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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

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 an Open Meeting on Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

                        The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at                         *www.sec.gov.*

# STATUS:

                        The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public via webcast on the Commission's website at                         *www.sec.gov.*

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. The Commission will consider whether to propose rules and amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) for private fund advisers and whether to propose amendments to the compliance rule under the Advisers Act.

2. The Commission will consider whether to propose new rules to address cybersecurity risk management for investment advisers and investment companies as well as related amendments to certain rules regarding adviser and fund disclosures under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

3. The Commission will consider whether to propose rules and rule amendments under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to shorten the standard settlement cycle for most securities transactions. The proposed rules and rule amendments would be applicable to broker-dealers and certain clearing agencies. The Commission also will consider whether to propose rule amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require investment advisers to maintain certain related records.

4. The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to its whistleblower rules.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: February 2, 2022.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-02534 Filed 2-3-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

SHAUNA CROCKETT-JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-219

 

vs.

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(Consent Case)

Defendant.

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD 

OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”)

(DOC. 18); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $2,900.00 IN EAJA FEES

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint 

stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $2,900.00. Doc. 18. Based 

upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met for the 

reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation (doc. 18); 

and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $2,900.00. As no further matters remain 

pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/7/2019 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: 

REGINALD C. GILBERT

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00124-CR

Appeal from the

142nd Judicial District Court

of Midland County, Texas

TC # CR57648

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Reginald C. Gilbert, acting pro se, appealed the trial court’s “Order Denying Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction,” signed on June 6, 2022.1 On July 22, 2022, this 

Court received notice updating the contact and representation information for Gilbert. On 

August 31, 2022, Gilbert, through new counsel, filed his “Appellant’s Motion to Voluntarily 

Dismiss Appeal” in this Court. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.2 (governing voluntary dismissals in criminal 

cases). Gilbert and counsel both signed the written motion. See id. The motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed. 

1 This case was transferred from our sister court, the Eastland Court of Appeals, pursuant to the Texas Supreme 

Court’s docket equalization efforts. See TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Eastland 

Court of Appeals to the extent they might conflict with our own. See TEX.R.APP.P. 41.3. 
2

September 13, 2022

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Jimmy MILHOMME, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2026

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Richard SULLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3528

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1997
<CASH>                                          58,189
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,199
<INVENTORY>                                    196,559
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               266,467
<PP&E>                                         335,775
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 568,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,043
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       264,595
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   568,451
<SALES>                                        278,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               278,238
<CGS>                                          199,966
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  199,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   461
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,433
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,450
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,983
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,983
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
        

</TABLE>
#### Timothy D. KING-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lonnie MEADOWS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6341

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

*153Timothy D. King-El, Appellant Pro Se. Sonny Sade Haynes, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy D. King-El filed a notice of appeal in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action, seeking review of a decision of the district court. He failed, however, to properly “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed” as required by Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). Although he stated in his notice of appeal that he wished to appeal the district court’s order of March 13, 2017, there is no corresponding order on or near that date on the district court’s docket. In his informal brief, King-El claims he also seeks to appeal the district court’s order of January 27, 2017. Again, there is no corresponding district court order, and the docket sheet reveals that the district court has not entered any orders in King-El’s case during 2017.

Because it is impossible for us to ascertain the judgment or order that King-El wishes to appeal, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See Jackson v. Lightsey,*775 F.3d 170, 176-77 (4th Cir. 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Corey Beron MCCORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-382

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 10, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Laquann Marvelle Raphael BRIDGES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2768

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* 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. 97-40167

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARK BATTISTA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CR-59

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark A. Battista appeals his sentence in a guilty-plea

conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district

court erred in assessing a four-point enhancement to his base

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for possession of a

firearm in connection with the possession of methamphetamine.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and conclude that the district court did not err in applying 
No. 97-40167

-2-

§ 2K2.1(b)(5). See United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1197-

98 (5th Cir. 1994). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Airworthiness Directive: Boeing 747 Airplanes

Docket FAA-2014-0780; Directorate ID 2014-NM-168-AD

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION

Inquiries concerning these Comments should be addressed to:

Yvette Rose, Senior Vice President

Cargo Airline Association

1620 L Street, NW,Suite 610

Washington, DC 20036

202-293-1032

yrose@cargoair.org

January 8, 2015
BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Airworthiness Directive: Boeing 747 Airplanes

Docket FAA-2014-0780; Directorate ID 2014-NM-168-AD

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION

The Cargo Airline Association (“CAA”), on behalf of its members1 hereby requests that 

the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA” or “Agency”) grant an additional 30 days for filing 

of public comments on the above-referenced proposed Airworthiness Directive (“AD”). In 

support of this request, CAA submits the following:

The proposed AD was issued by publication in the Federal Register on December 1, 

2014, 79 Fed. Reg. 71037 (Dec. 1, 2014), and interested parties were given 45 days (until 

January 15, 2015) to submit comments. The requirements of the AD would affect cargo airlines 

that operate Boeing 747 aircraft. A majority of our members would be affected by the proposed 

requirements. 

