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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

      ( print page 33934)    

## Agenda

# Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Member Meeting Status: 

All parts will be open to the public.

# Matters To Be Considered:

## Open Session

1. Approval of the Minutes for the June 25, 2018 Board Member Meeting

2. Monthly Reports

(a) Participant Activity

(b) Legislative Report

3. Quarterly Reports

(c) Investment Performance

(d) Budget Review

(e) Audit Status

4. Enterprise Risk Management Update

5. IT Update

# Contact Person For More Information:

Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

Dated: July 16, 2018.

Dharmesh Vashee,

Deputy General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-15433 Filed 7-16-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
#### MUTUAL INSURANCE RATING BUREAU v. WILLIAMS.

No. 35848.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Appeal dismissed without opinion. 189 So.2d 389.
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 Preferred Voice, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary G. Merritt, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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.






Date: August 4, 2010
By:
/s/ Mary G. MerrittMary G. MerrittPrincipal Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
                                                                                                                      THREE MONTHS
                                       YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED       YEAR ENDED     YEAR ENDED        ENDED
                                      DECEMBER 31,    DECEMBER 31,    DECEMBER 31,     DECEMBER 31,   DECEMBER 31,      MARCH 31,
                                          1995            1996            1997         1998     (1)       1999            2000
                                      ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
<S>                                   <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Earnings:
  Net loss ........................   $    (53,113)   $    (48,598)   $    (43,887)   $    (59,316)   $    (99,867)   $    (19,896)
  Add: Amount of
     previously capitalized
     interest amortized ...........             --              --              --             252           2,288             572
  Add: Fixed charges ..............         30,720          35,041          38,499          43,798          65,310          17,184
                                      ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
  Adjusted earnings ...............        (22,393)        (13,557)         (5,388)        (15,266)        (32,269)         (2,140)

Fixed charges:
  Interest in
     indebtedness .................         28,383          32,368          36,672          52,645          63,452          16,788
  Amortization of debt
     issuance costs ...............          1,052           2,143             844           1,172           1,291             334
  Interest portion
     of rental and
     lease expense ................          1,285             530             983           1,428             567              62
                                      ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
  Fixed charges ...................         30,720          35,041          38,499          55,245          65,310          17,184

Deficiency of
  earnings available to
  cover fixed charges .............   $    (53,113)   $    (48,598)   $    (43,887)   $    (70,511)   $    (97,579)   $    (19,324)
                                      ============    ============    ============    ============    ============    ============

Earnings to fixed charges ratio ...             --              --              --              --              --              --
</TABLE>

(1) The fixed charge adjustment to earnings excludes $11.4 million of
capitalized interest.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1207 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1207

         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 20, 2013

 Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Cornyn, and 
Mr. Blumenthal) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

    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 ``Cameras in the Courtroom Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings
    ``The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open 
sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the 
majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case 
would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of 
the parties before the Court.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 45 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the 
following:

