alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12525]



[[Page 27281]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. CP95-495-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

May 17, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 12, 1995, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT), 1600 Smith Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. 
CP95-495-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.211 and 216 of 
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.211 and 216) for authorization to abandon, replace, and relocate 
certain facilities on Line 3, 4-H, and 4-14 under NGT's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-384-000, et al., pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Specifically, NGT proposes to:
    (1) Abandon twenty eight 1-inch rural domestic taps on Lines 3 and 
4-H and to install three taps on Line 4-1-4 at a construction cost of 
$4,454;
    (2) Abandon the Hunter Town Border Station on Line 3 and relocate 
it on Line 4-14 at a construction cost of $28,540;
    (3) Abandon and relocate the Garber Regulator Station on Line 4-A 
at a construction cost of $17,673; and
    (4) Abandon the Pond Creek Regulator Station on Line 4-1-4 and 
replace and relocate it on Line 4-B (Extension) at a construction cost 
of $14,672.
    Arkla will reimburse NGT for the costs associated with the taps to 
be installed on Line 4-1-4.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12525 Filed 5-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1


                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


         I, Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Chief Executive Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

              (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
              for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report")
              fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
              applicable, 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.

                                                    PHOTOMEDEX, INC.


Dated: August 9, 2004
                                                    By: /s/ Jeffrey F. O'Donnell
                                                        ------------------------
                                                    Jeffrey F. O'Donnell
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

         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 PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by
PhotoMedex, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1513 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1513

  To exempt from the Freedom of Information Act certain photographic 
 images of deceased persons that are taken by or for medical examiners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2005

Mr. Frelinghuysen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To exempt from the Freedom of Information Act certain photographic 
 images of deceased persons that are taken by or for medical examiners.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF CERTAIN 
              PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES OF DECEASED PERSONS TAKEN BY OR FOR 
              MEDICAL EXAMINERS.

