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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-64,838]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 9, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a state agency representative on behalf of workers of Crosby, National Swage Division, Jacksonville, Arkansas.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-7125 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Adeena WEISS-ORTIZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. C.W., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0037, 3D17-0036

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

FEBRUARY 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
| 1. | The      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                       |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | /s/ Gregory      R. Hahn              |   |
|   |   | Gregory      R. Hahn                       |   |
|   |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |   | November      13, 2008                     |   |
Lonnie HARPER v. BOISE PAPER HOLDINGS, LLC

NO. 2018-C-0024

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

Denied.
Sean BUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-0017

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed October 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2282-2283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00495]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-125, OMB Control No. 3235-0104]


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form 3.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant, to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections 
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.

[[Page 2283]]

    Exchange Act Forms 3 is filed by insiders of public companies that 
have a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange 
Act. Form 3 is an initial statement beneficial ownership of securities. 
Approximately 28,877 insiders file Form 3 annually and it takes 
approximately 0.50 hours to prepare for a total of 14,439 annual burden 
hours (0.50 hours per response x 28,877 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether these collections of 
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and 
suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi 
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email 
to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#17474556485a767e7b75786f5764727439707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aefefceff1e3cfc7c2ccc1d6eeddcbcd80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 9, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00495 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Estella WIGGINS, Appellant, v. Susan Marie POSTON and State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, Appellees.

CASE NO. 1D17-0320

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**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 Genocea Biosciences, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, Robert E. Farrell Jr, CPA, as the Vice President of Finance & Administration of the Company, do 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 the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                        | /s/   ROBERT E. FARRELL JR., CPA                                                     |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | Robert   E. Farrell, Jr, CPA**Vice President of Finance &   Administration* |
|                        |                                                                                 |
| Date:   March 21, 2014 |                                                                                 |

 

----

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

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

 

1

----
Linwood SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1655

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX-10.2(B)



 




Exhibit 10.2(b)


 Schedule identifying Split-Dollar Agreements entered into by

Non-Employee Directors of Park National Corporation and The Park National Bank,

The Richland Trust Company or The First-Knox National Bank of Mount Vernon

as identified in such Schedule, which Split-Dollar Agreements are identical to the form of

Split-Dollar Agreement, made and entered into effective as of December 28, 2007,

between one of the bank subsidiaries of Park National Corporation

(The Park National Bank, The First-Knox National Bank of Mount Vernon

or The Richland Trust Company) and a Non-Employee Director of Park National Corporation



          The following directors of Park National Corporation (“Park”) entered into Split-Dollar
Agreements (the “New Split-Dollar Agreements”) with the subsidiaries of Park identified below,
which Split-Dollar Agreements are identical to the form of Split-Dollar Agreement, made and entered
into effective as of December 28, 2007, filed as Exhibit 10.2(a) to Park’s Current Report on Form
8-K dated January 2, 2008 (File No. 1-13006):




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Date of Amended 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	and Restated Split-
	 	 	Subsidiary of Park which is a Party to	 	Date of New Split-	 	Dollar Agreement
	Name of Director	 	New Split-Dollar Agreement	 	Dollar Agreement	 	[Director Version]
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Maureen H. Buchwald
	 	The First-Knox National Bank of Mount Vernon, a national banking association	 	December 28, 2007	 	May 22, 1998
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	James J. Cullers
	 	The First-Knox National Bank of Mount Vernon, a national banking association	 	December 28, 2007	 	May 22, 1998
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	F. William Englefield IV 
	 	The Park National Bank, a national banking association	 	December 28, 2007	 	September 2, 1993
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	John J. O’Neill
	 	The Park National Bank, a national banking association	 	December 28, 2007	 	September 2, 1993
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	J. Gilbert Reese
	 	The Park National Bank, a national banking association	 	December 28, 2007	 	September 8, 1993
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Rick R. Taylor
	 	The Richland Trust Company, an Ohio banking corporation	 	December 28, 2007	 	September 29, 1993
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Leon Zazworsky
	 	The Park National Bank, a national banking association	 	December 28, 2007	 	September 3, 1993
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 7082

MARKELYN LAMONTRE JONES , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:22

- cv - 00251

- AWA

- LRL )

Submitted : March 2 8 , 2024 Decided: April 2, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Lauren Catherine Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7082 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Markelyn Lamontre Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Jones’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice o r judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez , 565 U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-7082 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Chadwick WILLACY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-1605

Supreme Court of Florida.

