alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MICHAEL CROSSEY, DWAYNE THOMAS, IRVIN WEINREICH, BRENDA WEINREICH,

AND THE PENNSYLVANIA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS,

Petitioners

v.

KATHY BOOCKVAR, SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, AND JESSICA MATHIS, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF ELECTION SERVICES AND NOTARIES,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 108 MM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21 st day of August, 2020

, the petitions of Proposed Intervenors

President Pro Tempore Joseph B. Scarnati, III, and Majority Leader of the State Senate

Jake Corman; Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Turzai and Majority Leader

of the House Bryan Cutler (s ubsequently substituted by Speaker of the House of

Representatives Bryan Cutler and Majority Leader of the House Kerry Benninghoff) to

intervene in this matter are GRANTED ; the petitions of Proposed Intervenors Republican

Party of Pennsylvania, the Republican National Committee, and the National Republican

Congressional Committee are DENIED , without prejudice to their ability to file briefs as

amicus curiae pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 531.

Chief Justice Saylor files a concurring and dissenting statement in which Justice

Mundy joins.
Page 1 of 2

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

OF THE

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20551

DIVISION OF BANKING

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

SR 11-3

February 14, 2011

TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISION

 AT EACH FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

SUBJECT: De Novo Interstate Branching by State Member Banks

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank 

Act”) modified the federal statute governing de novo interstate branching by state member 

banks. As a result, as of July 22, 2010, a state member bank is authorized to open its initial 

branch in a host state1 by establishing a de novo branch at any location at which a bank chartered 

by the host state could establish a branch.

2

Just as it must do in establishing any domestic branch, a state member bank seeking to 

open a de novo interstate branch must file an application with the Federal Reserve pursuant to 

the procedures and standards set forth in section 208.6 of the Board’s Regulation H.

3

 In 

addition, applications for de novo interstate branches are subject to state filing requirements and 

to capital, management, and community reinvestment standards. 4

In processing an application to enter a host state through de novo interstate branching, a 

Reserve Bank must verify that the host state’s banks could establish a branch at the same 

location. In addition, the Reserve Bank should consult with the host state banking supervisor to 

confirm that the applicant has provided the supervisor with a copy of the branch application (as 

is required under the federal statute) and to answer any questions the supervisor may have about 

the new interstate branching statute.

 1 “Host state” means a state, other than a bank’s home state, in which the bank seeks to establish and 

maintain a branch. 12 USC 36(g)(3)(C).

2 12 USC 36(g)(1)(A), as amended by section 613(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act; 12 USC 321. Initial entry 

into a host state by way of an interstate bank merger is governed by 12 USC 1831u. 

3 12 CFR 208.6.

4 12 USC 36(g)(2)(A), 1831u(b)(1), (3), and (4).
 

Page 2 of 2

For more information contact Paul Hannah, Counsel, Legal Division, at (202) 452-2810, 

or Lisa DeFerrari, Assistant Director, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation, at 

(202) 452-3893. In addition, questions may be sent via the Board’s public website.5

Patrick M. Parkinson

Director

 5 See http://www.federalreserve.gov/feedback.cfm.
1

Share your desktop or application using Skype for Business

You can show your entire desktop or just a program to everyone in a Skype 

for Business Meeting, call, or instant messaging (IM) conversation.

• Share your desktop when you need to switch between programs or 

work on files from different programs.

• Share a program when you need to present specific programs or files 

and don’t want people to see anything else on your computer.

Share your desktop 

1. At the bottom of the conversation window, click the presentation (monitor) 

icon. 

2. Select the Share your Desktop menu to share your entire desktop. 
2

Attention: When sharing your desktop, everyone in the meeting can see 

your programs, files, and notifications. If you have confidential information 

or files that you don’t want people to see, close them or use program 

sharing instead.

Share an Application or a Window

1. Select the Share a Window menu to choose a specific application or 

window to share. 

