appellants’ cross motion is granted.

It is well settled that an insurance carrier may not disclaim liability if it fails to give the insured timely notice of disclaimer as soon as is reasonably possible after it first learns of the accident or grounds for disclaimer of liability *(see, Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Steiner,*199 AD2d 507; *Allcity Ins. Co. v Pioneer Ins. Co.,*194 AD2d 424; *Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. [Merrill],*192 AD2d 824; *Kramer v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co.,*176 AD2d 308). Timely notice of disclaimer must be given even when the injured claimant has in the first instance failed to provide the carrier with timely notice of the accident *(see, Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Steiner, supra; Allcity Ins. Co. v Pioneer Ins. Co., supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. [Merrill], supra; Kramer v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., supra).*

We find that State Farm’s delay of over a year in denying coverage under a homeowners’ umbrella policy that it had issued to the injured policy holder was unreasonable and that the arbitration should proceed. Even assuming that the policy holder failed to comply with the notice provision of the policy by failing to give timely notice to the proper entity (i.e., State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. rather than State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company), State Farm’s failure to timely disclaim on this basis precludes State Farm from raising it as a bar to arbitration. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
{ 

### SERVED: March 21, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC '! . ; \ -, \.

- ,, ''

,, ,, ,..... '' .,.,. 1''\' ' "} ? 

### c: ' / 

### 3t)

-------------- t; ,.,J ·' t<' '""
...... IN THE MATTER OF RYAN CORNWALL DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0117 (Civil Penalty Action)

ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDlNG Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin hastransferred to the Food and Drug Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwin to Administrative LawJudge Douglas M. Rawald. Any dates set for hearing orprehearing conference are suspended until further notice. All otherorders remain in full force and effect absent further order. SO ORDEREI>.

Attachment-Service ListSERVICE LJST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington;DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite2W1000 1


### Ryan Cornwall, Respondent 

### 6025 Birdcage Street No. 88 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 ONE COPY



### Mark G. Camacho, Complainant's Counsel 

### Federal Aviation Administration Central Region ACE-7, Room 506 DOT Building 901 Locust Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3765 FAX: 816-329-3771 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,AdministrativeLawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 Docket No. FAA-2014-0117 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service wasby U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W 1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
# Official Journal C 8/13 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 8 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4913 January 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 8

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4913 January 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 008/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 008/2 | Information procedure — Technical rules (1) | 2 |
| 2006/C 008/3 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 98/79/EC (1) | 9 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 008/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 008/2

Information procedure — Technical rules (1)

2

2006/C 008/3

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 98/79/EC (1)

9

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EON-NET V. FLAGSTAR 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

EON-NET L.P., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FLAGSTAR BANCORP, 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. C05-2129 RSM 

 PLAINTIFF EON-NET, L.P.’S NOTICE 

 OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES 

 SUPPORTING ITS OPPOSITION TO 

 DEFENDANT FLAGSTAR BANCORP’S 

 PENDING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187 Filed 12/23/2009 Page 1 of 2
EON-NET V. FLAGSTAR 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TO THE COURT AND DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL 

 

Plaintiff Eon-Net, L.P. (“Eon-Net”) respectfully submits this Notice of 

Supplemental Authorities to bring to the Court’s attention two patents recently issued by 

the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to the inventors of the three patents-insuit, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,683,697, 7,075,673 and 7,184,162, which support Eon-Net’s 

claim construction and its Opposition to defendant Flagstar Bancorp’s Motion for 

Sanctions. These two new patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,570,383 (“the ‘383 patent”) and 

7,619,768 (“the ‘768 patent”), attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, share the 

same specification as the three patents-in-suit, and have claims explicitly directed 

towards processing information not derived from scanned hard copy documents. For 

example, see Claims 3 and 6 of the ‘383 patent, and Claims 3 and 6 of the ‘768 patent. 

Mr. Mitchell Medina disclosed this Court’s Order on Claim Construction issued on 

March 4, 2009, to the PTO prior to the issuance of the ‘383 and ‘768 patents. 

 By:/s/Jean-Marc Zimmerman 

 Jean-Marc Zimmerman (Pro Hac Vice) 

 Zimmerman & Levi, LLP 

 226 St. Paul Street 

 Westfield, NJ 07090 

 Tel: (908) 654-8000 

 Fax: (908) 654-7207 

 John W. Hathaway 

 Law Offices John W. Hathaway, PLLC 

 4600 Bank of America Tower 

 701 Fifth Avenue 

 Seattle, WA 98104 

 Tel: (206) 624-7100 

 Fax: (206) 624-9292 

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Eon-Net, L.P. 

