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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

      ( print page 94775)    

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 29, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 22, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 482 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-486, K2025-483.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27947 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Forum Insurance Company, Respondent-Appellant, v Worcester County Institution for Savings, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[631 NYS2d 165]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 17, 1994, which, after a nonjury trial, granted judgment in favor of plaintiff and against Worcester County Institution for Savings ("WCIS”) for the sum of $103,039.53, consisting of $75,061.80 in principal plus interest from March 30, 1990, costs and disbursements, unanimously reversed and vacated on the law and the complaint as against WCIS dismissed, without costs.

Forum Insurance Company ("Forum”) commenced this action to recover monies it paid out upon its bond of individual limited partner notes payable to Trident Telecommunications Systems I, Limited Partnership ("Trident”), and pledged by Trident to WCIS as security for a loan. When, as here, the findings in a nonjury trial are based largely on uncontradicted documentary evidence, this Court is "equally empowered [as the trial court] to draw inferences and make findings of fact based upon the evidence in the record” *(Orbit Holding Corp. v Anthony Hotel Corp.,*121 AD2d 311, 315). Upon our review of the documentary and other evidence, we find, contrary to the view of trial court, that Forum’s obligations arose solely under the individual limited partner notes, and thus the fact that WCIS made an over-advance to the limited partnership did not serve to modify or terminate Forum’s obligation to make good on the individual bonds. Indeed, as was conceded by one of Forum’s witnesses on cross-examination, the advance of $116,000 extra to the Trident partnership did not affect the obligations of each of the individual investors and fell outside the scope of the individual notes. Thus, the over-advance did not impose on Forum any greater potential liability than it originally assumed. As Forum failed to meet its burden of proving an alteration or termination of its obligations as surety of the individual investors’ notes, WCIS was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the remaining *493contentions of the parties. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
### 6’73
.

‘_ ! ! ‘. . OF\‘ICEOF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 4110YllR SLLLLRS AUSTIN +rm*c* QliRlCL-

* :

# i i I

: 

# I- ! ! I

. . i.. :

. . 2’ . .

. .

.:
‘.yonorable M. H. Crunk, paSe 8

rhofollovInS his arrest Is surrendered to .the mIlIte&y authorIties; and subjected to trial by a .mIlItary court. See gctions 20 and 3o of the Texas Liquor Control Act (Arts. &XQ and 666-30, Vernonls Annotated Penal Code, Texas). -. )‘e,fInd nothIng .InconsIstent. with such practice. If the errInS aoldler Is proceeded against by the mllitarg authorItles, and resists the ens., a against him, the civilian officer OFOfPICer~Smaking the arrest and seizure vould be almost . pcceasarg witnesses, and If necessary could display to th’c nllltaiy CoLtntor authoritg the seized alcoholic’beverage in question. Amonp, other provIsIons of Section 20 of the Liquor Act, supra, IY the direction that upon aeisure by search varrant, ‘All ziti~ha.lcoholIc beverages and articles &all -be seIzed.by the officer ozecuting the varrant and ! shall not be taken .fron the custody of any officer by writ : 6f rcplevin nor eny .o.ther process, but shall be .held by such t Officer to await final jndgment In the proceedings.”

.SoctIon 30 of ‘the Act requires all contraband lIquomseized bY peace officers 07 ngonts of the Liquor Control Board (without~ or with warrant) “to be turned over to,elther

. : the sheriff of the county In vhioh such seizure is made or .to anyauthorized representative or' agent of the Board.” :. Our advise,, therefore, Is to, surrender-custody of the menIn militarY scrvIce, upon proper ahowIng and .dcmsnd aa outlined above, but to retain the IllIcIt liquor and bevery 

### agesseieed, for dIspoSItIOn as provided~by 

### ourstatutes.’

fhe foregoing Ia based upon the **csw.VptlOn tl&**  **YOU** pi, are ooncorned with Illegal transportation and possessIon,of Into&at Ing liquors by IndIvIdual soldfer 8, and -i$eoWWI~;re of such contkaband.from themby state officers. * liquor beIng.transported In a legal manner thro@ Your eoun- . ~.. ty would not be subject to selzur~, and mIlItary PersOnnel cng:agedIn such QleSa1. enterprIae ‘%ould not be subject to, .. orrest or Interference by cIvI1 authoritIeo. Inotanoes of this vould be l!~uors conaISned to the post oxchenSe Eovepmcntal a@ncy at the army **post YOU**  **rnent~0n.** ep ether See

..~._ * .:. .

. i;.. i
DANIEL KELLOND,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-700

Opinion filed December 8, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Original Jurisdiction.

Crystal McBee Frusciante, Sunrise, Florida, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order continuing his 

involuntary commitment after being found not guilty of attempted murder by reason 

of insanity. He argues that the order of commitment was facially deficient and a 

departure from the essential requirements of law because it failed to make specific 

findings that Petitioner had “a mental illness and, because of the illness, is manifestly 
2

dangerous to himself or herself or others.” § 916.15(2), Fla. Stat. (2015).1 We agree.

“[F]or commitment to be continued pursuant to section 916.15, the court must 

find that the defendant is mentally ill and is manifestly dangerous to himself or to 

others.” Woods v. State, 969 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Failure to make 

written findings relevant to this determination renders the order facially deficient, 

constituting a departure from the essential requirements of 

law. Id.; see also Wisniewski v. State, 805 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Here, the 

trial court entered a facially deficient order because it “merely made the conclusory 

finding that the petitioner ‘continues to meet the criteria for his continued 

commitment under the supervision of the Department of Children and 

Families.’” Woods, 969 So. 2d at 410.

