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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10804] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1678-DR), dated 02/01/2007. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Winter Storms.                     

*Incident Period:*                         01/12/2007 through 01/26/2007.                     

*Effective Date:*                         02/21/2007.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         04/02/2007.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to:  U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road,  Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,                               ( print page 9607)                            U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Oklahoma, dated 02/01/2007, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster. 

*Primary Counties:*

Alfalfa, Canadian, Comanche, Dewey, Garvin, Grant, Greer, Jackson, Jefferson, Kay, Lincoln, Osage, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, Rogers, Tillman, Tulsa, Washington, Washita, Woods

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E7-3708 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Z Trim Holdings, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), I, Brian
Chaiken, Chief Financial Officer of Z Trim Holdings, Inc. certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:





(1)           The
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Z Trim Holdings,
Inc.


Dated:  November
      14, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Brian
      ChaikenBrian
      ChaikenChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

D. DUSTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0672 GEB JFM P

vs.

R. TOWNSEND, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed his second request for an extension of time to file a second

amended complaint. Good cause appearing, the request will be granted. No further extensions

of time will be granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's January 3, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a

second amended complaint. No further extensions of time will be granted.

DATED: January 30, 2006.

12/mp;dust0672.36sec(2)

Case 2:04-cv-00672-GEB -JFM Document 36 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
                      COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
          COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                             (dollars in thousands)



                                FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED           FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                        March 31, 2006                      April 1, 2005
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                            CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 15,949           $ 18,683        $ 15,949           $ 18,636
                               ========           ========        ========           ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    15,470             15,949          15,470             15,949
                               --------           --------        --------           --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $ 15,470           $ 15,949        $ 15,470           $ 15,949
                               ========           ========        ========           ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17


</TABLE>
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4235 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

reauthorize grants to support for law enforcement officers and families, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. HAWLEY (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to reauthorize grants to support for law 

enforcement officers and families, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reauthorizing Support 

5 and Treatment for Officers in Crisis Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 Section 1001(a)(21) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 

8 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4235 IS

1 10261(a)(21)) is amended by striking ‘‘2020 through 

2 2024’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DAVID DRESDNER, M.D., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-798 ) PINELLAS HEMATOLOGY AND ) ONCOLOGY, P. A., ) ) Respondent. ) ) Opinion filed November 7, 2018. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Pinellas County; sitting in its appellate capacity. Marie Tomassi and Bradley A. Muhs of Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P. A., St. Petersburg, for Petitioner. Jamie Moore Marcario and Michael Coughlin of Thrive Law, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.
CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
**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 Welwind Energy International Corp.
        (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I,
        Tammy-Lynn McNabb, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to ss. 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.
  /s/ Tammy-Lynn
                  McNabbTammy-Lynn
                  McNabb
                Principal
                  Financial Officer
                November
                  14, 2007
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIER 1 IMPORTS (U.S.), INC,,

Defendant.

No. 2:04-cv-01339 MCE AC

JUDGMENT OF PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION

On July 23, 2012, the Court issued a Judgment of Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 

213). On March 5, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued 

an opinion that, inter alia, remanded the case to this Court for modification of the 

Permanent Injunction. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 779 F.3d 1001 (9th 

Cir. 2015). Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s directive, the July 23, 2012 Permanent 

Injunction is hereby VACATED, and this Judgment of Permanent Injunction is issued in 

its stead. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01339-MCE-AC Document 231 Filed 07/02/15 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

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Pier 1, its officers, 

agents, representative, employees, and all persons in active concert and participation 

with them are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from blocking the aisles of its Vacaville store 

with merchandise or other obstacles, such that the clear path through the aisles is

narrower than thirty-six (36) inches wide (or permitting such blockages), except for the 

unavoidable transitory blockages caused by re-stocking or similar activities.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2015

Case 2:04-cv-01339-MCE-AC Document 231 Filed 07/02/15 Page 2 of 2
<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 Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Curtis J. Clawson, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of 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.

                              /s/ CURTIS J. CLAWSON
                      -------------------------------------
                                Curtis J. Clawson
                             Chairman of the Board,
                      President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: December 10, 2004
##### 



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    
    /s/ GAIL P. SENECA

Gail P. SenecaChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Before the First Division,

December 11, 1961

No. 66263.

#### Paul E. Sernau, Inc. v. United States,

protest 61/15661 (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of monkey figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 25607, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVELLOUS GREENE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1463 LKK KJM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In light of 1996

amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court will not rule on plaintiff's request to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on

diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject

of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is

no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01463-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 05/04/05 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

1

 It appears defendant Peters, an appeals examiner, may reside within this district. 

However, plaintiff does not state a valid claim for relief against Peters as plaintiff has no

constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th

Cir. 2003), cert. denied sub nom. McEnroe v. Ramirez, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2388 (2004). 

2

In this case, the defendants are located in, and plaintiff’s claims arose in Los

Angeles,1 which lies within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central

District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may

transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a);

Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the

United States District Court for the Central District of California.

