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. RP95-409-010]

                    Take notice that on October 16, 2000, Northwest Pipeline Corporation                           ( print page 64435)                        (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, a number of tariff sheets which apply to the period from February 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997 during which Northwest's rates as established in Docket No. RP95-409 are applicable. The specific tariff sheets are enumerated in Appendix A of the filing.                

Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's June 1, 1999 and September 29, 2000 orders in Docket No. RP95-409 (Orders).

Northwest states that its compliance filing is consistent with the Commission's Orders and directives that have been issued with respect to the Docket No. RP95-409 proceeding.

Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27621  Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30314

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ALDOLPHUS WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 92-CR-214-F

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

August 19, 1999

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Aldolphus Wilson, federal prisoner # 22996-034, has appealed

the district court’s denial of relief relative to his Fed. R. Crim.

P. 41(e) motion for the return of, or compensation for, his

property which allegedly was seized in connection with his arrest

in 1992 for drug-trafficking offenses. 

The district court held that Wilson’s claims relative to

$100,102.67 and a Volvo automobile, which were declared forfeited,
No. 98-30314

-2-

are barred by laches. We AFFIRM this ruling, substantially for the

reasons adopted by the district court. See United States v.

Wilson, No. 92-CR-214 (E.D. La. Jan. 29, 1998). 

The district court held that Wilson was not entitled to relief

on his claims respecting other property, which allegedly was seized

from him but not declared forfeited. Wilson contends that he is

entitled to monetary damages because the Government no longer is

able to return this property to him. Such a remedy, however, is

foreclosed by sovereign immunity. Peña v. United States, 157 F.3d

984, 986 (5th Cir. 1998).

The court remanded Peña’s case to allow him to amend his

pleadings to state claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,

403 U.S. 388 (1971). Peña, 157 F.3d at 987. In Wilson’s case,

that remedy is barred by the one-year statute of limitations

applicable to Bivens actions in Louisiana. See Alford v. United

States, 693 F.2d 498, 499 (5th Cir. 1982). 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                         826,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    126,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,221,115
<PP&E>                                       3,590,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                 674,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,287,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,461,849
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,645
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,650
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,574,306
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,287,643
<SALES>                                      2,568,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,679,539
<CGS>                                          825,601
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,776,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               754,805
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (783,984)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,665
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (788,649)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (788,649)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY

As of December 31, 2010, ServiceMaster had the following subsidiaries:

Subsidiary

State or Country
of Incorporation
or Organization667217 Ontario Limited

CanadaAmerican Home Shield Corporation

DelawareAmerican Home Shield of Arizona, Inc.

ArizonaAmerican Home Shield of California, Inc.

CaliforniaAmerican Home Shield of Florida, Inc.

FloridaAmerican Home Shield of Iowa, Inc.

IowaAmerican Home Shield of Maine, Inc.

MaineAmerican Home Shield of Oklahoma, Inc.

OklahomaAmerican Home Shield of Texas, Inc.

TexasAmerican Home Shield of Virginia, Inc.

VirginiaAmerican Home Shield of Washington, Inc.

WashingtonAmerican Residential Services Holding L.L.C.

DelawareAmeriSpec, Inc.

DelawareCertified Systems, Inc.

TexasD. R. Church Landscape Co., Inc.

IllinoisFM Medic LLC

DelawareFurniture Medic Limited Partnership

DelawareGreenLawn, Ltd.

CanadaHome Shield Insurance Agency, Inc.

CaliforniaMerry Maids Limited Partnership

DelawareMinnesota Lawn Maintenance, Inc.

MinnesotaMM Maids L.L.C.

DelawareNew Jersey Home Shield Corporation

New JerseyPersonal Profesional de Pesticidas, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoPetgar Holdings, Inc.

CanadaSchumacher Landscaping, Inc.

MassachusettsServiceMaster Acceptance Corporation

DelawareServiceMaster Brands L.L.C.

VermontServiceMaster Brands Management L.L.C.

DelawareServiceMaster BSC L.L.C.

DelawareServiceMaster Consumer Services, Inc.

DelawareServiceMaster Consumer Services Limited Partnership

DelawareServiceMaster Funding Company LLC

DelawareServiceMaster Gift L.L.C.

FloridaServiceMaster Holding Corporation

DelawareServiceMaster International Holdings, Inc.

DelawareServiceMaster Limited

EnglandServiceMaster Management Corporation

DelawareServiceMaster of Canada Limited

CanadaServiceMaster Pacific Rim Expansion LLC

DelawareServiceMaster Receivables Company LLC

DelawareServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership

DelawareServiceMaster Services Limited

United KingdomServicios de Plagas Terminix, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoSiteService L.L.C.

DelawareSM Clean L.L.C.

Delaware


---



Subsidiary

State or Country
of Incorporation
or OrganizationSteward Insurance Company

VermontTerminix International, Inc.

DelawareTerminix International, S.A.

