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

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 02/02-0621 issued to Brookside Pecks Capital Partners, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.

United States Small Business Administration

Dated: July 2, 2018.

A. Joseph Shepard,

Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2018-15760 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Willie Lee DAVIS v. STATE.

3 Div. 147.

Court of Criminal Appeals' of Alabama.

Feb. 12, 1974.

After remand by the Supreme Court which reversed Ala.Cr.App., 52 Ala.App. 254, 291 So.2d 343.

Reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court on authority of 292 Ala. 210, 291 So.2d 346, dated January 24, 1974.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
(This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          44,982
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,191
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     79,199
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          60,307
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            59,087
<LOANS>                                      1,039,769
<ALLOWANCE>                                     11,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,320,586
<DEPOSITS>                                     861,263
<SHORT-TERM>                                   139,031
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             12,657
<LONG-TERM>                                    187,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,320,586
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 59,762
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,977
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                67,739
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              23,303
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,638
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           27,101
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      750
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 26,457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,408
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,408
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,391
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.02
<LOANS-NON>                                        805
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   232
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,654
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      426
<RECOVERIES>                                       118
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,096
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            11,096
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Robert Joe JOHNSON v. STATE.

7 Div. 182.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 12, 1974.

Judgment of Circuit Court affirmed on authority of 292 Ala. 208, 291 So.2d 336, dated January 24, 1974.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- 554 Bloomfield LLC Under Contract No. DACA5l-5- l0-213 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58819

Ms. Wendy Bond

Managing Member Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Lorraine C. Lee, Esq.

District Counsel U.S. Army Engineer District, New York ORDER OF DISMISSAL For reasons indicated by one or both parties, the Board is unable to proceed with the disposition ofthe above appeal for an inordinate length oftime due to factors not within the control ofthe Board. Accordingly, the above-referenced appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Board Rule l 8(b). Unless either party orthe Board acts to reinstate the appeal within six months ofthe date ofthis Order, the dismissal shall be deemed with prejudice. Dated: 6 April 2016

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58819, Appeal of554 Bloomfield LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- 554 Bloomfield LLC Under Contract No. DACA5l-5-l0-213 APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58819

Ms. Wendy Bond

Managing Member Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Lorraine C. Lee, Esq.

District Counsel U.S. Army Engineer District, New York ORDER OF DISMISSAL For reasons indicated by one or both parties, the Board is unable to proceed with the disposition ofthe above appeal for an inordinate length oftime due to factors not within the control ofthe Board. Accordingly, the above-referenced appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Board Rule l 8(b). Unless either party or the Board acts to reinstate the appeal within six months ofthe date ofthis Order, the dismissal shall be deemed with prejudice. Dated: 6 April 2016

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58819, Appeal of554 Bloomfield LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\'\f r· '· . . ' -·· ~ " . 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DGD, Inc. 

Respondent. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ····.' '·, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0684 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No. 2009S0700 173 

WITHDRAWAL COMPLAINT 

The Complainant, by and through the undersigned attorney, pursuant to Section 13.215 of the 

Board's Rules of Practice [14 CPR 13.215] hereby withdraws the Complaint in the abovereferenced matter. 

The parties reached settlement of this matter on April 10, 2015. As a result, the Complainant 

respectfully requests that its Complaint be withdrawn and this matter closed. 

