alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 8,430.

#### In re LLOYD.

[25 Pittsb. Leg. J. 69.]

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

1877.

Bankruptcy — Quorum 'of Petitioning Creditors —Amount Represented.

When one-fourth in number of creditors holding provable debts over two hundred and fifty dollars in value to the amount of one-third of the aggregate indebtedness provable against the bankrupt have joined in the petition for his adjudication, their prayer will be granted.

[NOTE. A petition for review of this decree was filed in the circuit court, but was dismissed, upon the ground that under the twelfth and thirteenth sections of the amenaed act of June 22, 1S74, the circuit court had no power to review the action of the district court upon the question of the quorum of the creditors. Case No. S.431. The case was again heard upon the question of the allowance of counsel fees (7 Fed. 459); upon the confirming or the assignee’s sale of certain real estate (11 Fed. 586); upon the proof of partnership debts against the bankrupt (22 Fed. 88); and upon the tender of proof of a bankrupt partnership of which the bankrupt -was a member, claiming debts against the estate of the bankrupt (Id. 90).]

[In the matter of William M. Lloyd, a bankrupt, for whom a petition for adjudication in bankruptcy had been filed. Case No. 8,429.]

Before KETCHAM, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Now, December 13, 1877, the court having computed the aggregate indebtedness of all amounts provable against the bankrupt, and the number of creditors and the number of petitioning creditors; and having computed the amount and value of debts held by the petitioning creditors, it is ascertained that the total amount of provable debts is 8896,312.25; that the entire number of creditors having provable debts of over 8250 in amount is seven hundred- and eight; and of these three hundred have joined in the petition, and that they hold provable debts over two hundred and fifty dollars in value, to the amount of three hundred and sixteen thousand one hundred and ninety-three dollars and seventy-nine cents. One-fourth in number, or one hundred and seventy-seven creditors holding one-third of the indebtedness, or two hundred and ninety-eight thousand seven hundred and seventy dollars and seventy-five cents, are sufficient to constitute a legal quorum.

It is therefore adjudged and decreed, that a legal quorum of one-fourth in number of creditors holding provable debts over two hundred and fifty dollars in value to the amount of one-third of the aggregate indebtedness provable against the bankrupt have joined in the petition for his adjudication.

Exceptions tenth, eleventh, twelfth, fourteenth, twenty-second and twenty-third of the exceptions filed July S, 1S7C, to the register’s original report, finding a quorum, are overruled — the other exceptions to said report were disposed of in opinion filed February 21, 1877.

The opinion of Judge KETCHAM, in this case, and which is referred to in the decree, was printed in [Case No. S,429],
# sec6_rsonp_2018

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2018-04	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RSOCNP - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BMarch 2018
.tD. srRoNG sÞCRETÁ.EY OF EI{VIRONMENI [ì[Ûti'v'r-:ii - : '-:,

AtR Pl-¡lriii'iìllíì Îi

BRAD HENRY

GÐVERNOR

i0:

Í1,:

t l 10 JUt- 2l åËÍ It1

STATE OFOITII\HOIì{A

OÍT'TCE OFÎTIE

SECRE"TARY OF ENVIROI\IMENT

luly L6,20!0

Dr. Alfredo Armendariz, Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 t6 RA)

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

RE: Oklahoma State Implementation Plan, Subchapter g, Excess Emissions Reporting

Requirements

Dear Dr. Armendariz:

In his- letter dated April B, 2009,Governor Brad Henry appointed me as his designee for the purpose

of submitting documents to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (nPÃ) for approval and

incorporation into the state Implementation plan (srp) for oklahoma.

The State of Oklahoma submits OAC252:L00-9, Excess Emissions Reporting Requirements, for your

review and approval under Section 110 ofthe federal Clean Air AcÇ and the associated evidenie as

required by 40 C.F.R. Part 51-, Appendix V,2.L. The State wishes to withdraw the previous submittal

of OAC 252:L00-9 , Excess Emissions Reporting Requirements, originally submittèd on Febru ary 14,

2002.

The proposed amendments were adopted to ensure that Oklahoma's program is consistent with

current EPA guidelines. The most significant change in the rule is the establishment of affirmative

defense provisions that may relieve industry of monetary penalties associated with excess

emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. As required by 40 C.F.R. 51.103(a),

we have included five hard copies of the submittal.

If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Eddie Terrill, Director of the Department of

Environmental Quality's Air euality Division, at (405J T0Z-4L54.

Sincerely,

Secretary of Environment

Enclosures

The Honorable Brad Henry Governor of Oldahoma

steve Thompson, Executive Director, Department of Environmental euality

Eddie Terrill, Director, DEQ Air euality Division

3800 North Classen Boulevard Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ?3118

(405) 530-899õ fax (405) 630-8999

{}.*t*""*
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. CP06-34-002] 

Take notice that on February 12, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to Ordering Paragraph (B)(1) of the Commission's Order issued January 11, 2007, in Docket No. CP06-34-001. 