MexicoThe ServiceMaster Acceptance Company Limited Partnership

DelawareThe ServiceMaster Foundation

IllinoisThe Terminix International Company Limited Partnership

DelawareTruGreen Companies L.L.C.

DelawareTruGreen Home Landscape Services, L.L.C.

DelawareTruGreen LandCare, a California general partnership

CaliforniaTruGreen LandCare L.L.C.

DelawareTruGreen LandCare of Alabama L.L.C.

DelawareTruGreen LandCare of Nevada L.L.C.

DelawareTruGreen Limited Partnership

DelawareTruGreen, Inc.

Delaware


---



QuickLinks
Fifth Amendment of the Sky Financial Group Profit Sharing, 401(K) and ESOP



 Exhibit 10.30 
  
 FIFTH
AMENDMENT 
 OF THE 
 SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. PROFIT SHARING, 401(K) AND ESOP
PLAN 
 (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2004) 
  
 WHEREAS,
Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Profit Sharing, 401(k) and ESOP Plan (the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company has delegated authority to amend the Plan to the Sky Financial
Group, Inc. Benefit Plans Committee (the “Committee”), and the Committee has determined that amendment of the Plan is necessary and desirable. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power reserved to the Company by Section
10.01 of the Plan, and by virtue of the authority delegated to the Committee, the Plan, as previously amended, is hereby further amended, in the following particulars, effective March 27, 2005: 
  
 1.      By rescinding
particulars 2 through 4 of the Fourth Amendment of the Plan, which shall be void and of no effect. 
  
 2.       By substituting the figure “$1,000” for “$5,000” where the latter appears in the first paragraph of Section 5.05 of the Plan.

  
 3.      By
deleting the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 5.05 of the Plan. 
  
 4.      By substituting the figure “$1,000” for “$5,000” where the latter appears in the first paragraph of Section 6.01 of the Plan. 
  
 5.      By deleting the last
sentence of the first paragraph of Section 6.01 of the Plan. 
  
 6.      By substituting the figure “$1,000” for “$5,000” where the latter appears in the second paragraph of Section 6.04(c) of the Plan. 
  
 *        *        * 
  
 [signature page to follow] 







 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, on behalf of the Committee, the undersigned Committee member has executed this amendment this 8th day of March 2005. 
  

			
	 SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

	 BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Thomas A. Sciorilli


	 Its:
	 	 Chief Human Resources Officer



  
  

 - 2 -
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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 Annual Report of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form
10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Charles W. Jepson, Chief Executive 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:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities and 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 Extended
     Systems Incorporated.




/s/ CHARLES W. JEPSON
--------------------------------
Charles W. Jepson
Chief Executive Officer
November 5, 2003
<PAGE>


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 Annual Report of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form
10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Karla K. Rosa, 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:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities and 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 Extended
     Systems Incorporated.




/s/ KARLA K. ROSA
--------------------------------
Karla K. Rosa
Chief Financial Officer
November 5, 2003
**CERTIFICATE
      OF AMENDMENT**




**OF
      AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**




**OF**




**WHERIFY
      WIRELESS, INC.**




**A
      Delaware corporation**




Wherify
      Wireless, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General
      Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), does hereby
      certify as follows:




The
      amendment to this Corporation’s Amended and Restated Certificate of
      Incorporation, as amended (the “Certificate”), set forth in the following
      resolution, was approved and duly adopted by this Corporation’s Board of
      Directors in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General
      Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”) and was duly adopted and
      approved by stockholders at an annual meeting called and held upon notice in
      accordance with Section 222 of the DGCL:




**RESOLVED** ,
      that
      the introductory paragraph of Article FOURTH of the Amended and Restated
      Certificate of Incorporation of Wherify Wireless, Inc., beginning with “FOURTH”
and ending with “($0.01) per share,” be amended and restated to read in its
      entirety as follows:




FOURTH:
      The total number of shares of capital stock of all classes which the Corporation
      shall have the authority to issue is Two Hundred Ten Million (210,000,000),
      divided into Two Hundred Million (200,000,000) shares of Common Stock of the
      par
      value of one cent ($0.01) per share, and Ten Million (10,000,000) shares of
      Preferred Stock of the par value of one cent ($0.01) per share.




**IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF** ,
      the
      Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized
      officer this 8th day of December, 2006.






Wherify
      Wireless, Inc.




