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.                  

###### Arctic Research Commission

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission will hold its 103rd meeting in Washington, District of Columbia, on March 4-5, 2015. The business sessions, open to the public, will convene at 9:00 a.m.

The Agenda items include:

(1) Call to order and approval of the agenda

(2) Approval of the minutes from the 102nd meeting

(3) Commissioners and staff reports

(4) Discussion and presentations concerning Arctic research activities.

The focus of the meeting will be on Arctic policy issues, and on programs and research projects affecting the Arctic.

If you plan to attend this meeting, please notify us via the contact information below. Any person planning to attend who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission of those needs in advance of the meeting.

Contact person for further information: John Farrell, Executive Director, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 703-306-0090.

Kathy Farrow,

Communications Specialist.

[FR Doc. 2015-02346 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit
32.2








KINDER
MORGAN MANAGEMENT, LLC


CERTIFICATION
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 on Form 10-K of Kinder Morgan Management, LLC
(the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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 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 the Company.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kinder Morgan Management, LLC and will be retained by Kinder Morgan
Management, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.








Dated:  February 28,
      2008
            
            /s/
      Kimberly A. DangKimberly
      A. Dang
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial
Officer
# C_2004235EN.01001001.xml

| 22.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/10

---

Corrigendum to the calls for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Structuring the European Research Area’

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 227 of 11 September 2004
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 227 of 11 September 2004

(2004/C 235/04)

On page 10, in Annex 1, point 5 and on page 11, in Annex II, point 55:

for:

‘2 September 2004.’,

read:

‘11 September 2004.’

---
Exhibit 99(b)

Independent Accountants' Report

The Board of Directors

Household Finance Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion that the servicing of consumer automobile finance receivables owned by Household Automotive Trust 2001-1 has been conducted by Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated February 28, 2001 (the Agreement), as supplemented, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003. Household Finance Corporation's management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.
Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting that the servicing of receivables has been conducted in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of the Agreement, as supplemented, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the servicing of the receivables has been conducted by Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated February 28, 2001, as supplemented, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003 is fairly stated, in all material respects.
This report is intended solely for the information and the use of the addressee, the trustee(s), rating agencies, and others, as applicable, in accordance with the Agreement.

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

February 28, 2004

 

Management Assertion

 

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, the servicing of consumer automobile finance receivables owned by Household Automotive Trust 2001-1 has been conducted by Household Auto Finance, a division of Household Finance Corporation, in its capacity as subservicer for Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated February 28, 2001, as supplemented.

 

 

/s/ Tim Condon 
/s/ John O'Brien
Tim Condon
John O'Brien
Chief Financial Officer -
Group Director-Asset Management-
Household Auto Finance
Household Auto Finance    
February 28, 2004
February 28, 2004
Date
Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2531

JAMES F. LAPINSKI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY;

KOONS OF TYSONS CORNER, INCORPORATED; GREGORY

D. MEADOWS; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-98-759-A)

Submitted: March 16, 1999 Decided: April 7, 1999

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James F. Lapinski, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Anthony Horvath,

TRICHILO, BANCROFT, MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS, Fairfax, Virginia;

Anthony Eugene Grimaldi, MARTELL, DONNELLY, GRIMALDI & GALLAGHER,

P.A., Fairfax, Virginia; Barry Dorans, WOLCOTT, RIVERS, WHEARY,

BASNIGHT & KELLY, P.C., Virginia Beach, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James F. Lapinski appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his claim alleging breach of contract,

negligence, intentional misconduct, failure to honor warranties,

fraud, bad faith, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968 (West

1984 & Supp. 1998). The court dismissed Lapinski’s complaint without prejudice based on lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. §

1332 (West 1993 & Supp. 1998). Although the order did not address

whether the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994),

a review of Lapinski’s complaint reveals that it fails to allege a

federal cause of action. See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473

U.S. 479, 496 (1985). “[A] plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal

of his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal

clearly indicate that ‘no amendment [in the complaint] could cure

the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Because an allegation of appropriate facts could cure the defects

in Lapinski’s complaint for which it was dismissed, we dismiss his

appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,269
<PP&E>                                       2,980,548
<DEPRECIATION>                                 351,056
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,247,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,625,283
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,215
<OTHER-SE>                                    (759,730)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,247,695
<SALES>                                          3,741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,741
<CGS>                                          430,326
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,586,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               144,198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,048
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (6,740,388)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,881,883)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (881,505)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (6,763,388)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.03)
        

</TABLE>
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2114 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to implement security measures 

in the electronic tax return filing process to prevent tax refund fraud 

from being perpetrated with electronic identity theft. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2017 

Mr. YOHO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to implement security measures in the electronic tax return filing process 

to prevent tax refund fraud from being perpetrated with 

electronic identity theft. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECURITY MEASURES IN 

4 ELECTRONIC TAX RETURN FILING PROCESS 

5 TO PREVENT TAX REFUND FRAUD. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—After the completion of the one7 year pilot program under subsection (b) and taking into 

8 account the recommendations submitted with respect to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2114 IH

1 such program, the Secretary of the Treasury shall imple2 ment security measures in the electronic tax return filing 

3 process designed to prevent tax refund fraud involving 

4 electronic identity theft. 

5 (b) PILOT PROGRAM.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treas7 ury shall establish and carry out a one-year pilot 

8 program to implement security measures in the elec9 tronic tax return filing process in select counties 

10 across the United States where tax refund fraud in11 volving electronic identity theft is most prevalent. 

