alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ella Lewis DOMINGEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie DAVIS et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 3513.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 13, 1971.

Dubuisson & Dubuisson, by James G. Dubuisson, Opelousas, for defendants-appellants.

*435Richard B. Millspaugh, Opelousas, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CULPEPPER, MILLER and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

This is a companion case to Domingeaux v. Davis et al., 250 So.2d 432 (our docket number 3512) in which a separate judgment is being rendered by us this date.

We note that there was no judgment presented to the trial court affecting this suit. The appeal is therefore premature. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2083.

All costs of this appeal are assessed against defendants appellants.

Appeal dismissed.
Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 730
Pension Trust Fund

911 Ridgebrook Road 8400 Corporate Drive, Suite 430
Sparks, Maryland 72152-9451 Landover, Maryland 20785 2361
Telephone: (800) 730-2241 Telephone: (800) 730-2241
www.associated admin.com www.assogated-admin.com

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
August 20, 2021

Secretary of the Treasury

Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 1204
Office of Ktine-Miller Implementation
Washington, D.C. 20220

Re: Withdrawal of Application for Approval of Suspension of Benefits for Warehouse Employees
Union Local No. 730 Pension Trust Fund {“Plan”)

As authorized representatives of the Board of Trustees of the Plan, which is the sponsor of the Plan, we
hereby withdraw the application for approval to suspend benefits filed February 26, 2021, under section
432(¢)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and section 305 {e)(9) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, without prejudice, We reserve the right to resubmit
the application with additional information as may be advisable or recommended by the Department of
the Treasury.

Sincerely,

n Paradis
‘uthorized Trustee
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7510

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ARNOLD JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge;

Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-95-

349, CA-98-3128-HNM)

Submitted: February 8, 2000 Decided: February 24, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arnold Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Robert Mason Thomas, Jr.,

Odessa Palmer Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Arnold Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

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

find no reversible error. Consequently, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Jackson, Nos. CR-95-

349; CA-98-3128-HNM (D. Md. Oct. 5, 1999). 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
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 China Du Kang Co. Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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/  Wang YongshengWang YongShengChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)September  30, 2011





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of ZST Digital Networks, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 177 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 177

  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand eligibility for 
   participation in the Federal Pell Grant program to certain trade 
                                schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2021

 Mr. Wittman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand eligibility for 
   participation in the Federal Pell Grant program to certain trade 
                                schools.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Professional Pell Education Learning 
Act'' or the ``PROPEL Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.

    (a) Clarification of Eligible Institutions.--Section 401(a) of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(a)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, for purposes 
of this section, the terms `eligible institution', `institution of 
higher education', `eligible program', and `institution' include a 
program of education that--
            ``(A) consists of vocational or technical training, flight 
        training, or apprenticeship or other on-job training;
            ``(B) an individual may pursue using educational assistance 
        pursuant to section 3313(g) of title 38, United States Code;
            ``(C) is less than 600 clock hours of instruction, 16 
        semester hours, or 24 quarter hours, offered during a period of 
        less than 15 weeks;
            ``(D) is not required to be accredited by a nationally 
        recognized accrediting agency or association recognized by the 
        Secretary pursuant to part H;
            ``(E) is not required to lead to a recognized educational 
        credential;
            ``(F) for purposes of the reporting requirements under 
        section 132(i), reports on all enrolled students without regard 
        to whether a student is a first-time, full-time, degree- or 
        certificate-seeking student; and
            ``(G) except as otherwise provided in subparagraphs (A) 
        through (F) of this paragraph, meets the requirements of this 
        title for an institution to participate in the program under 
        this section.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 484(a)(1) of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(a)(1)) is amended by inserting 
``or, for purposes of the Federal Pell Grant program under section 401, 
a program of education described in section 401(a)(4)'' after ``section 
487''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification

 

I,Perry A. Glassgow, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-Kof Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2009-3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.               I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and, basedon my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicercompliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer hasfulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; and

 

5.               All of thereports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliancewith servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

Ingiving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York MellonTrust Company, N.A.

 
|                | HARLEY-DAVIDSON  MOTORCYCLE TRUST 2009-3 |
|---------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                |                                     |   |
|                | By:                                      | Harley-Davidson Credit  Corp.,

as Servicer |
|                |                                     |   |
|                | By:                                      | /s/ Perry A. Glassgow |
|                |                                     | Perry A. Glassgow |
|                |                                     | Vice President,  Treasurer and Assistant Secretary

(senior officer in  charge of the servicing function) |
|                |                                     |   |
|                |                                     |   |
| March 25, 2010 |                                     |   |

 

----
Exhibit 99.1

                     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 CompuDyne Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002
accompanying this certification and filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin
Roenigk, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.




