alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12515]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
[Delegation Order No. 175 (Rev. 3)]


Delegation of Authority

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Delegation of authority.

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

SUMMARY: The authority to determine that a plan amendment is reasonable 
and provides for only de minimis increases in the liabilities of the 
plan in accordance with section 412(f)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue 
Code (Code) and section 304(b)(2)(A) of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has already been delegated to the 
Director, Employee Plans Division, with authority to redelegate. There 
is now delegated to the Director, Employee Plans Division, the 
additional authority to determine that a plan amendment is reasonable 
and provides for only de minimis increases in the liabilities of the 
plan in accordance with section 401(a)(3-3)(B)(ii) of the Code and 
section 204(i)(2)(A) of ERISA, with authority to redelegate, but not 
below Branch Chiefs, Employee Plans Division.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John H. Turner, CP:E:EP:P:2, Room 
6702, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, (202) 622-
6214 (not a toll-free number).
    Effective Date: May 19, 1995, Authority to Determine if Plan 
Amendment is Reasonable and Has De Minimis Effect on Plan Liability in 
Accordance with Section 412(f)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
(Code) and Section 304(b)(2)(A) of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act (ERISA), or Section 401(a)(33)(B)(ii) of the Code and 
Section 204(i)(2)(A) of ERISA.
    Pursuant to authority vested in the Commissioner of Internal 
Revenue by Treasury Department Order 150-10, there is hereby delegated 
to the Director, Employee Plans Division, the authority to determine 
that a plan amendment is reasonable and provides for only de minimis 
increases in the liabilities of the plan in accordance with section 
412(f)(2)(A) of the Code and section 304(b)(2)(A) of ERISA or in 
accordance with section 401(a)(33)(B)(ii) of the Code and section 
204(i)(2)(A) of ERISA.
    The authority delegated herein may be redelegated, but not below 
Branch Chiefs, Employee Plans Division.
    To the extent that the authority previously exercised consistent 
with this Order may require ratification, it is hereby affirmed and 
ratified.
    Delegation Order No. 175 (Rev. 2), effective October 31, 1987, is 
superseded.

    Dated: April 13, 1995.
Phil Brand,
Chief Compliance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12515 Filed 5-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Agreement, effective January 1,2004



 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 December 31, 2003 
  

Mr. Alan B. Miller 
 President 
 UHS of Delaware, Inc. 
 367 South Gulph Road 
 King of Prussia, PA 19406 
  
 Dear Alan: 
  
 The Board of
Trustees of Universal Health Realty Income Trust, at their December 1, 2003 meeting, authorized the renewal of the current Advisory Agreement between the Trust and UHS of Delaware, Inc. (“Agreement”) upon the same terms and conditions.

  
 This letter constitutes the Trust’s offer to renew the
Agreement, until December 31, 2004, upon the same terms and conditions. Please acknowledge UHS of Delaware’s acceptance of this offer by signing in the space provided below and returning one copy of this letter to me. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  
 Charles F. Boyle 
 Vice President, 
 Chief Financial Officer and 
 Controller 
  

	 	cc:	 	Warren J. Nimetz, Esq. 

 Cheryl K. Ramagano 
  
 Agreed to and Accepted: 
  
 UHS OF DELAWARE, INC. 
  

			
		
	 By:
	 	

	 	 	Alan B. Miller, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            5
<LEGEND>
                                    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
                                    FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
                                    THE UNAUDITED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL
                                    STATEMENTS OF NIAGARA CORPORATION AND
                                    SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                    SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
                                    ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                                    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                 2,400,089
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          51,484,973
<ALLOWANCES>                           1,119,000
<INVENTORY>                            59,879,372
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       117,188,579
<PP&E>                                 125,232,347
<DEPRECIATION>                         26,570,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         219,390,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  66,500,497
<BONDS>                                78,576,882
<COMMON>                               9,998
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             58,019,278
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           219,390,416
<SALES>                                247,881,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       247,881,641
<CGS>                                  212,319,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          212,319,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       22,425,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     5,612,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        7,669,876
<INCOME-TAX>                           2,900,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    4,769,876
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           4,769,876
<EPS-BASIC>                            .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .55


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 27597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12822]



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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

``FEDERAL REGISTER'' CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: [60 FR 26481, 
May 17, 1995].

STATUS: Open Meeting.

PLACE: 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

DATE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED: May 17, 1995.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Deletion.
    The following item will not be considered at an open meeting 
scheduled for Friday, May 19, 1995, at 11:00 a.m.

