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. IN12-7-000]

Commission staff members Sandra Waldstein and Joyce Davidson, both of the Office of External Affairs, are assigned to facilitate communication with affected states. The affected states, in New York Independent System Operator, Inc., ISO New England Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., are eligible to make requests for the apportionment of a fund the Commission established in a March 9, 2012 order in the above-referenced docket.

As “non-decisional” staff, Ms. Waldstein and Ms. Davidson will not participate in an advisory capacity in the Commission's review of any future filings in the above-referenced docket, including offers of settlement or settlement agreements.

Different Commission “advisory staff” will be assigned to review and process subsequent filings that are made in the above-referenced docket, including any offer of settlement or settlement agreement. Non-decisional staff and advisory staff are prohibited from subsequent communications with one another concerning matters in the above-referenced docket.

Dated: March 16, 2012.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-6883 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Elizabeth Langley CAMEL v. Ellen H. WALLER, et al.

No. 87-C-2479.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Camel, Elizabeth Langley; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 1176; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 273-198.

Prior report: La.App., 515 So.2d 611.

Granted.
#### Waitress S. HAILE, Appellant, v. John HAILE, Jr., Appellee.

No. 4-86-0011.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1987.

Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Klein & Bera-nek, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

William S. Cross of Allsworth, Dumar, Cagel & Curtis, P.A., and Nancy Little Hoffmann of Nancy Little Hoffmann, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In arriving at the judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court did not consider the husband’s pension as a marital asset. At the time of the final hearing the court did not have the benefit of *Diffender-fer v. Diffenderfer,*491 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1986).

We reverse those portions of the final judgment relating to alimony and the pension so that they may be reconsidered by the court under *Diffenderfer.*We make no prejudgment concerning the manner nor extent to which this should alter the final judgment.

With respect to the issue of attorney’s fees, and in all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

*87We therefore reverse in part and remand to the trial court for further proceedings,

DELL, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet, Consolidated Statement of Operations, Consolidated
Statements of Changes in Shareholders' Investment, Consolidated Statements of
Cash Flows and Notes to Consolidated Statements, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements and notes to Consolidated
Statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      $1,489,438
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  992,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    368,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,771,043
<PP&E>                                     136,253,396
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,524,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             138,211,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,291,881
<BONDS>                                    126,787,712
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        295
<COMMON>                                         6,503
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,157,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               138,211,556
<SALES>                                     51,271,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            51,271,369
<CGS>                                       42,357,117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               42,357,117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          12,537,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,727,670)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,763,112)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              4,027,655
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   264,543
<EPS-BASIC>                                       $.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.02


</TABLE>
#### State of Florida, *ex rel.*James E. Alexander, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cary D. Landis, as Secretary of the Democratic Executive Committee, Volusia County, Florida, Defendant in Error.

An order granting a motion to Quash an alternative writ of mandamus, but allowing relator to amend as he may be advised, is not such a final judgment as will support a writ ¡of error.

This case was decided by Division A.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Volusia County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

*W. B.*Crawford, for Plaintiff in Error.

*Egford Bty,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This is a mandamus proceeding to compel the Secretary of the County Democratic Executive Committee to furnish relator a copy of the poll list at Election District No. 2 in Volusia county at the primary election held May 10, 1904. A motion to quash the alternative writ was filed, setting forth among other grounds the failure of said writ to negative other adequate remedy. Upon the hearing of this motion the following order was made: “Motion is granted and the relator is allowed to amend his writ and petition as he may be advised.” No further or other order appears in the transcript, and the writ of error mentions specifically this *284order and none other. Such an order is interlocutory and will not support a writ of error. Gates v. Hayner, 22 Fla. 325.

The writ is dismissed.

Shackleford, C. J., Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur.

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.

wfflwsewswtRWWJA»/»*
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 21
MERCURY FINANCE COMPANY

SUBSIDIARIES

Mercury Finance Corporation of Alabama (Ala)
Mercury Finance Company of Arizona (Ariz)
Merc Finance Company of California (Cal)
Mercury Finance Company of Colorado (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Delaware (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Florida (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Georgia (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Illinois (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Idaho (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Iowa (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Indiana (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Kansas (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Kentucky (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Louisiana (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Michigan (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Mississippi (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Missouri (MO)
Mercury Finance Company of Nevada (Nev)
Mercury Finance Company of New Mexico (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of New York (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of North Carolina (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Ohio (Del)
MFC Finance Company of Oklahoma (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Oregon (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Pennsylvania (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of South Carolina (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Tennessee (Tenn)
MFC Finance Company of Texas (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Utah (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Virginia (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Washington (Del)
Mercury Finance Company of Wisconsin (Del)
MFC Financial Services, Inc. (Fla)
Filco Marketing Company (Del)
Gulfco Investment Inc. (La)
Gulfco Finance Company (La)
Midland Finance Co. (IL)
MFN Insurance Company (Turks and Caicos)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Debtor. No. 98-1522 LENORE WIDMARK, Claimant-Appellant,

v. DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Trust-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge; Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge. (CA-85-1307-R) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Michael Villeck, Howard Eison, SANDERS, SANDERS, BLOCK & WOYCIK, P.C., Mineola, New York, for Appellant. Orran LeeBrown, Sr., DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Lenore Widmark, a Dalkon Shield Claimant, elected to resolve herclaim through binding arbitration. The arbitrator issued an unfavorable decision, concluding that Widmark's pelvic inflammatory disease did not arise from her use of the Dalkon Shield. Widmark then filed a motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision in the district court. The district court denied the motion, and Widmark appealed. We vacate and remand. Widmark established that she used the Dalkon Shield and suffered from pelvic inflammatory disease, an injury appearing in Exhibit A to the Claims Resolution Facility. She therefore was entitled to the presumption of causation announced in In re A. H. Robins Co. (Reichel v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust) , 109 F.3d 965 (4th Cir. 1997), b ecause the presumption applies in binding arbitration. See In re A.H. Robins Co. (King v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust , 1998 WL 544770, at *1 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 1998) (unpublished). We v acate the order of the district court because thearbitrator did not apply the presumption. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid thedecisional process. In light of this disposition, the motion to accelerate oral argument is denied, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED *

_________________________________________________________________ *The motion of the Trust filed October 5, 1998, to submit a surrebuttal brief is granted. 2
|   | (1)    | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | (2)    | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company      for the periods presented. |

| Dated:       May 15, 2009                                 |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                           |   |   |   |
| /s/       Gregory Webster                                 |   |   |   |
| Gregory      WebsterChief      Executive Officer &Director |
50169.

#### McCONNELL v. BRENAU COLLEGE.

Argued February 10, 1975

Decided April 7, 1975.

*Telford, Stewart & Stephens, Charles W. Stephens, William H. Blalock, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Whelchel, Dunlap & Gignilliat, James A. Dunlap, George L. Simpson, III,*for appellee.

Stolz, Judge.

The present appeal from the grant of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, is controlled by *Speer v. Gemco Elevator Co.,*134 Ga. App. 360. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court with direction that the alternative motion for a new trial bé ruled on as provided in Code Ann.§ 81A-150 (c) (1) (Ga.L. 1966, pp. 609, 656; 1967, pp. 226, 237, 246, 248).

*Remanded with direction.*

*Deen, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.*
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>

<S>  <C>
1.   Investors Capital Trust 1
       Delaware trust

2.   Investors Capital Services, Inc.
       Deleware corporation

3.   Investors Bank & Trust Company
       Massachusetts chartered trust company

4.   Investors Safe Deposit Corp.
       Massachusetts corporation

5.   IBT Trust Company (Cayman) Ltd.
       Cayman Islands trust company

6.   Investors Securities Corporation
       Massachusetts securities corporation

7.   Investors Funding Corporation
       Massachusetts Real Estate Investment Trust

8.   IBT Fund Services (Canada) Inc.
       incorporated in Canada

9.   Investors Trust Holdings Ireland
       organized in the Republic of Ireland

10.  Investors Financial Services (Ireland) Ltd.
       organized in the Republic of Ireland

11.  Investors Trust & Custodial Services (Ireland) Ltd.
       organized in the Republic of Ireland

12.  Investors Fund Services (Ireland) Ltd.
       organized in the Republic of Ireland

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-44388), on Form S-8 (No. 333-83653) and on Forms
S-3 and S-3/A (No. 333-67361) and on Forms S-8 and S-3 (Nos. 33-88712) of our
report dated March 30, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial statements,
which appear in Hudson Hotels Corporation Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2000. We also consent to the reference to us under
the headings "Experts" in such Registration Statements.


