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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. NJ18-16-000]

Take notice that on July 3, 2018, Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC submitted its second revised tariff filing: Oncor TFO Tariff Rate Changes to be effective 7/1/2018.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention 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 website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 24, 2018.                

Dated: July 12, 2018.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-15324 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
1

The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 99-1059NE

_____________

Donald H. Davis, Jr., *

*

Appellant, * On Appeal from the United

* States District Court

v. * for the District of

* Nebraska.

Officer Frank Laskley; Officer *

Jacque Points, * [Not To Be Published]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June 6, 2000

 Filed: June 14, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald H. Davis appeals the District Court’s1

 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(a) motion for a new trial, which Davis had sought on grounds that the

District Court wrongly excluded certain evidence. To the extent we are able to review

Davis’s arguments on appeal without a trial transcript, see Fed. R. App. P 10(b)(1)(A)

(appellant must order transcript); 8th Cir. R. 30A(b)(5) (same); Schmid v. United Bhd.
-2-

of Carpenters, 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (plaintiff’s failure to

provide complete transcript renders it impossible to review evidence presented at trial),

we conclude that no legal error resulting in a miscarriage of justice occurred at Davis’s

trial. Thus, the Court did not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial, see Gray v.

Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996) (authority to grant new trial is within

discretion of trial court).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### McGLENSEY and WOLFE *vs.*JOHN McLEAR, garnishee of GOLDSMIT and GOUDKOP.

Exoneretur entered on a bail-piece on it appearing that the principal had been di£charged by the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania.

Attachment.

Rule'to show cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on a bail piece.

The deft., McLear, was summoned as the garnishee of Goldsmit and Goudkop, on a writ of foreign attachment, at the suit of plffs,, against the said Goldsmit and Goudkop. The defts. appeared and put in special bail to the action, and thereby discharged the garnishee and dissolved the attachment. *Dig. 46.*The bail now applied for an exoneretur, on the ground that the defts. had, previously to the attachment, been regularly discharged under the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania. Both plffs. and defts. are residents of Pennsylvania.

*Rogers,*in support of the rule.

*The Court*

at first doubted; but, on consideration, they made the rule absolute. See ante *183: Bailey*vs. *Seal’s special*bail, and *8 T. Rep.*609.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Senior Vice President, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and
will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/S/    STEPHEN R.
WHERRYStephen R. WherrySenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer), Treasurer and Assistant SecretaryNovember 9, 2009
To whom it may concern: ~~:~\~11f~~:!:in We are the people of Miles City Montana. Our population is around 8,000. We are close to~th'i~ B~kke'ri' "' , _ _,, · . 

Oil Field but there is no drilling in our county. We are seeing growth. If I were to write v,qu:aP;9 ~t p~r 3 3 

history and our problems, I would write a book. So, I will make this short. ;_uu ,,; " ' ··· 

When I was a child, Amtrak came through Miles City and I would ride it with my family to Chicago, When 

they had to cut costs, they decided on a Northern route that did not include Miles City. 

A few years ago we had a very wet spring and a government agency came in and told us our dike is not 

certified and over 70% of our town is in a flood zone so we all have to pay for flood insurance. Or, a new 

dike which should run around 30 million. 

Then, the government passed a few new laws and we need to upgrade our sewer system for around 8 

million~ 

One of our grade schools did not get the government grant they applied for and did not get a new 

boiler. So, our children had to wear their coats in school. 

Then the ACLU came in and closed our jail, which will cost around 5 million. Now we have to transport 

our prisoners' 170+ miles away, even if they are innocent. 

Another agency took away the Tounge River Railroad, which we have been hoping for, for almost 40 

years. It got right down to the end and they decided on another route that does not include Miles City. 

Then another government agency decided that the busses that run through our town were not safe, so 

they took that away. 

Then there is the post office that wants to cut costs. 

Now, they say not enough people ride our airplane so they want to take that away. I have used our 

airport to send my children to their fathers in Bozeman or to their grandmothers in Billings. I tried to use 

it for business once but missed my connecting in Billings because I was there a half hour early but Delta 

had closed their desk for boarding. 

Just this week, a friend of ours had to fly to Billings for a procedure because there were no busses 

running. 

Please help us. Don't take it p.way. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

Roxanna Brush 

Miles City Councilperson
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 75 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 75

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
 investigations and studies by the Committee on Small Business in the 
            first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

 Mr. LaFalce submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
 investigations and studies by the Committee on Small Business in the 
            first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That for expenses of investigations and studies by the 
Committee on Small Business (hereinafter in this resolution referred to 
as the ``Committee''), there shall be paid out of the contingent fund 
of the House not more than $1,090,000.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon on January 3, 1993, and ending immediately before noon on January 
3, 1994.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
#### ROLLINS COLLEGE, an institution of learning, and Travelers Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellants, v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF ORLANDO, as Administrator of the Estate of Kerry Ann Cavanaugh, Deceased, et al., Appellees. ROLLINS COLLEGE, an institution of learning, and Travelers Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellants, v. James R. CAVANAUGH, as natural father of Kerry Ann Cavanaugh, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 73-24, 73-25.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 19, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard B. Keating, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1009 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1009

 To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of a certain entry of 
           warp knitting machines as free of certain duties.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 24 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of a certain entry of 
           warp knitting machines as free of certain duties.

