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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

# AGENCY:

International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice; Recruitment Suspension.

# SUMMARY:

                        The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Industry and Analysis is amending a notice for the                         *Ports and Marine Technology Trade Mission to India*                         scheduled for February 2-6, 2015, published November 19, 2014, to notify potential applicants that recruitment has been suspended until further notice.                    

*Additional Information:*                         On November 19, 2014, the International Trade Administration published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         (79 FR 68862) announcing an Executive-led ports and marine technology trade mission to India to be held February 2-6, 2014. The notice provided delegates that the trade mission application deadline is extended to November 21, 2014 and to add a second optional stop to an Easter port, Visakhapatnam, India. This notice suspends recruitment for the mission until further notice.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Frank Spector, Office of Industry and Analysis, Trade Promotion Programs, Phone: 202-482-2054; Fax: 202-482-9000, Email:                         *Frank.Spector@trade.gov.*

Frank Spector,

Senior International Trade Specialist.

[FR Doc. 2015-02235 Filed 2-4-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
#### Borrelli, Administratrix, and others, Appellants, vs. Trezise and another, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Roberts, Roe ■& Boardman*of Madison.

For the respondents: *Bouck, Hilton, Kluwin & Dempsey*of Oshkosh.

*By the Court.*

— Judgment affirmed.
# C_2004271EN.01S00301.xml

| 5.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/s3

---

1 November 2004 — New version of EUR-Lex!

europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

The new site incorporates the Celex service and provides free and easy access in 20 languages to the largest documentary database on EU law.

---
### Email from CA regarding monthly inspections

From: "Laura Fisher" <lfisher@waterboards.ca.gov> To: Paul Miller/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 04/30/2010 12:20 PM Subject: Re: Question for you about monthly inspections associated with the designated operator program

Hi Paul, Good to hear from you, hope all is well. We have been told by many inspectors and various folks in the industry that the monthly inspections have increased compliance (not necessarily SOC, but the number of violations found), reduce d the frequency and duration leak detection systems are in alarm, prompted better record keeping, and overall better operations. Laura >>> <Miller.Paul@epamail.epa.gov> 04/30/10 5:40 AM >>> Laura - Happy Friday! How's it going in the great state of Ca lifornia? I've got a question about the monthly inspections CA requires that are associated with the designated operator program. Are there a ny qualitative or quantitative benefits that you are seeing from requiring these monthly inspections? Any inform ation or insight you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated! Thanks Paul
#### Fidelity Phenix Fire Insurance Company and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and another, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Bender, Trump, McIntyre & Freeman,*attorneys, and *Robert R. Freeman*and *Ronold A. Drechsler*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

' For the respondents: *John W.• Reynolds,*attorney general,' and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,601
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,612
<INVENTORY>                                     41,038
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,461
<PP&E>                                          19,017
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,049
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,592
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,236
<SALES>                                         89,416
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,416
<CGS>                                           81,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,551
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,551
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
#### John Sharp WARE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21699.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 7, 1965.

*957John Sharp Ware, pro se.

H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., George H. Du-lin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for appellee.

Before JONES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The district court denied the appellant relief in a proceeding under 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255 where it was claimed that an indictment for the sale of narcotics under 26 U.S.C.A. § 4705(a) was invalid because the name of the purchaser was not alleged. This Court, in Borroto v. United States, 5th Cir. 1964, 338 F.2d 60, held that such an averment was not required. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7050

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK STEELE DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-87-299, CA-00-3923-6-13AK) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Steele Davis, Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mark Steele Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). Davis’ case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Davis failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Davis has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 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
#### Schmaling, Administratrix, Appellant, vs. Wisconsin Michigan Power Company, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Martin & Martin*of Green Bay.

For the respondent: *Homer H. Benton*of Appleton and *Shaw, Miiskat & Paulsen*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
326007 March 6, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle

Third Court of Appeals

P. O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711

RE: No. 03-15-00121- CV ; Tom Benson v. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle :

I will be the lead counsel for the State of Texas in the above

- referenced app eal.

My mailing address is :

Travis County Attorney’s Office

P. O. Box 1748

Austin, Texas 78767

M y e

- mail address is tim.labadie@traviscountytx.gov and my State Bar No. is

11784853.