/s/ BONADIO & CO., LLP

Rochester, New York
March 30, 2001
EXHIBIT 21

                  Subsidiaries of Bremer Financial Corporation

   Name of Subsidiaries and State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation as of
                                March 30, 2001:

State of Minnesota:

         Bremer Business Finance Corporation
         Bremer Financial Services, Inc.
         Bremer Insurance Agencies, Inc.
         Bremer Trust, National Association

State of Arizona:

         Bremer First American Life Insurance Company

United States (National Bank Act):

         Bremer Bank, National Association (Alexandria, MN)
         Bremer Bank, National Association (Brainerd, MN)
         Bremer Bank, National Association (Grand Forks, ND)
         Bremer Bank, National Association (International Falls, MN)
         Bremer Bank, National Association (Marshall, MN)
         Bremer Bank, National Association (Menomonie, WI)
         Bremer Bank, National Association (Minot, ND)
         Bremer Bank, National Association (Moorhead, MN)
         Bremer Bank, National Association (St. Cloud, MN)
         Bremer Bank, National Association (South Saint Paul, MN)
         Bremer Bank, National Association (Willmar, MN)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2223 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2223

   To suspend temporarily the duty on yarn of carded hair of Kashmir 
 (cashmere) goats of less than 19.35 metric yarn count, not put up for 
                              retail sale.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Lieberman (for himself and Mr. Dodd) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on yarn of carded hair of Kashmir 
 (cashmere) goats of less than 19.35 metric yarn count, not put up for 
                              retail sale.

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

SECTION 1. YARN OF CARDED HAIR OF KASHMIR (CASHMERE) GOATS OF YARN 
              COUNT LESS THAN 19.35 METRIC, NOT PUT UP FOR RETAIL SALE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.12.27      Yarn of carded      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        hair Kashmir                                                       31/2011.......
                        (cashmere) goats,
                        of yarn count
                        less than 19.35
                        metric, not put
                        up for retail
                        sale (provided
                        for in subheading
                        5108.10.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### David L. HEILMAN, Appellant, v. CHEVY CHASE SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., f/k/a Chevy Chase Savings & Loan, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Rita Ann Crehan, James P. Crehan, Kaye Burke, Long Office Supply Company, and United States of America, Department of the Treasury — Internal Revenue Service, Appellees.

No. 87-0569.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 20, 1988.

David L. Heilman, pro se.

Elizabeth T. Maass, of Alley, Maass, Rogers, Lindsay & Chauncey, Palm Beach, for appellee-Chevy Chase Sav. Bank.

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss on the authority of *Heilman v. Suburban Coastal Corp.,*506 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles ADAMS, Defendant-Relator.

No. K88-498.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 13, 1988.

*868Robert W. Raley, Bossier City, for relator.

Michael Henry, Dist. Atty., Natchitoches, for respondent.

Before GUIDRY, LABORDE and YELVERTON, JJ.

ORDER

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:

Before a defendant can validly waive his right to counsel, the trial judge must make an on-the-record determination of the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused. *Johnson v. Zerbst,*304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1024, 1025, 82 L.Ed.2d 1461. Pertinent to such a determination is the trial judge’s assessment of a defendant’s literacy, competency, understanding and volition. *Faretta v. California,*422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); *State v. Lafleur,*391 So.2d 445 (La.1980); *State v. Smith,*479 So.2d 1062 (La.App.3 Cir.1985); *State v. Skeetoe,*501 So.2d 931 (La.App.2 Cir.1987). The record must also reflect that the defendant’s choice of self-representation is clear and unequivocal. *State v. Hegwood,*345 So.2d 1179 (La.1977). Such a choice can only be made after a defendant has been made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self representation, “so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’ ” *Faretta,*supra, 95 S.Ct. at 2541; *Smith,*supra; *Skeetoe,*supra.

Although the record reflects that relator has a master’s degree in education, and therefore, is presumably literate, the record does not reflect any attempt by the trial judge to assess the defendant’s competency, understanding and volition. This failure appears most significant in light of defendant’s later revelation that he was being treated by a therapist and that he was “on Anabuse”. Thus defendant’s waiver falls short of the first requirement of *Hegwood,*supra., i.e., that the waiver was knowing and intelligent.

Furthermore, the trial judge did not inform the defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so that the record would establish that he knew what he was doing and his choice was made with eyes open. *Smith,*supra. Such a failure in a pro se case cannot support the conclusion that defendant’s *869waiver was knowing and informed. *State v. Washington,*421 So.2d 887 (La.1982).

For these reasons, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to quash the bill of information charging defendant with DWI, 2nd offense. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and the sentence imposed are reversed.
#### Gregory LIGHTFOOT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1677.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 18, 1988.

*931Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and Phil Patterson, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Gary L. Printy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s timely motion to withdraw his plea, which was made after the trial judge refused the jointly recommended sentence of the state and defense counsel, should have been granted. *Stanley v. State,*501 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Because the appellant is still on probation, his case is not moot.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ERVIN, WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.