Many of our members have been working with the National Air Carrier Association 

(“NACA”) and a group of other airlines to address the FAA’s concerns with Boeing 747 cargo 

 1 Member all-cargo airlines include Atlas Air, Inc., FedEx Express, Kalitta Air, L.L.C. and UPS Airlines.
2

aircraft equipped with main deck side cargo doors for closely over a year. However, the work is 

still ongoing and the January 15, 2015, date is simply not feasible given the complex nature of 

these issues. 

The airlines most affected by this AD would like to continue working with the agency 

and more time would allow for more meaningful input. Therefore, CAA respectfully requests 

that the deadline for comments be extended an additional 30 days to February 16, 2015. CAA 

also supports the petition submitted by NACA and Kalitta Air to this docket.

Respectfully submitted,

Yvette A. Rose, Senior Vice President 

Cargo Airline Association

1620 L Street, NW, Suite 610

Washington, DC 20036

January 8, 2015
#### Barbara Lindsey CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS BUILT BUS INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Adam Steifer; Matthew Flatlow; Vanessa, Paralegal; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Industrial Commission; Dr. Michaux Kilapatrick; North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security Adjudication Unit, Defendants.

No. 17-1296

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Barbara Lindsey Curry, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Allen Bright, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina; Brodie Davis Erwin, Kevin Scott Joyner, OGLE-' TREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*135Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Barbara Lindsey Curry appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.**Curry v. Thomas Built Bus Inc.,*No. 1:15-cv-00992-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 To the extent that Curry seeks to raise new claims on appeal related to her resignation settlement or workers compensation, she fails to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances warrant consideration of those claims. *See Pomomo v. United States,*814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016) ("Absent exceptional circumstances we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” (ellipsis omitted)).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to
(section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(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.

Dated: May 4, 2010



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ GEORGE R. AYLWARD                          
|George R. Aylward                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|                                               
|/s/ MICHAEL A. ANGERTHAL                       
|Michael A. Angerthal                           
|Chief Financial Officer
Brian K. FERRY, Sr., DOC #R24010, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4097

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Cassandra FAUFT-JOHNSON, Appellant, v. R & M RETAIL, L.P., Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2472

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Sylvia DEMETROULAKOS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jessica MCARDLE, As Personal Representative, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0442

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 THAT
     WAS FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S  REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
     ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>              0001084384
<NAME>             Staruni Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         50,589
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,359
<PP&E>                                         211
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,728
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,249,164
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,127,322)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,570
<SALES>                                        205,949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,949
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  472,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (261,456)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (261,456)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (261,456)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)




</TABLE>
Sharon Lynn FLEMING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2975

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1 – CEO Certification**

 

**HEARTLAND, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Trent Sommerville, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

By: /s/ Trent Sommerville

Trent Sommerville

Chief Executive Officer, and

Chairman of the Board

 

August 2, 2005

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Heartland, Inc., and will be retained by Heartland, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## Co
. James E. McMahon

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory DOE Workshop on Standards for Distribution Transformers November 1, 2000Excerpt from "Principles for the

r9 Analysis of Impacts on 

### Consumers "

• "The Department will use regional analysis and sensitivity analysis tools, as appropriate, to evaluate the potential distribution of impacts of candidate standards levels on consumers. The Department will consider impacts on significant segments of society in determining standards levels. Where there are significant negative impacts on identifiable subgroups, DOE will consider the efficacy of voluntary approaches as a means to achieve potential energy savings." Federal R egister Vol. 61, No. 136, 36986®7 (July 15, 1996) 2

## Previous definitio

of subgroups • RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS: in addition to the general population, impacts on two subgroups have been analyzed: - low income households (life cycle cost impacts) - elderly households (e.g., lower usage affects LCC of clothes washer and water heater standards) 

### • FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS: - No subgroups were analyzed

3

### Possible Consumer Subgroups



### `' for Distribution Transformers

• Utility-owned, non-utility-ownea transformers (different energy pricing)

• Commercial and industrial customers (different loading)

• Public housing (low income population)
Samuel AZUZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Robert Allen HINGSTON, etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1533

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 23, 2017

Upon consideration, appellant's motion to grant appellant's amended notice of appeal and add Electrical Service Group Inc. as additional appellant is hereby denied.

Following review of the response, it is ordered that appellees Robert A. Hingston, Esq. and Welbaum Guernsey's motion to dismiss appeal is granted, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.

LAGOA, SCALES and LUCK, JJ., concur.
M. R., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4083

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.