Please take notice that the State of Texas does not oppose Mr. Benson’s Motion to

Determine Proper Designation of Case and Appropriate Appellate Filing Fee, which

was filed on March 6, 2015.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Tim Labadie

Tim Labadie

Assistant Travis County Attorney

c: Mr. Tom Benson (via e.mail: tomrbenson@gmail.com) DAVID A. ESCAMILLA

COUNTY ATTORNEY

STEPHEN H. CAPELLE

FIRST ASSISTANT

JAMES W. COLLINS

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

314 W. 11 T H ST., SUITE 500

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701

P. O. BOX 1748

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767

(512) 854

- 9513

FAX: (512) 854

- 4808 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION

SHARON TALLEY , DIRECTOR

TIM LABADIE

GARY D. MARTIN

NEIL KUCERA

ANNALYNN COX

RYAN FITE

INGRID ELLERBEE ACCEPTED

03-15-00121-CV

4399793

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

3/6/2015 12:53:57 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           13,151
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                        416
<INVENTORY>                                         360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 18,104
<PP&E>                                            3,476
<DEPRECIATION>                                      978
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   29,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6,934
<BONDS>                                              19
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             23
<OTHER-SE>                                       11,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     29,696
<SALES>                                          19,493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 19,493
<CGS>                                            16,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    32,795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,827<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  565<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (15,694)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (15,694)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (15,694)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.73)


<FN>
1 Net of interest income of 745.
2 Equity in losses of unconsolidated subsidiary.
</FN>




</TABLE>
# C_2004239EN.01002303.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/23

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 6 May 2004

in Case T-34/03: André Hecq v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Staff cases - Act adversely affecting an official - Capacity to bring proceedings - Official acting personally and not on behalf of a trade union organisation - Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 239/51)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-34/03: André Hecq, a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg), represented by L. Vogel, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 4 October 2002 rejecting the complaint brought by Mr Hecq, acting both personally and in his capacity as President of the Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens, against various decisions relating to the representation of staff and the resources made available by the Commission, and for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R.Garcia-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 6 May 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.

1

---
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

# USS Ronald Reagan Earns Japan's Zenkokai Award 

By MC2 Jamal McNeill, USS Ronald Reagan Public Affairs 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# [DocumentTitle]

Accession Number: [AccessionNumber]

Date Released: [DocumentDate]

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    [PackageContents]

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS CERTIFICATION Exhibit 31.1 I, William D. Davis, certify that: 1.
I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Learning Care Group, Inc.;  2.
Based
on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this Quarterly Report;  3.
Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this Quarterly Report;  4.
The
registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Quarterly
Report is being prepared;  b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly
Report based on such evaluation; and  c)
disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting;  5.
The
registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):  a)
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and  b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  September 1, 2005  /s/
      William D. Davis 
      
      
          William D. Davis, President and
          Chief Executive Officer
#### Siefert (Harry), Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Sires, Defendant and Appellant: Western Casualty & Surety Company and another, Defendants: Gunville, Defendant and Respondent.

For the appellant: *Bender, Trump & McIntyre,*attorneys, and *David G. Owen, Jr.,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent (plaintiff) : *Bendinger & Hayes,*attorneys, and *John H. Schlosser*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent (defendant Ervie Gunville) : *Hayes & Hayes,*attorneys, and *William A. Hayes*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### Johnson, Respondent, vs. Landerud, Executor, imp., Appellant.

*November 12*

December *6, 1932.*

*673The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Clancey, Loventd & Loverud*of Stoughton, and for the respondent on that of *Gilbert, Ela, Heilman & Raeder*of Madison.

Fowler, J.

Nils O. Landerud guaranteed payment of a note secured by a mortgage on real estate. An action for foreclosure of the mortgage to which he was a party proceeded to judgment of foreclosure prior to his death. The judgment contained the usual provisions adjudging the amount due on the note, directing sale to satisfy the amount if redemption was not made within the statutory period, and directing that a judgment be entered against Nils for the deficiency if the land did not sell for enough to pay the amount adjudged due on the note. These provisions are prescribed by secs. 278.01, 278.02, 278.03, and 278.04, Stats. Before sale pursuant to the judgment, Nils died and the plaintiff moved to continue the action in the name of the executor under the statute, sec. 269.23, prescribing the proceedings to revive an action. The motion was granted. Thereafter the property was sold pursuant to the judgment but for less than the mortgage debt, and a judgment for deficiency was entered against the executor.

The executor claims that the action was not pending after Nils died and that for this reason sec. 269.23 does not apply. The contention that the action was not pending after the death of Nils is based on the fact that by the statutes governing actions for the foreclosure of mortgages the judgment contains an adjudication of liability for any deficiency arising on sale of the premises from which an appeal lies; that for this reason the judgment is a final judgment; and that an action cannot be a pending action subject to continuance under the revival statute after final judgment has been entered.

We are of opinion that the order of substitution was proper. While the foreclosure judgment was a final judg*674ment in the sense that it finally determined that Nils was liable for a deficiency judgment, the case in which it was entered was pending in the sense that proceedings were yet to be taken therein, and so pending that the name of the executor could be substituted as a party in place of that of the deceased in the subsequent proceedings. This seems to follow as matter of common sense. The precise point seems not to have been heretofore passed upon by this court and no decisions are called to our attention that seem to us to bear upon the question.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.