2. Select from the available windows or applications. 

3. Click the share button after selecting the application. 

4. Use the sharing toolbar at the top of the screen to stop sharing or give 

control to participants. 
3

Notes: While you are sharing, your Skype for Business status changes to 

Presenting, and you won’t receive instant messages or calls.

Share primary, secondary or all monitors

If you have more than one monitor, they will all display on the presents tab. 

1. Choose which monitor to share. 

When sharing programs or a desktop with multiple monitors, the sharing 

toolbar opens on the primary monitor. 

Give and take control of a sharing session

If you want another meeting participant to change a file, help you present, 

or demonstrate something, you can grant control to that person. You will 

both be in control of the sharing, and you can take back control anytime.

1. On the sharing toolbar, click Give Control.

2. Select the name of the person you want to give control to.

3. Skype for Business sends a notification to that person to let them 

know you’re sharing control.

4. To take control back, click Give Control again, and then click Take 

Back Control.

Tip: You can allow people to automatically take control of your sharing 

session at any time, by clicking Give Control Automatically on the sharing 

toolbar. We recommend you choose this option only in small and casual 

meetings. To take back automatic permission, click Give Control, and clear 

the Give Control Automatically check box.
(Reap. Dec. 10884)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 761310; 716954.

(Decided January 27, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court :

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 T.D. 197, T.D. 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.O., 160, etseq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in' the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of tbe Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
CHEMICAL STRUCTURE DIAGRAM CPAR 70 CH 3 (CH 2 CHCl) 8 CH 2 CHClCH 2 CH Cl CH 2 CH 3 (representative)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6489

NELSON BRADLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOUGLAS VARGO; ALPHONSO HICKS; MARVIN LEE;

DAVID GARRAGHTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-99-1230-2)

Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 11, 2001

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nelson Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nelson Bradley appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. Bradley v. Vargo, No. CA-99-1230-2 (E.D. Va.

Feb. 26, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00219-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.C. and A.R.C., Children

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA00064

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal 

because he qualifies as indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

SIGNED July 18, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Simon Pedder, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.



/s/    SIMON
PEDDERSimon Pedder President and Chief Executive Officer


March 8, 2006
No. 55101.

#### Boyce Lazarus Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 519886-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 58389.

protest 188836-K/14094 (New Orleans).

#### Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of toy pianos similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 281, C. D. 1614), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 53391.

protests 69792-K, etc. (New York).

#### 21 Brands, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mark Jarvis, of Hard Creek Nickel Corporation,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 20-F of Hard Creek Nickel
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2012 (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 Hard
Creek Nickel Corporation.

Dated: April 30, 2013



|Mark
      Jarvis           | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Mark Jarvis                   | 
|Chief Executive Officer       | 
|(Principal Executive Officer) | 

---
No. 59343.

protests 157899-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bourjois Mfg. Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

*269Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the. merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
SERVED: July 10, 2014 

.;·I(); 

.·!. ' I,· '' : -·; 

_;~ : <. j: ::; ' ....... '.~ f =· . "' 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTERS OF 

REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Actiori) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0851 

REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0852 

ORDER ON AGENCY'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereafter "Complainant';) has filed a 

Motion to extend time for responding to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Respondent's response is not yet due. 

For reasons set forth in the Agency's motion, we will grant the extension. 

WHEREFORE, for reasons set forth in the Agency's Motion it be and is hereby 

ORDERED as follows: 

1. Agency shall file its response on or before August 1, 2014. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

1 
' 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Reza So !tan ian, Respondent's President 

. Regent Aerospace Corporation and Airbase Services, Inc. 