[January 23, 2018]

Linda McDermott of McClain and McDermott, Wilton Manners, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa Maria Lerner, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Chadwick Willacy's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Willacy's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. *See* art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Willacy's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in *Hurst v. Florida*, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in *Hurst v. State* (*Hurst* ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Willacy's appeal pending the disposition of *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided *Hitchcock*, Willacy responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Willacy's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Willacy is not entitled to relief. Willacy was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. *Willacy v. State*, 696 So.2d 693, 694 (Fla. 1997). Willacy's sentence of death became final in 1997. *Willacy v. Florida*, 522 U.S. 970, 118 S.Ct. 419, 139 L.Ed.2d 321 (1997). Thus, *Hurst* does not apply retroactively to Willacy's sentence of death. *See* *Hitchcock*, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Willacy's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Willacy, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court's opinion in *Hitchcockv. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. de* **102**nied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Hitchcock*.
CHARLESTON.

#### Jarvis *v.*Martin’s Administrator *et al.*

Submitted June 6, 1898

Decided November 26, 1898.

1. Bill in *Equity*— Denmrrer—Stale *Demand*— Dismissal.

“The defenses of the statute of limitations and laches and stale demand” being- proper grounds for demurrer, a bill setting up a stale demand, -without alleging any reasonable excuse for delay in the assertion thereof, should be dismissed for want of equity, unless properly amended, (p. 348).

2. Presumption of Payment- *-Lapse of Time*— Bill *in*Equity— *Stale Demand.*

Where the presumption of payment arises by reason of the lapse of twenty years’ time, a bill seeking enforcement of such stale demand must set up facts and circumstances sufficient to rebut such presumption, or it will be demurrable. *Jacksoti v-*Hull, 21W. Va., 601. (p. 348).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County.

Suit by Lemuel D. Jarvis against Jesse V. Martin’s administrator and others. . Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

*Reversed.*

Clifford & Sperry,^for appellants.

JohnBassel, for appellee.

Dent, Judge:

L. D. Jarvis filed a bill in chancery against Jesse V. Martin and others in the circuit court of Harrrison County, at April rules, 1894, seeking to enforce a vendor’s lien retained in a certain deed executed by Edwin Maxwell and Burton Despard, trustees, to Jesse V. Martin, bearing date *348the 4th day of March, 1871. Before appearance therein, Jesse V. Martin died, and the suit was revived ag-ainst his administrator and his devisees, some of whom were infants. By the final order it appears that Hugh Martin, a party in his own right as administrator, and Ettie Martin, the only other adult devisee, demurred to the bill, and their demurrer was overruled. They also filed a joint answer, relying on the statute of limitations, laches, and presumption of payment by reason of the lapse of upward of twenty years’ time. The note given for the purchase money had long been barred, and twenty-three years had elapsed from the date of the deed until suit was brought. This all appears on the face of the bill, and there is no reason or excuse alleged why the suit was not sooner instituted. In the case of *Thompson*v. *Iron Co.,*41 W. Va., 574, (23 S. E. 795, Syl. point 5), this Court held the settled law of this State to be that “the defenses of the statute of limitations and laches and stale demand may be made by demurrer.” Such being the case, it devolves upon the plaintiff who seeks the enforcement of a stale demand to allege such facts as will entitle him to the aid of a court of equity; otherwise, relief will be denied him. His claim, having been rendered inequitable by lapse of time, will be regarded as no claim at all, in the absence of reasonable excuse for the nonassertion thereof. *Jackson*v. *Hull,*21 W. Va. 601.

For the foregoing reasons, the decree is reversed, and the demurrer of Hugh M. Martin and Ettie Martin is sustained, and the cause is remanded, with leave to the plaintiff to amend his bill if he desires to do so; otherwise to be dismissed.

