alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The DIRECTOR OF the DIVISION OF LABOR, as Administrator of the Subsequent Injury Fund, Petitioner, v. Paul E. SMITH; Harry Wichman, d/b/a No. 1 Garage; State Compensation Insurance Fund; and the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado, Respondents.

No. 85CA0888.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Aug. 7, 1986.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Christa D. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for petitioner.

Dale A. Gerlach, Colorado Springs, for respondent Paul E. Smith.

No appearance for respondents Wich-man, State Compensation Ins. Fund, and Indus. Com’n.

STERNBERG, Judge.

In this workmen’s compensation case, the Director of Division of Labor, as Administrator of the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF), seeks review of an order of the Industrial Commission granting claimant Paul E. Smith’s petition to reopen his claim. We dismiss the petition for review.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to his spine in January 1979. Prior to determination of permanent disability, SIF was joined as a respondent. Claimant subsequently settled with the employer and its insurance carrier and SIF was dismissed as a party.

On June 10, 1983, claimant filed a petition to reopen his claim naming the employer, its insurance carrier, and SIF as respondents. On June 4, 1985, the Commission reversed a determination by the hearing *1162officer that the settlement agreement barred claimant from reopening his claim and remanded the case for determination of benefits.

On review, SIF contends that it is not a proper party to the reopening proceedings because it was previously dismissed as a result of the settlement agreement. We conclude that the order of the Commission is not a final order subject to review and accordingly dismiss the petition for review.

Pursuant to § 8-53-114(2), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.), an order is “final” and thus reviewable if it “requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits or denies a claimant any benefits.” *See American Express v. Industrial Commission,*712 P.2d 1132 (Colo.App.1985). Thus, because it neither required nor denied the payment of a penalty or benefits, the June 4,1985, order is not reviewable.

The petition for review is dismissed.

PIERCE and METZGER, JJ., concur.
# L_2006282EN.01003801.xml

| 13.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 282/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 282/38

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1528/2006

of 12 October 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 1421/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1421/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1421/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 6 October to 12 October 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 1421/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 October 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 October 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 269, 28.9.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1558/2005 (OJ L 249, 24.9.2005, p. 6).

3

---
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of By Design, Inc. (the Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended herein as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Gary S. Ohlbaum, President, Chief Executive and 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:





(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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations or the Company.





Dated: January 21, 2011
 
 
 By:
/s/ Gary S. OhlbaumGary S. Ohlbaum

President,Chief Executive Officer

and Chief Financial Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2167 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on hexane, 1,6-diisocyanato- 

, homopolymer, 3,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazole-blocked in solvents. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on hexane, 

1,6-diisocyanato-, homopolymer, 3,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazole-blocked in solvents. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HEXANE, 1,6-DIISOCYANATO-, HOMOPOLYMER, 

4 3,5-DIMETHYL-1H-PYRAZOLE-BLOCKED IN 

5 SOLVENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.11.82 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 hexane, 1,6-diisocyanato-, homopolymer, 3,5-dimethyl-1H9 pyrazole-blocked in solvents) is amended by striking ‘‘12/ 

10 31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2167 IS

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# L_2013026EN.01003401.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 26/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/34

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 204 of 26 July 2006
  )

On page 2, recital 8, second sentence

for:

‘A charge levied on each air carrier using an airport, proportionate to the number of passengers it carries to or from the airport, appears to be the most effective way of funding.’,

read:

‘A charge levied on each air carrier using an airport, proportionate to the number of passengers it carries to and from the airport, appears to be the most effective way of funding.’.

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
135333 & (7) Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. JIMMY L. THOMAS, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff, Justices

v SC: 135333 AGC: 1161/05; 1162/05; 2227/05; 3103/05; 0165/06; 1784/06; 2305/06; 0260/07; 0348/07; 2457/07 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it sh ould grant the requested relief.

s0211 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 19, 2008

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1866 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1866

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the eligibility 
   of parents of certain deceased veterans for interment in national 
                              cemeteries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

   Mr. Kerry introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the eligibility 
   of parents of certain deceased veterans for interment in national 
                              cemeteries.

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

SECTION 1. INTERMENT IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES OF PARENTS OF CERTAIN 
              DECEASED VETERANS.

    (a) Interment of Parents of Certain Deceased Veterans.--Section 
2402 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
            ``(9) If the Secretary determines there is enough space in 
        open national cemeteries, the parent of a person listed in any 
        of paragraphs (1) through (4) or paragraph (7) who, at the time 
        of the parent's death, does not have a spouse, surviving 
        spouse, or child who has been interred, or who, if deceased, 
        would be eligible to be interred, in a national cemetery 
        pursuant to paragraph (5).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Paragraph (9) of section 2402 of title 38, 
United States Code, shall apply with respect to the death of an 
eligible parent on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 48 (Monday, March 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5856]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 12b-25, OMB Control No. 3235-0058, SEC File No. 270-71.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    The purpose of Form 12b-25 (17 CFR 240.12b-25) is to provide notice 
to the Commission and the marketplace that a public company will be 
unable to timely file a required periodic report or transition report 
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78a et seq.). 
If all the filing conditions of the form are satisfied, the company is 
granted an automatic filing extension. Approximately 7,799 registrants 
file Form 12b-25 and it takes approximately 2.5 hours per response for 
a total of 19,498 burden hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi 
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or 
send an email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98c8cad9c7d5f9f1f4faf7e0d8ebfdfbb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adfdffecf2e0ccc4c1cfc2d5eddec8ce83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 6, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5856 Filed 3-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler

BILL OF COSTS

Court of Appeals No. 12-14-00230-CV

Trial Court No. 2014-4404CV

Harold & Delores Patton

Vs.