Timothy
      J. Neher


Chief
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 12.1
 RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
  Year Ended December 31,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005(Loss) Income before income taxes and
discontinued operations
    
    $
    (187,117
    )
    
    $
    (213,346
    )
    
    $
    21,823
    
    
    $
    19,168
    
    
    $
    (7,914
    )Fixed charges:Interest expense and amortization of
capitalized costs of indebtedness
    
    $
    77,679
    
    
    $
    100,833
    
    
    $
    111,453
    
    
    $
    84,201
    
    
    $
    51,561Estimated interest within rental expense
    
    
    716
    
    
    
    701
    
    
    
    402
    
    
    
    296
    
    
    
    209Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    4,671
    
    
    
    5,024
    
    
    
    204
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total fixed charges
    
    $
    83,066
    
    
    $
    106,558
    
    
    $
    112,059
    
    
    $
    84,497
    
    
    $
    51,770Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    (4,671
    )
    
    
    (5,024
    )
    
    
    (204
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total earnings
    
    $
    (108,722
    )
    
    $
    (111,812
    )
    
    $
    133,678
    
    
    $
    103,665
    
    
    $
    43,856Total fixed charges
    
    $
    83,066
    
    
    $
    106,558
    
    
    $
    112,059
    
    
    $
    84,497
    
    
    $
    51,770Interest expense on deposits
    
    
    47,208
    
    
    
    66,025
    
    
    
    76,692
    
    
    
    57,518
    
    
    
    34,067Total fixed charges excluding deposit interest
    
    $
    35,858
    
    
    $
    40,533
    
    
    $
    35,367
    
    
    $
    26,979
    
    
    $
    17,703Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges
and preferred stock dividends:Including deposit interest
    
    
    (1.31
    )
    
    
    (1.05
    )
    
    
    1.19
    
    
    
    1.22
    
    
    
    0.83Excluding deposit interest
    
    
    (3.03
    )
    
    
    (2.76
    )
    
    
    3.79
    
    
    
    3.82
    
    
    
    2.42
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3028 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3028

To amend the hold harmless provision for career and technical education 
                      assistance grants to States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2013

   Mr. Heck of Nevada (for himself and Mr. Grijalva) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the hold harmless provision for career and technical education 
                      assistance grants to States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Career and Technical Education 
Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. HOLD HARMLESS.

    Section 111(a)(5)(A) of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2321(a)(5)(A)) is amended to read as 
follows:
                    ``(A) In general.--No State shall receive an 
                allotment under this section for a fiscal year that is 
                less than 90 percent of the allotment the State 
                received under this section for the preceding fiscal 
                year.''.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 12

- 00122

- CV

CITY OF BELLMEAD

, Appellant

v.

DEVIN KLUK

, Appellee

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- 5034

- 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” stating that Appellee

has nonsuited his claims against Appellant and asking us to dismiss the appeal because

there is no longer a matter to prosecute or appeal and to tax costs against the party

incurring the cost. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)( 2 ). The motion to dismiss is granted, and

the appeal is dismissed. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed

against the party incurring same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1( d ).City of Bellmead v. Kluk Page 2 REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justi ce Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opini on delivered and filed May 23, 2012

[CV06]
#### PANGALLO v. MURPHY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 2, 1951.

Morrison A. Fordyce, Newport, Gardner Reed, Covington, for appellant.

Lawrence V. Drahman, Newport, for ap-pellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment dismissing the appellant’s petition after a demurrer had been sustained thereto. The basis of the action was an alleged violation of the appellant’s right of privacy.

*497The appellant alleged that she and her husband and infant children had been renting two furnished rooms on the second floor of a building belonging to appellee for about five months prior to September 9, 1947. The rent was payable in advance on each Tuesday. On the date mentioned she was confined to a hospital because of her pregnant condition. Without her knowledge and consent, and without legal process of any kind, the appellee moved her personal belongings and those of her family to a shed and locked the rooms and refused admittance to her and her family. On September 11th, knowing of her pregnant condition, the appellee visited her at the hospital without her acquiescence and consent and informed her, in the presence of other persons, that he had removed her belongings from the two roon^s; had placed her belongings in the shed and had rented the rooms to another person ; and he told her she could recover her belongings by the payment of a storage charge. The appellee said further, in the presence of others, that she and her family “were not fit persons to live in his house; that she and her family were filthy and dirty and that the rooms were filthy and dirty and that he didn’t want her and her family in the house.” Because of the unlawful conduct of the appellee her whole nervous system was upset and she was caused great mental anguish; she had severe headaches and was unable to rest and sleep and it was necessary that she be given sedatives to induce rest and sleep;' and “she began to worry'and fret due to the statements made by -the defendants and that due to the shock to her nervous system she suffered a setback and that her child was born two days later than it was supposed to and she thus suffered greatly in her mind and body and was confined to the hospital two additional days.” On motion of the appellee the court struck the part of the petition wherein it was alleged the child was born two days late, because it merely stated a conclusion.

In Brents v. Morgan, 221 Ky. 765, 299 S.W. 967, 55 A.L.R. 964, we held there can be no grant of redress for the invasion of privacy by oral publication. That case is controlling here. In the recent case of Elkins v. Roberts, Ky., 242 S.W.2d 994, there is a discussion of the law applicable to actionable words. Under certain conditions slanderous words are actionable per se. A charge that the words uttered caused mental and physical distress would not fall within that category. In other instances certain words are actionable per quod. These words on their face are not actionable, but may be so in consequence of extrinsic facts showing damage which resulted to the injured party; There was no such allegation in the petition under consideration.

Judgment affirmed.