    Section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; or''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
            ``(10) copies, reproductions, or facsimiles of any 
        photograph, negative, or print, including instant photographs 
        and videotapes, of the body, or any portion of the body, of a 
        deceased person, taken by or for a medical examiner at the 
        scene of the person's death or in the course of a post mortem 
        examination or autopsy of the person made by or caused to be 
        made by a medical examiner.''.
                                 <all>
```
1

The Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2863

___________

William J. Politt, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Arkansas

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 26, 2004

Filed: June 8, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Politt appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Western District of Arkansas affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny

Politt’s application for supplemental security income benefits. For reversal, Politt

argues the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in not considering his impairments

in combination, in discounting his subjective complaints, in not developing the record
-2-

further as to his past relevant work (PRW) and mental impairments, and in

determining his residual functional capacity (RFC). For the reasons discussed below,

we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. See

Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466, 468 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). The ALJ

summarized the medical evidence and specifically determined that Politt’s

impairments--alone or combined--did not meet the listing-level requirements. See

Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994). In rejecting Politt’s subjective

complaints, the ALJ appropriately considered Politt’s daily activities, and noted that

medication had helped with Politt’s depression and anxiety and that Politt had failed

to seek medical treatment after May 2001. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th

Cir. 2000) (if adequately explained and supported, credibility findings are for ALJ to

make). The ALJ did not need to develop the record further as to Politt’s PRW once

the ALJ determined that Politt could not return to it, and the ALJ followed the proper

procedure in evaluating Politt’s mental impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a

(2004). Finally, we have found nothing in the record to contradict the ALJ’s RFC

finding. 

Politt raises additional points in his brief. We find them to be meritless and

affirm without further discussion. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
#### PIRL v. CARY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

May 9, 1912.)

Biles and Notes (§ 396*)—Liability of Indorsee—Notice of Nonpayment-Accommodation Indorsement.

Where an indorsee filed an affidavit, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 923, averring want of notice of nonpayment, and showed that the notice was insufficient, and that the note was indorsed by him for the accommodation of plaintiff, there could be no recovery against the indorsee.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 1022-1028; Dec. Dig. § 396.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.

Action by Franz Pirl against Arthur L,. Cary. From a judgment of the Municipal Court for plaintiff, after a trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued April term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and GERARD, JJ.

*1037Mark H. Ellison, of New York City, for appellant.

Charles G. Wheeler, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes-

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover the amount of a promissory note made by one Weisman and indorsed by the defendant. The defendant filed an affidavit pursuant to section 923 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The evidence offered to show that notice of the nonpayment and protest of the note was given to the defendant was insufficient. We think, also, that the evidence established that the note was indorsed by the defendant for the accommodation of the plaintiff, so as to enable him to get it discounted at the bank, and that the conclusion of the learned court below that the defendant indorsed the note to induce the plaintiff to advance money to the maker is not sustained by the evidence.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ Tee Kai Shen                                               |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Tee Kai Shen                                                         |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  November 3, 2010                                                     |
AURORA LOAN SERVICES *A Lehman Brothers Company*Depositor:  Structured Asset Securities Corporation 745 Seventh Avenue 8th Floor New York, NY 10019 Trustee:   U.S. Bank National Association  One Federal Street 3rd Floor  Boston, MA 02110 Securities Administrator: Subject: Annual Officer's Certification Fiscal Year:  2007 Securitization:  SARM 2007-8 I, E. Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan Services LLC (the "Master Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar Year 2007: 1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period beginning on the cut-off date and ending on December 31, 2007 (the "reporting period") and of its performance under  the Agreement for such period has been made under my supervision. 2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material aspects throughout such reporting period. Certified by: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC By: /s/ E. Todd Whittemore Name: E. Todd Whittemore Title: Executive Vice President
Brett David BORG, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA.

No. 12-6314.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 27, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Restaurant Properties I;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and 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 report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 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 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; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial
reporting.
 Date: November 14, 2005
    
    /s/ Robert J. TerranoRobert J. TerranoExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

CHARLES F. SCHROCK, o/b/o 

ROBERT E. SCHROCK, deceased 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 3:14-CV-1528 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

Now before the Court is the Commissioner’s motion to vacate and remand this case for 

further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). [DE 22]. Plaintiff has not 

responded to the motion, and his time to do so has lapsed. In addition, although the conclusion of 

Plaintiff’s opening brief asks the Court to award benefits, the body of his brief only argues that 

remand is required. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion to remand as 

unopposed. 

It is hereby ORDERED that this case be remanded to the Agency pursuant to the fourth 

sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings and that judgment be entered pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. On remand, the Appeals Council will send the claim to an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) for a hearing and decision regarding Plaintiff’s claim of 

disability. The ALJ will, inter alia, (1) reevaluate the claimant’s mental impairments and 

limitations associated therewith, particularly with respect to the claimant’s difficulties with social 

functioning; (2) reassess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and provide a nexus between 

the medical evidence and the limitations found therein; (3) obtain supplemental vocational expert 

testimony regarding the claimant’s ability to perform past relevant work or, alternatively, work 
2 

that exists in significant numbers in the national economy and ensure that the vocational expert 

testimony does not conflict with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles in accordance with Social 

Security Ruling 00-4p; and (4) resolve any conflicting testimony from the vocational expert 

related to the limitations outlined in the hypothetical questions. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: January 7, 2015 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
David Lee SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF COLORADO.

No. 12-8939.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13113]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94-152; RM-8565]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Bells, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Thomas S. Desmond, allots 
Channel 225A to Bells, Texas, as the community's first local FM 
service. See 59 FR 66884, December 28, 1994. Channel 225A can be 
allotted to Bells in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance 
separation requirements without the imposition of a site restriction, 
at coordinates 33-36-37 North Latitude and 96-24-38 West Longitude. 
With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective July 10, 1995. The window period for filing 
applications will open on July 10, 1995, and close on August 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 94-152, adopted May 17, 1995, and 
released May 24, 1995. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 
20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, 
as amended.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is 
amended by adding Bells, Channel 225A.

    Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-13113 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

DENISE L. LYONS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 1:14-cv-376

)

ARMAND E. JACKO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION and ORDER

This case was filed in this Court on November 26, 2014, based on diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 1.) The complaint alleges that at all material times

Plaintiff Denise Lyons was a citizen of Michigan and that Defendant Armand Jacko was a citizen

of Michigan. The complaint, however, fails to adequately articulate the citizenship of the other

six Defendants.

For Defendants Now Delivery LLC, Now Delivery, Now Delivery of Grand Rapids LLC,

and Now Delivery Trucking LLC, the complaint recites that each Defendant “is a Michigan

limited liability company with its principal place of business in the State of Michigan, City of

Grand Rapids.” (Compl. ¶¶ 4-7.) But this information is irrelevant for determining the

citizenship of an LLC for diversity jurisdiction. “[T]he citizenship of a limited liability company

[‘LLC’] for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v.

Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, citizenship for each of these entities

must be “traced through multiple levels” of its members, as anything less can result in a

dismissal or remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock &

Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). 
And as to Defendant Now Delivery and Logistics LLC, the complaint recites that it is “a

Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Michigan, City of Grand

Rapids.” (Compl. ¶ 3.) But this Defendant’s name includes “LLC,” suggesting that it is, in fact,

a LLC rather than a corporation. If so, then the citizenship of its members needs to be traced

through multiple levels. See id. 

Finally, the complaint alleges that Defendant The Hartford Insurance Company “is a

company doing business in Lexington, Kentucky.” (Compl. ¶ 8.) This recitation is also

inadequate, as it fails to identify whether this Defendant is a corporation or LLC. And in either

event, where the entity “do[es] business” is irrelevant. If Hartford is an LLC, then as explained

earlier, the citizenship of each of its members must be alleged. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co.,

364 F.3d at 861. But if Hartford is a corporation, the complaint must recite its state of

incorporation and state in which its principal place of business is located, as corporations “are

deemed to be citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and the state in which they have

their principal place of business.” N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 594 (7th Cir.

1990); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before December 15,

2014, by filing an amended complaint that properly recites each Defendant’s citizenship.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 1st day of December 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2