Date: November 13, 2002                /s/ Martin Roenigk
                                    ________________________________
                                    Martin Roenigk,
                                    Chief Executive Officer
July 9, 2015

Mr. Brandon Taylor

820 Winter Wren Lane

Chesapeake, VA 23322

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your July 1st 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2682), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1742 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat Puerto Rico as 

part of the United States for purposes of determining whether real 

property qualifies for treatment as a like-kind exchange. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2021 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat Puerto 

Rico as part of the United States for purposes of determining whether real property qualifies for treatment as 

a like-kind exchange. 

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 ‘‘Real Estate Exchange 

5 Fairness Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1742 IH

1 SEC. 2. PUERTO RICO TREATED AS PART OF UNITED 

2 STATES FOR PURPOSES OF LIKE-KIND EX3 CHANGES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1031(h) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following: ‘‘For purposes of the preceding sentence, 

7 the term ‘United States’ shall be treated as including 

8 Puerto Rico.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to exchanges completed after the 

11 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000022198
<NAME> COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,913,740
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     79,670
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         341,092
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        56,185
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 346,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,737,627
<COMMON>                                        41,026
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      572,587
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            191,327
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 804,940
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           25,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           959,922
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  45,700
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     35,324
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 7,140
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 859,601
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,737,627
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      279,067
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            17,798
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     215,222
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     233,020
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         46,047
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 361
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  46,408
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        18,990
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,418
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        533
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   26,885
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        21,999
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       11,087
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          53,420
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### George A. P. DUNLEAVY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-84.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 9, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.1


 








 


Share certificate


 


	Number of certificate	 	Number of shares
	 	 	 
	 	 	  

                                                                                 



 


 


JINXUAN COKING COAL
LIMITED


COMPANY NUMBER [NUMBER]


 


This is to certify that [Name]
of [Address] is the registered holder of [Number] [Share Class] shares of [Value] each being [partly paid to the extent of [amount
in words] [amount in numerals] per share]]/[fully paid][and numbered [number]] in the above-named company, subject to the memorandum
and articles of association of the company.


 


[Transfer date]


 


 


	 	 	 
	Director	 	Director/ Secretary
Memorandum

Subject: Telephone conversation between Nathan Topham and Bernie Hawkins

Date: March 15, 2013

Participants: Nathan Topham, U.S. EPA

Bernie Hawkins, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

On March 15, 2013, a telephone conversation took place between Nathan Topham and Bernie 

Hawkins. Mr. Topham and Mr. Hawkins discussed one issue included in the petition for 

reconsideration of the January 5, 2012 Secondary Lead Smelting rule filed by Mr. Hawkins’ 

client, Johnson Controls. 

Mr. Topham asked Mr. Hawkins if allowing facilities discretion to choose which wall of a total 

enclosure to define as the “windward wall” would provide sufficient flexibility to resolve the 

issue described in paragraph (iv) on page 21 of JCI’s reconsideration petition. Mr. Topham 

explained that the choice of windward wall would be added to the mandatory recordkeeping 

requirements and that this discretion only applies when a totally enclosed area is inside a larger 

structure shielding the enclosed area from the effects of ambient wind.
EXHIBIT 34.1





ATTESTATION REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH


SERVICING CRITERIA FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders


Entergy Texas, Inc.


The Woodlands, Texas





We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria For Asset-Backed Securities, that Entergy Texas, Inc. (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB applicable for Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, LLC’s Senior Secured Transition Bonds (the “Securities”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), (1)(iii), (1)(iv), (2)(iii), (2)(vi), (4)(iii), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii), and (4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Securities.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Securities, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, LLC’s Senior Secured Transition Bonds is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP








New Orleans, Louisiana


March 29, 2016
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA-2012-0856 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-093-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval 

Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON 

CONTACTED

DATE RESPONSE

ATA Joe White 12/19/2003 

Boeing Dennis Anderson, Tim 

Dowling

Numerous, 2003-

Present

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information: FAA Letter 150S-11-5 and action stamp AS/130S/10/1196