*Reversed.*
Exhibit 4(n)


 


PROTECTIVE LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY
 •  {P. O. BOX 10648  •  BIRMINGHAM, 
ALABAMA  35202-0648}


 


WAIVER OF SURRENDER CHARGE ENDORSEMENT


for Terminal Illness or Nursing Home Confinement


 


We are amending the Contract to
which this endorsement is attached by adding the following provisions:


 


Waiver of Surrender Charge -
We will waive any applicable surrender charge if, at any time after the first
Contract Year:


 


(1)                                  you
are first diagnosed as having a terminal illness by a physician that is not
related to you or the Annuitant; or,


 


(2)           you
enter, for a period of at least ninety (90) days, a facility which is both:


 


(a)           licensed
by the state; and,


 


(b)           qualified
as a skilled nursing home facility under Medicare or Medicaid.


 


The term “terminal
illness” means that you are diagnosed as having a non-correctable medical
condition that, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, will result in
your death in less than 12 months. A “physician” is a medical doctor licensed
by a state’s Board of Medical Examiners, or similar authority in the United
States, acting within the scope of his or her license. You must submit written
proof that is satisfactory to us of a terminal illness or nursing home
confinement. We reserve the right to require an examination by a physician of
our choice at our expense.


 


Once the
waiver of surrender charge has been granted no surrender charge will apply to
the Contract in the future and no additional Purchase Payments will be
accepted.


 


If any Owner
is not an individual, the Waiver of Surrender Charge provisions apply to the
Annuitant.


 


Signed for the Company and made
a part of the Contract as of the Effective Date.


 


PROTECTIVE LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE
COMPANY


 


	
  

  	
   

  
	
  {Secretary}
Harutyun HOVANNESIAN, Appellant, v. PENNYMAC CORP., Appellee.

No. 4D16-3253

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 21, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Diario Oficial C 15I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0928 |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 015I |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 64.° año14 de enero de 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0928

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 015I

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

64.° año14 de enero de 2021

---

| Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrección de errores |
| | Corrección de errores de la Declaración conjunta del Parlamento Europeo, el Consejo de la Unión Europea y la Comisión Europea — Prioridades legislativas de la UE para 2021 ( DO C 451 I de 29.12.2020 ) | 1 |
| | Corrección de errores de las Conclusiones Conjuntas del Parlamento Europeo, el Consejo de la Unión Europea y la Comisión Europea sobre los objetivos y las prioridades para el periodo 2020-2024 ( DO C 451 I de 29.12.2020 ) | 2 |

Sumario

Página

Corrección de errores

Corrección de errores de la Declaración conjunta del Parlamento Europeo, el Consejo de la Unión Europea y la Comisión Europea — Prioridades legislativas de la UE para 2021 ( DO C 451 I de 29.12.2020 )

( DO C 451 I de 29.12.2020 )

1

Corrección de errores de las Conclusiones Conjuntas del Parlamento Europeo, el Consejo de la Unión Europea y la Comisión Europea sobre los objetivos y las prioridades para el periodo 2020-2024 ( DO C 451 I de 29.12.2020 )

( DO C 451 I de 29.12.2020 )

2

---

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

Corrección de errores

| 14.1.2021 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CI 15/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2021

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CI 15/1

---

Corrección de errores de la Declaración conjunta del Parlamento Europeo, el Consejo de la Unión Europea y la Comisión Europea — Prioridades legislativas de la UE para 2021

(
  Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea C 451 I de 29 de diciembre de 2020
  )

(2021/C 15 I/01)

La publicación (2021/C 451 I/01) de la página 1 se considerará nula y sin efecto.

---

| 14.1.2021 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CI 15/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2021

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CI 15/2

---

Corrección de errores de las Conclusiones Conjuntas del Parlamento Europeo, el Consejo de la Unión Europea y la Comisión Europea sobre los objetivos y las prioridades para el periodo 2020-2024

(
  Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea C 451 I de 29 de diciembre de 2020
  )

(2021/C 15 I/02)

La publicación (2021/C 451 I/02) de la página 4 se considerará nula y sin efecto.

---