Transco states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 8, 2007.                 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7-3342 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1660 V

UNPUBLISHED

ROBERT MELE

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: September 7, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barr é Syndrome (GBS)

David M atthew Moran

, Moran & Moran , W exford

, PA , for P etitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On October 25, 2019

, Robert M ele filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain

- Barr é syndrome ( “ GBS ” ) as a

re sult of an influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine administered to him on October 31, 2017 . Petition at

3 . The case was assigned to the S pecial Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 3, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he states

that he does not contest that P etitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent states that “ petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the recently revised Vaccine I n jury Tab le (Table ) and the

Qualifications and A i ds to Interpretation ( QAI) , which afford petitioner a presumption of

1 Because this unpublished R uling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the R uling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would co nstitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012 ).2

causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and fort y

- two days after a season al flu vaccination and there is no apparent alt ernative cause ”

. Id. at 8

- 9

.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 1 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 2 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 3 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 4 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 5 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 6 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 7 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 8 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 9 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 10 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 11 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 12 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 13 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 14 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 15 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 16 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 17 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 18 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 19 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 20 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 21 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 22 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 126 Filed 01/25/2005 Page 23 of 23
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View a Processing Option

To view a processing option, complete the following steps:

1. From the Administration tab, select Manage Organizations>Processing Options>View. 

The Select Organization Endpoint page appears.

2. Select the highest-level organization or any lower level OTC Endpoint to view the 

processing options. A View Processing Options page appears presenting the custom labels 

in effect for the organization hierarchy as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. View Processing Options

Click Return Home to return to the OTCnet Home Page.

Additional Button
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-50028 Summary Calendar

__________________ DORA IRVING, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CV-324

- - - - - - - - - - August 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dora Irving appeals the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner’s decision denying Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Irving contends that the Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. A review of the record indicates that the Commissioner’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence.No. 96-50028 - 2 - Irving also argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) should have ordered a consultative psychiatric and/or psychological examination to determine whether she has a mental impairment. Because Irving did not request a consultative mental examination while the case was pending before the ALJ and did not present any testimony of mental health professional or other evidence of a mental impairment, she did not meet her burden to show a mental impairment or raise a suspicion requiring the ALJ to order a consultative examination. See Leggett v. Chater , 67 F.3d 558, 566-67 (5th Cir. 1995); Pierre v. Sullivan , 884 F.2d 799, 803 (5th Cir. 1989). Irving also argues that the ALJ failed to complete a standard Psychiatric Review Technique Form. The failure to complete the form did not affect Irving's substantial rights. Mays v. Bowen , 837 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          72,316
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                45,700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    487,243
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,387
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,466
<LOANS>                                      1,727,357
<ALLOWANCE>                                     32,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,388,198
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,964,420
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,866
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             49,087
<LONG-TERM>                                     40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           718
<OTHER-SE>                                     327,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,388,198
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                160,898
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               32,843
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,839
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               196,580
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              87,998
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,449
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          106,131
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (1,535)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 63,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 61,983
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      61,983
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,726
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.82
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.47
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,529
<LOANS-PAST>                                    31,592
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   364
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  7,634
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                35,773
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    5,908
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,225
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               32,090
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            32,090
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 418

_____________________________
D ARIUS T. M IDDLETON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court f or Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

. October 16, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J., and B.L. T HOMAS and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 o r 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and M. J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for App ellee.
### Swanson, Brian (OST) · Ft:om: 

# . .; 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject: Devany, Dennis (OST) Thursday, August 16, 2012 10:07 AM Swanson, Brian (OST) FW: Sky West proposal to service Rhinelander, Wisconsin (RHI)



### From: Denny Erardi [mailto:dcerardi@comcast.net] 

### Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:28AM 

### To: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

### Subject: Sky West proposal to service Rhinelander, Wisconsin (RHI) Dear Mr. Devany, Iwould like to communicate mysupportfor awarding an EAS contract to DeltaAirlines/SkyWestto provide service Rhinelander, Wisconsin ("RHI"). I've been traveling to northernWisconsin from San Franciscofor 7 years, and it's been something of a grind, with the changing airlines, and the uncertainty regarding who would be flying at any given time. Delta/SkyWest provides the best option from the traveller's standpoint.**~** ' Thankyou for listening, Ms. Denny Clarke Erardi

1
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHILES OFFSHORE LLC CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             612
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,270
<PP&E>                                          90,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                      44
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,913
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,603
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    269
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                269
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

December 23, 1959

No. 63637.

protests 280471-K and 281920-K (New York).

#### Murbas Trading Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects to that involved in *Dalton Cooper, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 2051), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

Donlon, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in C.D. 2051, *supra.*

*451DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT Valuation Decisions on Remand from Protest Proceedings