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

SECTION 1. RELIQUIDATING ENTRY OF WARP KNITTING MACHINES.

    Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1514) or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed with the 
appropriate customs officer before the 180th day after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall--
            (1) liquidate or reliquidate as duty free Entry No. 100-
        3022436-3, made on July 12, 1989 at the port of Charleston, 
        South Carolina; and
            (2) refund any duties paid with respect to such entry.

                                 <all>
```
Document

Exhibit 10.29
						
	
	Amendment No. 1 to Underwriting Agreement between North American Title Insurance Company and CalAtlantic Title, Inc.



			
	


Whereas, North American Title Insurance Company, a California corporation ("North American") and, CalAtlantic Title, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Title Agency") made and entered into an Underwriting Agreement, dated August 7, 2020 ("Agreement"); and
Whereas, North American and Title Agency desire to amend the Agreement.
Now therefore, for good and valuable consideration, North American and Title Agency agree to modify and amend the Agreement, effective      9/22/2020        (the “Effective Date”), as follows:
1.Title Agency has advised North American that it has changed its name from CalAtlantic Title, Inc. to Lennar Title, Inc. effective September 21, 2020. Therefore, North American and Title Agency agree that the term “Title Agency” shall now refer to Lennar Title, Inc., a Maryland corporation.
The provisions of this Amendment shall control over any conflicting or inconsistent provisions set forth in the Agreement. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect other than as modified herein. All capitalized words and phrases contained in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as is assigned to them in the Agreement unless a new meaning is assigned in this Amendment.
This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, which, when assembled, will be deemed to be an original copy of this Amendment and all of which, when taken together, will be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly and properly executed by their respective officers having full authority to do so, to be effective as of the Effective Date.
						
	LENNAR TITLE, INC.
a Maryland corporation 
f/k/a CalAtlantic Title, Inc.

		
	By:	/s/ Cristina Pardo
		Cristina Pardo
	Its:	Executive Vice President


						
	NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
		
	By:	/s/ Emilio Fernandez
		Emilio Fernandez
	Its:	President


			
	NATIC AGENCY ADMIN ONLY
	System records updated on: 
9/22/2020
	By:
/s/ Beatrix Ciprian



Page 1 of 1
# C_2022171EN.01003301.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяйка)

(Case T-185/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Хозяйка - Earlier national figurative mark хозяюшка - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peter Schuju (Borchen, Germany) (represented by: K. Borstel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2020 (Case R 2717/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Schuju and Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---
#### George KING v. CITY OF ORLANDO.

No. 38735.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Appeal dismissed without opinion. 222 So.2d 292.
#### Frances E. SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. GG-290.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 22, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Catherine L. Dickson and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Susan E. Mole and Pamela L. Lutton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

MELVIN, Judge.

We review the order of the circuit court denying appellant the right to receive a copy of the most recent clinical summary as to his mental condition as prepared by the staff of the Florida State Hospital. He claims entitlement to such record based upon Section 394.459(9), Florida Statutes (1975). The record reveals the policy of the hospital is to deny a patient access to such record. No testimony was offered as to any possible adverse effect the review of the record would have on the defendant.

The pertinent part of said section provides:

> *1213“ . . . The clinical record shall not be a public record and no part of it shall be released, except: (a) The record may be released to physicians, attorneys, and government agencies as designated by the *patient,*his guardian, or his attorney. . . . ” (Emphasis supplied)

Any ambiguity in the statute as to whether the report should be released to the patient should be resolved in favor of the patient. *Whealton v. Whealton,*184 So.2d 228 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). The legislature, in its wisdom, placed with the patient the right to designate the person and agencies named in the section who may have access to his record. It would follow that, in order to properly exercise that right, the legislature clearly intended that the patient have access to the record in order to determine whether and to whom he wished the report to be released.

REVERSED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MILLS, Acting C. J. and SMITH, J., concur.
#### Larry TEAGUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-153.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
##### 



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 Day International Group, Inc (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis R. Wolters, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 position and results of operations of the Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. /s/ Dennis R. WoltersDennis R. WoltersChief Executive OfficerMay 13, 2005
# C_2022318EN.01001701.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — KU, OP, GC v SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

(Case C-308/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 5(3) - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Extraordinary circumstances - Generalised failure of the aircraft refuelling system at the airport)

(2022/C 318/23)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KU, OP, GC

Defendant: SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that where the airport of origin of the flights or aircraft concerned is responsible for the aircraft refuelling system, a generalised breakdown in the supply of fuel can be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---