 Date: December 22, 2009 

 Westfield, New Jersey 

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 187 Filed 12/23/2009 Page 2 of 2
H. Res. 5

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 4, 2007.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 

Res. 6) adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives 

for the One Hundred Tenth Congress. The resolution shall be 

considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 

as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except 

as specified in sections 2 through 4 of this resolution. 

SEC. 2. The question of adopting the resolution shall be 

divided among five parts, to wit: each of its five titles. The 

portion of the divided question comprising title I shall be debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 

majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. 

The portion of the divided question comprising title II shall 

be debatable for 60 minutes, equally divided and controlled 

by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. The portion of the divided question comprising title 

III shall be debatable for 60 minutes, equally divided and 
2

•HRES 5 EH 

controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or 

their designees. The portion of the divided question comprising title IV shall be debatable for 60 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority 

leader or their designees. The portion of the divided question 

comprising title V shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally 

divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. Each portion of the divided 

question shall be disposed of in the order stated. 

SEC. 3. Pending the question of adopting the final portion of the divided question, it shall be in order to move that 

the House commit the resolution to a select committee with 

or without instructions. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to commit to its adoption 

without intervening motion. 

SEC. 4. During consideration of House Resolution 6 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker. 

Attest:

Clerk.
No. 62833.

#### Paramount Import & Export Co. *v.*United States,

protest 278471-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 62788.

#### Central Picture Galleries *v.*United States,

protests 58/5756, 58/5757, and 58/5758 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of paintings (except carpets and rugs made in the year 1700), produced prior to the year 1830, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. *(United States*v. *Gunther,*71 Fed. 499, followed.)
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 72

Honoring the centennial celebration of the University of Kansas basketball

program and the contributions of the program to the sport of basketball

and of the coaches, players, and 500 lettermen, who have achieved

success and made significant contributions on and off the basketball

court.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 4, 1998

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. BROWNBACK) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the centennial celebration of the University of Kansas basketball program and the contributions of the program to the sport of basketball and of the coaches,

players, and 500 lettermen, who have achieved success

and made significant contributions on and off the basketball court.

Whereas, in 1898, the ‘‘Father of Basketball’’, Dr. James

Naismith, became the first basketball coach at the University of Kansas;

Whereas Dr. Forrest ‘‘Phog’’ Allen, considered one of college

basketball’s most successful coaches, succeeded Dr.

James Naismith, winning 746 games, 24 conference
2

•SCON 72 IS

championships, 2 Helms Foundation National Championships, and 1 National Collegiate Athletic Association (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘NCAA’’) Championship;

Whereas Dr. Allen was influential in forming the National

Association of Basketball Coaches, lobbied to make basketball an Olympic sport, and was a key individual in the

formation of the NCAA Basketball Tournament;

Whereas University of Kansas graduates who played basketball under Dr. Allen, including Adolph Rupp, Dean

Smith, Ralph Miller, and Dutch Lonborg, went on to

achieve unparalleled success as college basketball coaches;

Whereas 13 University of Kansas alumni, including Wilt

Chamberlain and Clyde Lovellette, are members of the

Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame;

Whereas the jerseys of Danny Manning, Charlie Black, B.H.

Born, Paul Endacott, Wilt Chamberlain, and Ray Evans

were retired by the University of Kansas because of their

achievements on the basketball floor as University of

Kansas Jayhawks;

Whereas the University of Kansas men’s basketball tradition

includes more than 1,650 victories, 44 conference championships, 10 NCAA Championship Final Four appearances, 2 Helms Foundation National Championships, 2

NCAA Championships, in 1952 and 1988, and 10 Consensus All-American players; and

Whereas Allen Field House in Lawrence, Kansas, maintains

a spirited atmosphere that provides the University of

Kansas Jayhawks an immeasurable advantage in their

games: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress recognizes and honors—
3

•SCON 72 IS

1 (1) the 100 years of basketball history at the

2 University of Kansas; and

3 (2) the players, coaches, alumni, and fans of

4 the University of Kansas Jayhawks who have par5 ticipated in the basketball program throughout the

6 years.

