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 Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2441]

Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to this petition must be filed by October 11, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired.

*Subject:*                     Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CC Docket No. 94-54).                

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     1.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-24612  Filed 9-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
|   | (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 results of operations of Deep      Down. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:   | /s/      EUGENE L.      BUTLER                                |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|            | Eugene L.      Butler                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|            | Chief Financial      Officer                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|            | August      15, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                     |

----
#### Rivertower Associates et al., Respondents, v Stuart P. Chalfen, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on March 6, 1990, which denied defendant’s application pursuant to CPLR 5012 for severance of a request for attorney’s fees pursuant to Real Property Law § 234, and denied that request, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs and defendant negotiated a lease which, by its terms, was not to take effect until executed by the plaintiffs and delivered to the defendant. The lease was executed and delivered, but not before defendant had delivered to plaintiffs a letter refusing to enter into the lease.

The plaintiffs sued for six months’ rent. The defendant counterclaimed for return of his deposit and first month’s rent, and then moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and judgment on the counterclaim.

The IAS court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint, but denied summary judgment on the counterclaim. This court reversed insofar as appealed from, and granted the defendant summary judgment on the counterclaim (153 AD2d 196).

The defendant now seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to Real Property Law § 234. Attorney’s fees are available to a tenant under the statute only pursuant to a valid clause in a valid lease *(see, Cier Indus. Co. v Hessen,*136 AD2d 145). This court has already determined that there is no valid lease. There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the lease was declared invalid for the purpose of the plaintiffs’ claims, but still remains valid for the purpose of his counterclaims. Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
Exhibit 99.3
                                                                    ------------

                              MANAGEMENT ASSERTION

For the period of January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006, the servicing of
consumer finance receivables owned by BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2005-A has been
conducted by BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, in its capacity as servicer, in
compliance with the servicing standards in all material respects, set forth in
Articles IV and V of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated March 1, 2005.

By:        BMW Financial Services NA, LLC

By:        /s/  Kerstin Zerbst
           -------------------------
           Kerstin Zerbst

Title:     CFO
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 467 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 467

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the deduction for 
the travel expenses of a taxpayer's spouse who accompanies the taxpayer 
                          on business travel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2011

 Ms. Berkley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the deduction for 
the travel expenses of a taxpayer's spouse who accompanies the taxpayer 
                          on business travel.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES OF SPOUSE, ETC. 
              ACCOMPANYING TAXPAYER ON BUSINESS TRAVEL.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (m) of section 274 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional limitations on travel 
expenses) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 06-1944

JOSÉ A. MUÑIZ-OLIVARI; ANNABELLE DURÁN-LÓPEZ; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP MUÑIZ-DURÁN, Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v . STIEFEL LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on August 1, 2007 is amended as follows: Page 4, line 5: insert a period after "Inc" Page 6, line 9: insert "the" before "Puerto Rico" Page 6, line 18: replace the comma with "or" Page 10, line 15: replace "the deposition" with "himself" Page 14, lines 7-8: replace "could conclude" with "could have concluded"
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4641 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4641

         To extend the suspension of duty on Iminodisuccinate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

 Mr. Altmire introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To extend the suspension of duty on Iminodisuccinate.

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

SECTION 1. IMINODISUCCINATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.29.83 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Iminodisuccinate) is amended 
by striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/
31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 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>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131715 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DAVID BURKACKI, Personal Representative of Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, the Estate of EMILY L. BARR, Justices Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 131715 

 COA: 266669 

Oakland PC: 04-293771-CZ 

JAMES BARR, Trustee for the ALEXANDER

M. BARR TRUST,

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 23.02****CONSENT OF CURCIO WEBB**     We hereby consent to the reference to our firm, Curcio Webb, LLC, under the heading “Item 7.Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — CriticalAccounting Policies — Employee Benefits” in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Diamond Foods, Inc.(“Diamond”“) for the year ended July 31, 2007, and to the incorporation by reference of thatreference to our firm into the following Registration Statements of Diamond and any amendmentsthereto:     **Form** **Registration Number** **Description**S-8 333-140066 Securities to be offered to employees in employee benefit plansS-8 333-126743 Securities to be offered to employees in employee benefit plansCURCIO WEBB, LLC     By: /s/ Gordon E. Webb Name: Gordon E. Webb    Title: Member and Consulting Actuary  Date: November 28, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
"This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet and Income Statement and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements."
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                         318,299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,803,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                   790,059
<INVENTORY>                                  4,695,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,404,532
<PP&E>                                       1,911,555
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,074,222
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,510,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,083,902
<BONDS>                                        304,958
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         90
<COMMON>                                       777,330
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,344,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,510,509
<SALES>                                      2,487,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,510,290
<CGS>                                        2,069,008
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,461,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              81,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,517,973)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,517,973)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,517,973)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated March 16, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Omega Flex, Inc. and subsidiaries for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, included in this Form 10-K, into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No 333-135515).

 

 

/s/ Caturano & Company, P.C.

 

CATURANO & COMPANY, P.C.

 

Boston, Massachusetts

March 16, 2010
#### John Joseph HUNT, Appellee, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Appellant.

No. 439.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 26, 1937.

Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Kirlip, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, Vernon S. Jones, and Raymond Parmer, all of New York City, of counsel).