DATED: May 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

gree1463.21.a

Case 2:04-cv-01463-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0634 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-023-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland Model EC135P2+ and EC135T2+ Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): One Helicopter in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions of this AD are intended to prevent metallic debris from damaging 

the engine, causing loss of engine power, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Costs:

 Inspecting the upper bearing for corrosion, leaking grease, condensation or water would 

require 4 work-hours for a labor cost of $340. No parts would be needed.

 Deactivating the air conditioning system would require 6 work-hours for a labor cost of 

$510. No parts would be needed.

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: Matt Wilbanks
Table 1: National EP-TIN File Description

TIN SIZE # of TINs

% of Total TINs 

(column %) # of EP-TINs*

% of Total EP-TINs 

(column %) # of Physicians

% of Total 

Physicians (column 

%)

Total 307,825 100% 1,170,094 100% 840,777 100%

1 EP 222,097 72.2% 222,097 19.0% 175,115 20.8%

2-9 EPs 68,702 22.3% 241,732 20.7% 174,758 20.8%

10-19 EPs 8,653 2.8% 116,379 9.9% 81,829 9.7%

20-24 EPs 1,890 0.6% 41,334 3.5% 28,756 3.4%

25-49 EPs 3,729 1.2% 126,596 10.8% 88,065 10.5%

50-99 EPs 1,622 0.5% 110,862 9.5% 76,318 9.1%

100+ EPs 1,132 0.4% 311,094 26.6% 215,936 25.7%

*An EPI-TIN means an eligible professional (NPI) linked to a given TIN; EPs can be linked to more than one TIN if they bill

under more than one TIN
#### Bailey vs. The State of Georgia.

1. There was no error in overruling the motion for new trial in this case.

2. There was no error in admitting the confessions of Bailey to go to the jury, the court instructing the jury to determine for themselves whether the confessions were freely and voluntarily made or not.

Judgment affirmed. (Head-notes by the court.)

October 28, 1887.

Simmons, Justice.

[Bailey was tried in the city court of Atlanta on an accusation of larceny from the house. The evidence showed that he and one Harris went into a store, and while the latter was being waited on, defendant went back to a pile of clothing, vests, etc., and commenced looking at them. A clerk waited on Harris and then turned to defendant, who walked out. He carried a basket, through a hole in the top of which the clerk saw a vest which he identified as belonging to the store.. He took hold of the basket, charging defendant with having stolen the vest. Defendant pulled away and ran off. The police officer who arrested defendant testified that, when he was carried to the station-house, he was confronted with Harris, and the two had a dispute about the matter; that the officer said to them, *1(*Now- whichever one of you stole this vest, confess it and let me turn the other loose, for there is no use in locking you both up ”; that at length defendant said, “ I took the vest”; that Harris was then released; and that there was no inducement held out or threats made to procure the confession. Another officer corroborated this.

Harris testified, for defendant, that the policeman said 1o him, “ If you committed this larceny, it would be best for you to confess it; you will get a lighter fine.” The remainder of his testimony did not conflict with that of the State.

After verdict of guilty, the defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law *360and evidence, and because of the admission of the testimony for the State as to the confession. It appeared that, at a former trial, Harris had been introduced as a witness for the State, and his testimony being that the confession was not freely and voluntary made, the evidence to show such confession was excluded by the court. On the present trial, the State solicitor stated that he would not introduce Harris, but would rely on the testimony of the police officers as to the confession. The court admitted this testimony, and submitted to the jury whether the confession was freely and voluntarily made, in view of the conflict of evidence on this point.

The new trial was refused, and the defendant excepted.]
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 21




                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



All of the subsidiaries listed below are included in the consolidated financial
statements.




                                           Percentage of         Organized
                                         Voting Securities       Under the
Incorporated                            Owned by Registrant       Laws of
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRT - II Trust                                   100%         Massachusetts (1)
Instron Realty Trust                             100%         Massachusetts (1)
Instron Japan Company, Ltd.                      100%         Massachusetts (1)
Instron Asia, Ltd.                               100%         Massachusetts (1)
Instron Canada Inc.                              100%         Canada (1)
Instron Foreign Sales Corporation                100%         Jamaica (1)
Equipamentos Cientificos Instron, Ltda.          100%         Brazil (1)
Instron Limited                                  100%         United Kingdom (2)
Instron S.A.                                     100%         France (2)
Instron Proprietary, Ltd.                        100%         Australia (2)
Instron International, Ltd.                      100%         United Kingdom (2)
Severn Furnaces, Ltd.                            100%         United Kingdom (2)
Instron Singapore Pte Limited                    100%         Singapore (1)
Instron Holdings, Ltd.                           100%         United Kingdom (1)
Instron Wolpert GmbH                             100%         Germany (2)
Instron Korea Co. Ltd.                           100%         Korea (1)
Instron Schenck Testing Systems                  100%         Delaware (1)
Instron Schenck Testing Systems - GmbH           100%         Germany (3)

(1)     Subsidiaries of Instron Corporation (a Massachusetts corporation).

(2)     Subsidiaries of Instron Holdings Limited (United Kingdom).

(3)     Subsidiary of Instron GmbH




                                       45