Æ
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

WILLIAM LAUER, individually and as the

Personal Representative of the Estate of

SHIRLEY LAUER,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXTENDICARE HOMES, INC., a Delaware

corporation; EXTENDICARE HEALTH

NETWORK, INC., a Delaware corporation;

and DR. BRIAN KEAY, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5124FDB

ORDER 

Defendants Extendicare Homes, Inc. And Extendicare Health Network, Inc. removed this

cause of action from Thurston Count Superior Court on diversity grounds, stating that it became

removable on March 2, 2006 upon the dismissal of Dr. Brian Keay, a Washington resident. 

Defendants assert there is diversity, as Plaintiff is a Washington resident and the Extendicare

Defendants are foreign corporations and are not citizens of this state, and further states that it has a

good faith belief that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a corporation is a citizen both of the state by which it has been

incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business. Defendants merely assert

Case 3:06-cv-05124-FDB Document 7 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

that they are not citizens of Washington, but do not affirmatively state where the Extendicare

Defendants’ principal place of business is. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: the Defendants Extendicare Homes, Inc. And

Extendicare Health Network, Inc. shall file a document by no later than March 20, 2006

demonstrating their principal place of business. 

DATED this 13th day of March, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05124-FDB Document 7 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.18



PLEDGE AMENDMENT
This PLEDGE AMENDMENT, dated November 28, 2017, is delivered pursuant to Section 6(d) of the Pledge Agreement referred to below.  All defined terms herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto or incorporated by reference in the Pledge Agreement.  
The undersigned hereby certifies that the representations and warranties in Section 5 of the Pledge Agreement are and continue to be true and correct, as to the shares, membership interests, partnership interests and other equity interests pledged prior to this Pledge Amendment and as to the shares, membership interests, partnership interests and other equity interests pledged pursuant to this Pledge Amendment.  
The undersigned further agrees that this Pledge Amendment may be attached to that certain Pledge Agreement, dated August 4, 2016, HARVEST CAPITAL CREDIT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, in favor of PACIFIC WESTERN BANK, a California state chartered bank (as amended, restated, supplemented, or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Pledge Agreement”) and that the Pledged Equity listed on Annex A to this Pledge Amendment shall be and become a part of the Pledged Collateral referred to in said Pledge Agreement and shall secure all Secured Obligations referred to in said Pledge Agreement.  
The undersigned (i) acknowledges that any shares, membership interests, partnership interests or other equity interests not included in the Pledged Collateral at the discretion of Agent may not otherwise be pledged by Pledgor to any other Person or otherwise used as security for any obligations other than the Secured Obligations, and (ii) represents and warrants that all representations and warranties set forth in the Pledge Agreement, are true, correct and complete as to the Pledged Equity listed on this Pledge Amendment as if made on the date hereof.


HARVEST CAPITAL CREDIT CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation


By:      /s/ Richard P. Buckanavage    
Name:    Richard P. Buckanavage  
Title:      Chief Executive Officer and President        





ANNEX A
to Pledge Amendment
PLEDGED EQUITY
	
						
	Name and 
Address of Pledgor
	Pledged Entity
	Class of Stock, Membership Interests or Partnership Interests
	Certificate 
Number(s)
	Number of Shares, Membership Interests or Partnership Interests

	Harvest Capital Credit Corporation
767 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Attn: Richard P. Buckanavage, President and CEO
	HCAP ICC, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
	N/A
	N/A
	100%




















[Harvest] Pledge Amendment
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 1 PROPOSED ORDER- [C06-5004-RBL]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

WILLIAM GRONBERG,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

Civil No. C06-5004-RBL

ORDER FOR

ATTORNEY FEES

Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees, Expenses, and Costs Under

the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and Defendant's Response thereto,

and the Court agreeing that fees and expenses should be awarded under the Equal Access to

Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and that costs should be awarded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1920, good cause having been shown, now, therefore, it is hereby:

Case 3:06-cv-05004-RBL Document 23 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 2 PROPOSED ORDER- [C06-5004-RBL]

ORDERED that Plaintiff's attorney, Robert A. Friedman of Robert A Friedman and

Associates, P.S., is hereby awarded attorney fees of $4,171,38, and expenses of $54.88, under the

EAJA, and costs of $67.25 under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

DATED this 5th day of September, 2006.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ CAROL A. HOCH WSB # 9289

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

Office of the General Counsel

701 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900, M/S 901

Phone: 206-615-2684

Fax: 206-615-2531

carol.a.hoch@ssa.gov

Case 3:06-cv-05004-RBL Document 23 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Colin Marshall, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cloud Peak Energy 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Dated:
February 24, 2011

/s/ COLIN MARSHALLColin Marshall Chief Executive Officer


---