Herman Rapport, of New York City (Jacquin Frank, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, 'and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree (17 F.Supp. 578), affirmed.
Exhibit 4.330

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 162566 dated August 02, 2018

 

For Rendering

 

mobile radio telephone services

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

“Moscow City Telephone Network”

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027739285265

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7710016640

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

119017, Moscow, Bolshaya Ordynka St., 25, bld. 1

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until August 02, 2023.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated February 19, 2018 No. 85-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 3 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head

 
    	
/signature/ O.A.   Ivanov
    
	
Stamp here

Official seal:

MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS

COMMUNICATIONS

OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION

IN THE SPHERE

OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY

AND MASS MEDIA

PSRN 1087746736296
#### HOPPER v. HOPPER.

No. 14803.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Jan. 29, 1954.

Louis Wilson, Dallas, for appellant.

Bane & Bane, Dallas, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee on December 29, 1953 filed a motion to strike the transcript and statement of facts and to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. He asserts that we improperly sustained appellant’s motion to extend the time for filing the record. The record shows the 60-day period allowed by Rule 386, V. R. C. P., for filing the record in this Court ended on November 2, and that on that day a motion to extend the time was filed, which motion was sustained on November 6, and appellant filed the record here on November 10, well within the extended time. The motion in substance stated the attorney for appellant in the trial court had theretofore withdrawn from the case and the present attorney had been thereafter retained; that certain filed papers had been lost, without her fault, and it had been necessary to substitute them; that it had been, impossible to file the transcript although appellant had used due diligence to secure its timely preparation; and that the District Clerk “will require at least 10 days additional time within which to complete and file said transcript in said cause.” While the question of good cause was close, we are of the opinion that the facts alleged met the requirements of Rule 386. However it is not necessary for us to pass-on that question or review our former order thereon since the motion to strike the •transcript and statement of facts was filed in this Court on December 29, 1953, more-than 30 days after the record was filed under the authority of our order of November 6, and no motion for leave to file the-motion to dismiss has been filed with, or granted by, this Court under Rules 404 and 405, V. R. C. P., within the 30-day period after the transcript was filed, and no statement of facts has been made known to, or presented to, this Court showing good reason why such motion to dismiss was not filed within the 30‘-day period as required by Rule 404. Under such state of the record, although the motion should have been overruled on the merits if it had been filed in, time, it must be dismissed because not filed in compliance with Rules 404 and 405..

Motion to dismiss is stricken from the-file.
ia LA \if. -3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0701

IN RE PARENTING OF: T.P.D.C., FILED

A Minor Child. MAY 1 2 2020

Bovven Greenw000

Clerk of Supreme Court

TAMI DISNEY, StatR of Montane

Petitioner and Appellant, O R D E R

v.

BRANDON STAAT,

Respondent and Appellee.

Appellee Brandon Staat, via counsel, has moved this Court for an award of attorney

fees should he prevail in this appeal. Staat asserts that the parties' Final Stipulated

Parenting Plan provides for the prevailing party to recover attorney fees incurred to enforce

the parent's rights under the Plan. He relies on In re the Marriage of Toenjes, 2018 MT

189, ¶ 16, 392 Mont. 230, 422 P.3d 1215, in which this Court held it will award attorney

fees to the successful party where the parties' contract provides for such.

Staat filed his motion concurrently with his Response Brief in the pending appeal.

We will consider this motion and the argument herein as part of his Response Brief and

will incorporate this issue into our decision on appeal.

THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that Appellee's Motion SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF

APPELLEE'S RESPONSE BRIEF in the pending appeal.

The Clerk is directed to give notice of this Order to all counsel of record.

Dated this ) e-- day of May, 2020.

_6Q-1 m 44, 

05/12/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0701
•

Justices
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-141792) of Eastern Insurance Holdings, Inc. of ourreports dated March 24, 2006, relating to the 2005 consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedules of Eastern Insurance Holdings, Inc. (formerly Educators Mutual Life Insurance Company), which appear in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) of Eastern Insurance Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ Beard Miller CompanyLLP 

Beard Miller Company LLP 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

March 14, 2008
Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of **Aga Resources, Inc.**(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, James W. McLeod, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Dated this 1st day of February, 2006.   
/s/ James W. McLeod 
James W. McLeod 
Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0135. SAMORIAL HURST v. THE STATE.

In 1999, Samorial Hurst was convicted by a jury of two counts of armed

robbery, for which he wassentenced to life without parole. Hurst’s convictions were

affirmed on appeal. See Hurst v. State, 260 Ga. App. 708 (580 SE2d 666) (2003). 

In 2014, Hurst filed a “Motion to Correct Void Sentence” alleging he wasimproperly

sentenced pursuant OCGA § 17-10-7 (d). On February 27, 2015, the trial court

denied the motion. Hurst subsequently filed his notice of appeal on April 6, 2015. 

We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Pretermitting whether Hurst was entitled to a direct appeal, to be timely, a

notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order on appeal. See

OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute

requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872,

872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Because Hurst filed his notice of appeal 38 days

after entry of the order he seeks to appeal, it is untimely. Accordingly, this appeal is

hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/08/2016

September 08, 2016