28110 West Harrison Parkway 

Valencia, CA 91355-4109 

TEL: 661-257-3000 

FAX: . 661-702-0241 

JohnS. Hoff 

Jeffrey Clement, Respondent's Counsel 

Hoff Law Group 

135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603-4134 

TEL: 312-346-8111 

FAX: 312-853-3924 

Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel, Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

2 

FDMS Nos. F AA-20 13-0851 & 

FAA-2013-0852 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by 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-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          735,413
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,740
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,567,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                92,016
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (89,314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (89,314)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
**Re: Atrazine MCL** 

**Atrazine MCL Atrazine MCL ?**  **Melanie Biscoe Melanie Biscoe**  **to: Karl Tupper**  **01/12/2011 04:39 PM Hi Karl,**  **Excellent questions. For these, though, I'll have to refer you to the Office of Water. I recommend you call Wynne Miller and or Pamela Barr in the Office of Water 's Office of Groundwater and**  **Drinking Water at 202-564-3750. Melanie Biscoe**  **Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and Implementation Branch IV (RMIB IV)**  **Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)**  **biscoe.melanie@epa.gov 703-305-7106** 

**Karl Tupper 01/11/2011 06:47:12 PM**  **Melanie, I've been scouring the Office of Water's... From:**  **Karl Tupper <karl@panna.org> To:**  **Melanie Biscoe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:**  **01/11/2011 06:47 PM Subject:**  **Atrazine MCL?** Melanie, I've been scouring the Office of Water's webpages ( water
. epa . gov ) trying to figure out how they came up with 3 ppb as the MCL for atrazine in drink ing water. Specific, what study or studies form the basis of it, what uncertainty factors were applied, etc. I can't seem to find anything on their webpages, but maybe that's becuase the rule p redates the internet (it came into effect in 1992, as best I can tell). Can you point me in the right direction? Are there documents you send me or link to or is there someone within OW that yo u could suggest I contact? Please let me know! Thanks, Karl

-- Karl A. Tupper, Staff Scientist Pesticide Action Network North America 49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 office: 415.981.1771 x 314 fax: 415.981.1991 web: http :// www . panna . org blog: http ://

panna . org /

blogs / karl

- tupper
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  PRESS RELEASE

      PENNENGINEERING(R)
                                          Contact: Investor Relations Department
                                                                   Mark W. Simon
                                                               Richard F. Davies
                                                                  (215) 766-3660

                  PENNENGINEERING ANNOUNCES FOURTH QUARTER 2001 WILL BE
                               BELOW EXPECTATIONS

Danboro, PA. January 7, 2002 - PennEngineering (NYSE: PNN, NYSE: PNNA) today
announced that preliminary results indicate that 2001 fourth quarter sales and
earnings will be below previous expectations. Consolidated sales for the quarter
ended December 31, 2001 are expected to be between $30 and $32 million and on a
diluted basis, the Company expects a loss between $.14 and $.16 per share. For
the year ended December 31, 2001 the Company expects earnings, on a diluted
basis, to be between $.52 and $.54 per share. The anticipated turnaround in the
PC, telecommunications, server, and electronic markets did not occur in the
fourth quarter and the resulting decline in fastener orders adversely affected
consolidated sales. In addition to lower sales, termination costs due to the
closing of the Company's Suffolk plant has negatively impacted fourth quarter
earnings by approximately $1.3 million.

The Company is seeing a slight increase in new orders, and we expect first
quarter 2002 consolidated sales to be 5% to 8% higher than 2001 fourth quarter
consolidated sales. With the cost reduction measures implemented in 2001, taking
effect in 2002, we anticipate that earnings per share, on a fully diluted basis,
to be near breakeven to slightly positive in the first quarter of 2002.

About PennEngineering
---------------------

PennEngineering provides value-added solutions to leading worldwide computer,
electronics, telecommunications, and automotive OEMs. Founded in 1942,
PennEngineering is a global company headquartered in Danboro, Pennsylvania with
manufacturing locations in North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Galway,
Ireland and distribution offices in the United States, England, Singapore and
independent distribution facilities in more than 40 countries. More information
about PennEngineering is available at www.penn-eng.com.
                                      ----------------

Forward Looking Statement Information:

Statements in this press release, other than statements of historical data, are
considered forward looking statements under the Private Securities Litigation
Act of 1995. These statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties
that could cause actual results to differ from those contemplated in these
statements. These factors are discussed in the Company's Securities and Exchange
Commission filings.