``678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.''.
                                 <all>
```
259 La. 887

#### Guerry SNOWDEN et al. v. PEARL RIVER BROADCASTING CORPORATION et al.

No. 51776.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: Pearl River Broadcasting Corporation applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington. 251 So.2d 405.

Application denied; the judgment is correct.
#### AGRICULTURAL DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., et al., Appellants, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-706.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 22, 1972.

William A. Seacrest of Peterson, Carr & Harris, Lakeland, for appellants.

John W. Puffer, III, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO QUASH APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

A prior interlocutory appeal was granted herein and, in an opinion by Chief Judge Pierce (262 So.2d 210), the cause was remanded to the trial court with directions that the record of the trial be perfected and reconstructed. This was deemed necessary because the original trial had not been stenographically reported. Subsequent to our remand, however, the trial judge granted a new trial rather than reconstructing the record and in doing so made the following findings:

> “1. That the Court has no independent recollection of the testimony of any witnesses at the trial of the cause;

> 2. That counsel cannot agree upon the testimony of the witnesses;

> 3. That the documentary evidence does not establish or assist in establishing the testimony of the witnesses; and

> 4. That the only available method of complying with the directions of the Second District Court of Appeal is to recall the trial witnesses as suggested by said Court in its opinion, which is in effect the granting of a new trial;

> It is ORDERED in persuance (sic) of the direction given this Court, that the plaintiff be granted a new trial.”

It is from this order that this appeal is taken, against which appellee directs its motion to quash.

Obviously the trial judge misconstrued our prior mandate. It did not direct, nor did it permit, the granting of a new trial *per se.*'Indeed, the parties had their day at trial. That portion of our previous opinion which indicated that testimony may be taken and that conflicts therein be resolved by the trial judge related not to an entire rehearing of the cause on its merits but instead merely to potential conflicts as to what the original witnesses may have said at the original trial. The conflicts in this regard, if any, may arise not only from the attorneys or others who heard the original testimony but also from the witnesses themselves. The question now is *what*was said, not the probative effect thereof which *430would be the concern at a new trial as it was at the first.

Accordingly, we deny the motion to quash; but considering this appeal on its merits we dispense with oral argument and in view of the foregoing remand the cause to the trial judge directing that he withdraw his order for new trial and simply follow our prior mandate to reconstruct the original testimony.

LILES, Acting C. J., HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JJ„ concur.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended January 31, 2008, each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2.         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. and will be retained by Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

| /s/ Dr. Lionel L. Reilly | March 11, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dr. Lionel L. Reilly     |  
President/Chief Executive Officer

 
 

/s/ Neal B. Soderquist

March 11, 2008

Neal B. Soderquist

 
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President

 
 

 

  |
#### James GRESHAM, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Seward W. THOMAS, Defendant-Relator.

No. 11647.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

April 7, 1971.

Bethard & Bethard by Henry W. Beth-ard, III, Coushatta, for plaintiff-respondent.

Campbell, Campbell, Marvin & Johnson by John K. Hill, Jr., Minden, for defendant-relator.

Before AYRES, BOLIN, PRICE, HEARD and HALL, JJ.

BOLIN, Judge.

James Gresham obtained a money judgment on May 19, 1970, against Seward W. Thomas. In order to satisfy the judgment, Gresham caused a writ of fieri facias to issue and the Sheriff of Bienville Parish seized and began advertising for sale movable and immovable property owned by the judgment debtor.

*624Thomas, alleging the debt had been paid by compensation and extinguishment, brought suit to enjoin the sale. Pursuant to Thomas’ petition the court issued a temporary restraining order and fixed bond preventing the sheriff’s sale scheduled for January 27, 1971. In due course the hearing for a preliminary injunction was begun on March 16, 1971, and finished on March 17, 1971, resulting in the trial judge dissolving the temporary restraining order and dismissing the rule for a preliminary injunction hut reserving the right to pass on Gresham’s demands for damages and attorneys’ fees. The sheriff’s sale being scheduled for April 14, 1971, Thomas alleging irreparable injury would occur if the proceedings were allowed to continue in the lower court, petitioned this court for remedial writs.

On March 31, 1971, this court issued an alternative writ of certiorari, returnable April 5, 1971, and in connection therewith caused the record of the proceedings below transmitted to this court forthwith.

The primary complaint of Thomas is that during the hearing on the preliminary injunction the trial judge erroneously sustained a motion to consider as confessed certain evidence sought to be elicited by Thomas under a subpoena duces tecum. On the application for writs relator sought to have this court reverse the ruling on the subpoena and order the lower court to overrule the motion to have the facts confessed and further order the lower court to proceed with the trial.

The record before us does not contain a transcript of evidence and from a study of the pleadings and admissible documents before us we are unable to determine whether or not there was any error committed by the lower court. However, because of the urgency of the matter as it relates to the scheduled sheriff’s sale of relator’s property, we ordered the issuance of a preliminary injunction on April 5, 1971, conditioned upon relator’s furnishing security in the amount of $5,000.00, reserving the right to assign written reasons therefor. We think this is the most orderly and equitable way to proceed in the case.

For the reasons assigned it is ordered a preliminary injunction issue herein forthwith, conditioned upon relator, Seward W. Thomas, furnishing security in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) on or before April 12, 1971.

It is further ordered the records be returned to the lower court for further proceedings on the merits.

All costs to await the final disposition of the case.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1241 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1241

 To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on N-acetylsulfanilyl 
                               chloride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 15 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on N-acetylsulfanilyl 
                               chloride.

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

SECTION 1. N-ACETYLSULFANILYL CHLORIDE.

    Heading 9902.29.97 of subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/
92'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by this Act applies with 
respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (b) Reliquidation.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed with 
the appropriate customs officer on or before the 90th day after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, any entry of an article described in 
subheading 9902.29.97 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992, and
            (2) before the date which is 15 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry occurred on or 
after the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### David Allen FRANK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1145.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 25, 1978.

David Allen Frank, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that appellant is entitled to no relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed.
Exhibit 21 – List of Subsidiaries of Orion HealthCorp, Inc.   Subsidiary Name State of Incorporation or Organization   Baytown SurgiCare, Inc. Texas   Bellaire ASC, LP Texas   Bellaire SurgiCare, Inc. Texas   Dennis Cain Management, LLC Texas   Dennis Cain Physician Solutions, Ltd. Texas   Integrated Physician Solutions, Inc. Delaware   IntegriMED, Inc. Nevada   Medical Billing Services, Inc. Texas   San Jacinto Surgery Center, Ltd. Texas   SurgiCare Memorial Village, LP Texas   TASC Anesthesia, LLC Ohio   Town & Country SurgiCare, Inc. Texas   Tuscarawas Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC Ohio
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,257,483
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,664,041
<PP&E>                                          14,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,521,656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,502
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       215,200
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,847,006)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,521,656
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,991,594
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,498,724)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (11,985,361)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (13,484,085)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.63)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                CALIFORNIA STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

        Computation of Ratio of EBITDA, as Adjusted, to Interest Expense


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               Year Ended December 31,
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2000          1999         1998         1997         1996
                                                               ------        ------       ------       ------       ------
<S>                                                            <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Income before Income Taxes................................     56,138        77,027       26,816      44,316      67,725
Add:  Interest Expense, Net...............................     18,756        16,345       16,954      13,977      10,145
Exclude Gain/Loss on Fixed Assets.........................        (28)          (13)         308       1,054       2,518
Depreciation (Cash Flow)..................................     28,852        26,331       26,659      24,374      18,844
                                                               ------        ------       ------      ------      ------
EBITDA, As Adjusted.......................................    103,718       119,690       70,737      83,721      99,232
                                                               ------        ------       ------      ------      ------
Interest Expense, Net.....................................     18,756        16,345       16,954      13,977      10,145
Ratio EBITDA, As Adjusted to Interest Expense, Net........        5.5           7.3          4.2         6.0         9.8
</TABLE>

                                       2
#### James Harold PRESTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-803.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Bobby Ray COLEMAN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 53217.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re: Bobby Ray Coleman applying for writs of mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The trial judge advises that he has ruled on the application filed in his court.
252 La. 172

#### FREESTATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. T & H, INC., and City of Shreveport.

No. 49227.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1968.

In re: Freestate Industrial Development Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 209 So.2d 568.

Writ refused.. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.