Loancare, LLC

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Motion fee

Motion fee

Clerk's record

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

Indigent

Filing

$10.00

$10.00

$175.00

$20.00

$50.00

$25.00

$100.00

Cornelia A Hartman

Cortney Ortega

J Keith Stanley

Courtney Ortega

Courtney Ortega

Courtney Ortega

Cortney Ortega

TOTAL: $390.00

I, Pam Estes, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler, Texas,

certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND

AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 13th day of November 2015, A.D.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
#### Benjamin RUBENSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 7195.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Jan. 3, 1940.

Max Mehler, of Newark, N. J., for appellant.

Joseph W. Burns, Sp. Asst, to Atty Gen., for appellee.

Before BIGGS, MARIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Our examination of the bill of exceptions .in this case in the light of the appellant’s argument discloses no error therein which affected his substantial rights. See Gleckman v. United States, 8 Cir., 80 F.2d 394.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification

I, Anderson Y. Lee,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
covered by this report on Form 10-K of the American Express Credit Account Master Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing or other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

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

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of
New York Mellon and TransCentra, Inc. (formerly known as Regulus Group LLC).



|                     |  |                                                      
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 28, 2016
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Anderson Y. Lee                                  
|Name:                |  | Anderson Y. Lee                                      
|Title:               |  | President                                            
|                     |  | American Express Receivables Financing Corporation II
|                     |  | (Senior officer in charge of securitization)
CRAY INC.
PARENT & SUBSIDIARIES LIST
 %Parent /Subsidiary Name
    
    Date Formed
    
    Country/State
    
    OwnershipCray Inc.
    
    12/07/87
    
    U.S./Washington State
    
    ParentCray Australia Pty Ltd.
    
    03/23/00
    
    Australia
    
    100%Cray Brazil, Inc.
    
    08/25/00
    
    U.S./Washington State
    
    100%Cray Computadores do Brasil Ltda.
    
    12/21/00
    
    Brazil
    
    100%Cray Canada Corporation
    
    10/31/06
    
    Canada
    
    100%Cray China Limited
    
    08/07/00
    
    China
    
    100%Cray Computer Finland Oy
    
    06/20/00
    
    Finland
    
    100%Cray Computer SAS
    
    04/03/00
    
    France
    
    100%Cray Computer Deutschland GmbH
    
    03/31/00
    
    Germany
    
    100%Cray Supercomputers (India)
Private Limited
    
    09/30/08
    
    India
    
    100%Cray Supercomputers (Israel) Ltd.
    
    09/16/01
    
    Israel
    
    100%Cray Italy S.r.l.
    
    07/12/00
    
    Italy
    
    100%Cray Japan, Inc.
    
    03/17/00
    
    U.S./Washington State
    
    100%Cray Korea, Inc.
    
    03/17/00
    
    U.S./Washington State
    
    100%Cray Netherlands B.V.
    
    06/23/00
    
    Netherlands
    
    100%Cray Computer South Africa
(Proprietary) Limited
    
    02/23/00
    
    South Africa
    
    100%Cray Computer Spain, S.L.
    
    03/30/00
    
    Spain
    
    100%Cray-Tera Sweden AB
    
    08/18/00
    
    Sweden
    
    100%Cray Computer GmbH
    
    04/05/00
    
    Switzerland
    
    100%Cray Taiwan, Inc.
    
    04/05/01
    
    U.S./Washington State
    
    100%Cray U.K. Limited
    
    03/07/00
    
    United Kingdom
    
    100%
# L_2006355EN.01010401.xml

| 15.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 355/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 355/104

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 14 December 2006

on the continuation in the year 2007 of Community comparative trials and tests on seeds and propagating material of Asparagus officinalis L. under Council Directive 2002/55/EC started in 2005

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/934/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 2002/55/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of vegetable seed (1),

Having regard to Commission Decision 2005/5/EC of 27 December 2004 setting out the arrangements for Community comparative trials and tests on seeds and propagating material of certain plants of agricultural and vegetable species and vine under Council Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 68/193/EEC, 92/33/EEC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/55/EC, 2002/56/EC and 2002/57/EC for the years 2005 to 2009 (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Decision 2005/5/EC sets out the arrangements for the comparative trials and tests to be carried out under Council Directive 2002/55/EC as regards Asparagus officinalis L. from 2005 to 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Decision 2005/5/EC sets out the arrangements for the comparative trials and tests to be carried out under Council Directive 2002/55/EC as regards Asparagus officinalis L. from 2005 to 2009.

| (2) | Tests and trials carried out in 2005 and 2006 should be continued in 2007, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Tests and trials carried out in 2005 and 2006 should be continued in 2007,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

Community comparative trials and tests which began in 2005 on seeds and propagating material of Asparagus officinalis L. shall be continued in 2007 in accordance with Decision 2005/5/EC.

Done at Brussels, 14 December 2006.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 33. Directive as last amended by Directive 2004/117/EC.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 2, 5.1.2005, p. 12.

2

---