Accordingly, we GRANT the petition, QUASH the order continuing 

commitment, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

 1 Petitioner also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the hearing. 

Because we conclude that the order is facially deficient, we express no opinion as to 

whether the evidence supported the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that Petitioner 

continued to meet the requirements for involuntary commitment. See Furqan v. 

State, 56 So. 3d 96, 96 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER TO MARCH 31,
1998 AS PRESENTED IN THE COMPANY'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR SUCH PERIOD AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0001002522
<NAME>                                APPLEWOODS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                         USD
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         118,763
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,946,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                   220,066
<INVENTORY>                                  2,684,317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,541,822
<PP&E>                                       1,308,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                 753,516
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,390,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,914,536
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         24
<COMMON>                                           847
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,284,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,390,981
<SALES>                                      7,138,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,138,191
<CGS>                                        4,581,897
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,883,785
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (16,689)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (728,905)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (728,905)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (728,905)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In re The GUARDIAN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION f/k/a Guardian Security Equipment, Inc., Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 81-01452-BKC-SMW.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S. D. Florida.

Dec. 29, 1981.

*674Richard R. Snyder, Coral Gables, Fla., for debtor.

Raymond Ray, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for creditors.

ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF EXCESS FEES RECEIVED FROM DEBTOR

SIDNEY M. WEAVER, Bankruptcy Judge.

The application of Arthur W. Burgess and John Mclssac, secured creditors, for an examination of a payment made by the debtor to Richard R. Snyder, Esquire, his attorney, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 328(a), having come before this Court upon hearing after due notice, and after hearing the evidence presented, the Court finds:

1. The debtor paid to Richard R. Snyder, Esquire, the sum of $24,000.00 for legal services to be rendered in connection with the filing of a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

2. That the total hours expended by said attorney in the representation of the debtor was extremely low in comparison to the amount of the retainer.

3. That the amount of the compensation or retainer received by the attorney for the debtor was inordinately high, in comparison to other retainers or similar size cases in the community.

4. That the amount of the compensation or retainer received by the attorney represented all of the debtor’s liquid cash as of the date of filing resulting in the debtor having insufficient cash to operate under Chapter 11. This resulted in the debtor immediately applying to the Court for use of cash collateral under 11 U.S.C. Section 363.

5. That the funds received by the attorney for the debtor were derived from the sale of the debtor’s assets which may be subject to a security interest.

6. That the reasonable compensation for the services rendered by Richard R. Snyder, Esquire, in connection with the case is $7,500.00. It is therefore

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED, that the payment made to Richard R. Snyder, Esquire, is reasonable to the extent of $7,500.00; that Richard R. Snyder, Esquire, pay to the debtor all compensation received over this amount within ten (10) days after the entry of this order.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# NRC Schedules Predecisional Enforcement Conference on TMI Plant

----

----

I-97-160 

December 18, 1997

NRC SCHEDULES PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE ON TMI PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and GPU Nuclear Corp. officials will meet on Monday, December 22, to discuss apparent violations of agency requirements at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant involving personnel errors and equipment maintenance. The facility, which is owned and operated by GPU, is located in Middletown, Pa.

The predecisional enforcement conference is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region 1 office in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public for observation.

Specifically, the issues to be discussed include:

A licensed senior reactor operator directing that a reactor coolant system fill flowpath be used to increase the fill rate, even though this was not allowed by the governing procedure. The move resulted in an uncontrolled spill of water from the control rod drive mechanism vents.

Due to a wiring error and a failure to conduct a post-maintenance test, the pressurizer power-operated relief valve was left inoperable from the time of a refueling and maintenance outage that ended in October 1995 until the most recent such outage, which began this September.

During steam generator tube inspections, contract personnel left a high-radiation area entrance unlocked.

Following work in the plant's fuel transfer canal, which is used to move fuel between the spent fuel pool and the reactor, a worker was contaminated by a radioactive particle. This apparently was caused by a failure to conduct detailed radiation surveys and to take actions to control the spread of radioactive particles.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at a later time.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### Carl Rosetti, Jr., Also Known as Carl Ranno, Appellant, v United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[632 NYS2d 355]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Inc. (USF&G). USF&G met its burden of establishing plaintiffs lack of cooperation *(see, 304 Meat Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,*188 AD2d 382). Plaintiff persistently failed to comply with the provision of the insurance policy issued to him by USF&G that required him to submit to an examination under oath and provide certain relevant documents and records. That persistent failure to comply constitutes a material breach of the policy and precludes recovery under it *(see, Johnson v Allstate Ins. Co.,*197 AD2d 672, *lv denied*82 NY2d 664; *Argento v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*184 AD2d 487, 487-488; *Azeem v Colonial*As*sur. Co.,*96 AD2d 123, *affd*62 NY2d 951). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.
No. 90-1776.

#### Chambers *v.*Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

*ante,*p. 900. Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice *1002O’Connor and Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00926]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January 
22, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has 
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings
    Consideration of amicus participation; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: January 15, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00926 Filed 1-15-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# PACAF Sends Tailored Contingent to Support Aero India 2021 

By Pacific Air Forces Public AffairsPacific Air Forces Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News/Release
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeanne Prayther, the Chief Financial Officer of Daleen Technologies, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) |  | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended September 30,
2003 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|(2) |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.                                            

Date: November 12, 2003

|                                                             |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ JEANNE PRAYTHER

Jeanne Prayther
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q and shall not be treated as having
been filed as part of the Form 10-Q.