12 Such measures shall include the use of security 

13 questions which allow for electronic matching of the 

14 answers to such questions to establish the identity of 

15 the taxpayer before the electronic filing of a tax re16 turn by such taxpayer. 

17 (2) RECOMMENDATIONS.—After the completion 

18 of the one-year pilot program under paragraph (1), 

19 the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit rec20 ommendations to the Committee on Ways and 

21 Means of the House of Representatives and the 

22 Committee on Finance of the Senate on how to ex23 pand the process nationwide. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2004190EN.01001902.xml

| 24.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/19

---

Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Nathalie Heinen against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-181/04)

(2004/C 190/32)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 2004 by Nathalie Heinen, residing in Ottignies (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/PB/02 not to include the applicant's name on the reserve list; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/PB/02 not to include the applicant's name on the reserve list;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant, who took the tests in internal competition COM/PB/02 to move from Category C to Category B, contests the decision of the selection board not to place her on the reserve list drawn up following that competition on the basis of the marks she was awarded in the oral test which, although higher than those required in theory, were insufficient.

In support of her claims the applicant pleads breach of the notice of competition and breach of the principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination.

In that connection the applicant explains that although the notice of competition provided that the candidates had to indicate on their application form their chosen language for the pre-selection tests and for the oral test, with the option of choosing a different language for the oral test, that decision being final, certain candidates were allowed to change language after submitting their application form, some of them on the day of the oral test itself.

---
#### Zimmermann, Trustee, and another, Respondents, vs. Walgreen Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and /. *V. Quarles*and *Arthur Wickham*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondents : *Karon & Weinberg*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

— Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
               ---------------------------------------------------

We have issued our report dated February 8, 2002 (except for Note F as to which
the date is March 1, 2002), accompanying the consolidated financial statements
included in the Annual Report of Channell Commercial Corporation on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2001. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statement of Channell Commercial
Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-36097, effective September 19, 1997).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 21, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JENNIFER SANTIAGO AND SAMUEL 

SANTIAGO,

Respondents

v.

PHILLY TRAMPOLINE PARK, LLC I/P/A 

SKY ZONE, D/B/A SKY ZONE 

TRAMPOLINE PARK D/B/A SKY ZONE 

PHILADELPHIA, SKY ZONE 

PHILADELPHIA, INC., SKY ZONE 

TRAMPOLINE PARK A/K/A SKY ZONE 

PHILADELPHIA,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 96 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioners, are:

(1) Whether the Superior Court erred in finding that the arbitration provision set 

forth in the Participation Agreement signed by Respondent Mother Jennifer 

Santiago (“Respondent Mother”) is unenforceable as to the claims of 

Respondent Father Samuel R. Santiago (“Respondent Father”), where 

Respondent Mother was acting as the Respondent Father’s agent to the 

extent the Participation Agreement related to the Plaintiff Minor Isabella 

Santiago’s (“Respondent Minor”) use of Petitioners’ trampoline park.

(2) Whether the Superior Court erred in finding that the arbitration provision set 

forth in the Participation Agreement signed by Respondent Mother is 

unenforceable as to the claims of Respondent Minor, such that Respondent 

Minor may now disavow this arbitration provision and bring her claims—
[96 EAL 2023] - 2

which fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration provision—before a 

court of law.

The Application for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae filed by Get Air Management, 

Inc., the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ 

Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business, Inc. is also 

GRANTED.
#### Syring, Appellant, vs. Fishbeck and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Cannon &. Waldron*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Fishbeck:. *Lines, Spooner & Quarles*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Schmidt: *Shaw, Muskat & Sullivan*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACINTO JUAN CARHUAZ

RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74048

Agency No. A099-340-903

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Jacinto Juan Carhuaz Rodriguez, native and citizen of Peru, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

FILED

SEP 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74048

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual

findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), and we deny the

petition for review.

Carhuaz does not raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding the

agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum claim was time-barred. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

supported by argument are deemed waived).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal

because Carhuaz failed to demonstrate that an imputed political opinion was a

central reason the Shining Path mistreated him in the past or would harm him in

the future. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009)

(“The Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’

for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483 (a

petitioner must “establish that the record . . . compels the conclusion he has a

‘well-founded fear’ that the guerillas will persecute him because of that political

opinion, rather than because of his refusal to fight with them”) (emphasis in

original).
3 07-74048

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Carhuaz has not established it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with

the acquiescence of the Peruvian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d

1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2004228EN.01001802.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/18

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 27 May 2004

in Case C-517/03: IAMA Consulting Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Action before the Court of First Instance - Counterclaim - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

(2004/C 228/35)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-517/03: IAMA Consulting Srl, established in Milan (Italy) (lawyer: V. Salvatore) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. de March, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — Counterclaim submitted by the Commission of the European Communities to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities seeking repayment of financial assistance paid in the context of the REGIS 22337 and Refiag 23200 projects, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), M. Ilešic et E. Levits, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an Order on 27 May 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| (1) | The case is referred back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The case is referred back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

| (2) | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF OFFICERS

OF AML COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 1350

 

 

 

 

Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of the undersignedofficers of AML Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(a)          The quarterly report on Form10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 of the Company fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(b)          Information contained insuch Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated:  November 14, 2005

 

 
| /S/: Jacob Inbar        |
|-------------------------|
| By: Jacob Inbar,        |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----