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of April 2015. 

~~~E~ Senior Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the Withdrawal of Complaint has been sent via facsimile and 

Federal Express to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(FAX) (202) 366-7536 

and Federal Express to: 

Mr. Luis D. Lopez, 

President 

DGD, Inc. 

1325 N.W. 78TH Avenue, Suite 104 

Doral, FL 33126 

and the original and one copy via Federal Express to: 

Hearing Docket 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

1~M:c Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Dated
251 La. 731

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edward William JORGENSEN.

No. 49071.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 31, 1968.

In re: Edward William Jorgensen applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

The application is denied. Considering the return of the District Judge, we are of the opinion that the showing is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1037 

To ensure adequate protection of the rights under the Fourth Amendment 

to the Constitution of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure adequate protection of the rights under the Fourth 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

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 ‘‘Fourth Amendment 

5 Preservation and Protection Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that the right under the Fourth 

8 Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of 

9 the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 

10 and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1037 IS

1 violated when the Federal Government or a State or local 

2 government acquires information voluntarily relinquished 

3 by a person to another party for a limited business pur4 pose without the express informed consent of the person 

5 to the specific request by the Federal Government or a 

6 State or local government or a warrant, upon probable 

7 cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly 

8 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or 

9 things to be seized. 

10 SEC. 3. DEFINITION. 

11 In this Act, the term ‘‘system of records’’ means any 

12 group of records from which information is retrieved by 

13 the name of the individual or by some identifying number, 

14 symbol, or other identifying particular associated with the 

15 individual. 

16 SEC. 4. PROHIBITION. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

18 (b), the Federal Government and a State or local govern19 ment is prohibited from obtaining or seeking to obtain in20 formation relating to an individual or group of individuals 

21 held by a third-party in a system of records, and no such 

22 information shall be admissible in a criminal prosecution 

23 in a court of law. 

24 (b) EXCEPTION.—The Federal Government or a 

25 State or local government may obtain, and a court may 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1037 IS

1 admit, information relating to an individual held by a 

2 third-party in a system of records if— 

3 (1) the individual whose name or identification 

4 information the Federal Government or State or 

5 local government is using to access the information 

6 provides express and informed consent to the search; 

7 or 

8 (2) the Federal Government or State or local 

9 government obtains a warrant, upon probable cause, 

10 supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly 

11 describing the place to be searched, and the persons 

12 or things to be seized. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROOSEVELT MONTIE RAINES, a/k/a Marty Raines,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason,

Magistrate Judge. (CR-92-96, CA-95-243-2)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roosevelt Montie Raines, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation and order denying leave to file a brief in excess of

the page limitations. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6087

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RAFAEL JAIMES-JAIMES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:01-cr-00245-1) 

Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Rafael Jaimes-Jaimes, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Rafael Jaimes-Jaimes appeals a district court order 

denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We have reviewed 

the record and the district court order and find no reversible 

error. We affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. 

United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, No. 1:01-cr-00245-1 (M.D.N.C. 

Dec. 31, 2008). 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
259 La. 900

#### Floma G. HENDRY v. The JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51786.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1971.

In re: John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 251 So.2d 500.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the court of appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
X>CV'0^r-2J003'A'H5 

JetBlue 

AIRWAYS* 

January 13,2010 

Mr. James R. Langley, Jr. 

Chairman, Clinton County Legislature 

Clinton County Govenmient Center 

137 Margaret Street, Suite 208 

Plattsburgh, NY 12901 

Dear Chairman Langley, 

On behalf of JetBlue Airways' more than 12,000 crewmembers, I want to state our support for 

Cape Air to continue as the Essential Air Service provider for Plattsburgh, providing Plattsburgh 

with ever-improving access to JetBlue's 3S non-stop destinations served from Boston's Logan 

Airport. Starting in the first quarter of 2010, JetBlue is migrating to the SABRE reservations 

system, which will provide seamless JetBlue cormectivity for Plattsburgh. 

Plattsburgh's cormectivity with JetBlue is important because: 

• JetBlue serves 13 of the top IS non-stop markets from Boston. 

• JetBlue serves twdce as many non-stop destinations from Boston as US Airways. 

• JetBlue is growing rapidly in Boston while US Airways has recently announced a 

decrease in service and the closing of the Boston crew base. 

• JetBlue has won numerous product-focused awards, including 5 consecutive customer 

satisfaction awards from J.D. Power and Associates. 

JetBlue is eager to connect customers to Plattsburgh through our partner Cape Air, which in the 

past two years has increased annual Plattsburgh enplanements from 4,071 to over 10,000, or 

147%. 

If you have any questions about JetBlue service for Plattsburgh via Cape Air, please feel free to 

contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Ian Deason 

Director Alliances and Partnerships 

JetBlue Airways 

To jet: www.ietblue.com or 1(800) JETBLUE
#### Rufus MILLER, d/b/a Miller’s Electric & Motor Rewinding Shop, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3378.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1971.

J. Nilas Young, of Young & Burson, Eunice, for plaintiff-appellant.

Frugé & Foret by Jack C. Frugé, Ville Platte, for defendant-appellee.

Before HOOD, MILLER and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

The discussion to be found in the companion case of Gary Don Vidrine v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, La.App., 247 So.2d 660 decided on this date is applicable to and controlling of this case.

Accordingly, for the reasons assigned therein, the judgment of the trial court in the instant case is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.
#### Fred O. DICKINSON, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida et al., Appellants, v. D. H. BELL and his wife, Margaret Bell et al., Appellees.

No. K-225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 17, 1968.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Robert A. Chastain, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.

William G. O’Neill, Ocala, and Ervin, Pennington, Varn & Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Comptroller and members of the State Budget Commission seek review by interlocutory appeal of an order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed against them. The prongs of their assault upon the complaint are grounded upon the contention that it fails to state a cause of action, the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of the cause, failure to join indispensable parties, and improper venue.

The complaint is brought pursuant to Chapter 87, F.S., by which plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration of their rights under the taxing statutes of this state and to restrain the Comptroller from approving the tax rolls of the several counties comprising the Central and South Florida Flood Control District unless and until the tax assessors of those counties assess the taxable property situated therein in accordance with uniform standards of value which will assure equality of valuation based upon 100% of fair market value as required by law and the provisions of F.S. Section 192.31, F.S.A.

We are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by quoting in full the amended complaint or discussing in detail each of its material allegations. We conclude and so hold that the complaint filed herein states a cause of action, the order appealed is correct as a matter of law and should be sustained for the reasons stated and relied on by the trial court and upon the authority of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Burns v. Butscher (Fla.1966) 187 So.2d 594. We further hold that the remaining points urged by appellant are without merit and must be rejected. Affirmed and appeal dismissed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby
certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 16, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 2, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Sean M. McCarthy                      
|                        |  |  |  | Sean M. McCarthy                          
|                        |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.2

                     GE GLOBAL INSURANCE HOLDING CORPORATION
                          AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES


                            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  GE  Global  Insurance  Holding
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Marc A. Meiches, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  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 result of operations of
       the Company.

Date:  May 2, 2003



/s/ Marc A. Meiches
-----------------------
Marc A. Meiches
Chief Financial Officer


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

                                       15