    Whether to propose amendments to the all-holder's/best price 
provisions of: (i) Rule 13e-4; and (ii) 14d-10 to prohibit a tender 
offeror from paying a soliciting dealer fee to a security holder 
with respect to any tender by that holder for its own account.

    Commissioner Wallman, as duty officer, determined that Commission 
business required the above change and that no earlier notice thereof 
was possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact: The Office of the Secretary (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: May 18, 1995.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12822 Filed 5-22-95; 9:12 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

STEVE PRUITT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-1215-TS

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Steve Pruitt, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition [ECF No. 1] attempting to

challenge the result of a parole revocation hearing that was held on October 7, 2013, at the

Reception and Diagnostic Center. He argues that it was wrong for the Indiana Parole Board to

have not promptly held a hearing in Lucas County, Ohio, when he was arrested and detained

there. However, before the court can consider a habeas corpus petition challenging a state

proceeding, the petitioner must have previously presented his claims to the state courts. “This

means that the petitioner must raise the issue at each and every level in the state court system,

including levels at which review is discretionary rather than mandatory.” Lewis v. Sternes, 390

F.3d 1019, 1025–26 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)). 

There are two possible methods for challenging a parole revocation in Indiana: by filing a

post-conviction relief petition, Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), or by

filing a state habeas corpus petition if the inmate is seeking immediate release. Lawson v. State,

845 N.E.2d 185, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Furthermore, if a state habeas corpus petition is

improperly filed, it will be converted to a post-conviction petition. Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d

740, 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); Ward v. Ind. Parole Bd., 805 N.E.2d 893 (2004). Here, Pruitt says

that he has not presented his claims to any state court in any proceeding. Therefore he has not

case 3:13-cv-01215-TLS document 3 filed 11/26/13 page 1 of 2
exhausted his state court remedies and this case must be dismissed without prejudice so that he

can exhaust these claims in the state courts. If, after he has ultimately presented his claims to the

Indiana Supreme Court, he has not yet obtained relief, then he may return to federal court and

file a new habeas corpus petition. 

For the foregoing reasons, this federal habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. 

SO ORDERED on November 26, 2013.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

2

case 3:13-cv-01215-TLS document 3 filed 11/26/13 page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS  I, Patricia Cooke,
certify that:  1. I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Asia
Atlantic Resources;  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 officer(s) 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 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; and  (c) Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal year (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; and  5. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 functions):  (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: August 6,
2009   /s/
Patricia Cooke_______________ Patricia
Cooke Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    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;
and(d)
    
    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 (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; and
  (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.
  /s/ Steven J. MalcolmSteven J. MalcolmChief Executive Officer of Williams Pipeline GP LLC,
general partner of Williams Pipeline Partners L.P.
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Leroy Thomas, Respondent, v Elgate Realty Corp., Appellant. —

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dorothy E. Kent, J.), entered on January 4,1984, unanimously reversed, *603on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and a new trial ordered solely on the issue of damages, unless the plaintiff, within 20 days after service upon his attorney of a copy of the order to be entered herein, serves and files in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in his favor to $75,000 less 10% (being the percentage apportioned by the jury attributable to plaintiff’s negligence) and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiff so stipulates, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

After review of the record, the damages appear to us to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Carro and Milonas, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27984-27985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12799]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development
[Docket No. N-95-1917; FR-3778-N-38]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: For further information, contact David Pollack, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7254, 451 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TDD number for the 
hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers 
are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 
1-800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the [[Page 27985]] Homeless V. 
Veterans Administration, No 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a 
Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, 
excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has 
reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice 
is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have 
been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

Correction

     The Navy Family Housing in Chicopee, Massachusetts, water and 
electrical services, will be inoperable once the military vacates the 
property. A substantial and costly utility systems modifications will 
be necessary. These properties appeared in the May 19, 1995 Federal 
Register.

    Dated: May 19, 1995.
Jacquie M. Lawing,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development.
[FR Doc. 95-12799 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1285 

To amend the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999 to remove 

the limitation for nonimmigrant classification for nurses in health professional shortage areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2005 

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

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act 

of 1999 to remove the limitation for nonimmigrant classification for nurses in health professional shortage areas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF LIMITATION FOR NON4 IMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION FOR NURSES IN 

5 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREAS. 

6 Section 2(e) of the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged 

7 Areas Act of 1999 (Public Law 106–95; 113 Stat. 1317) 

8 is repealed. 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JESSE McNEELEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1702 RM

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Jesse McNeeley, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended habeas corpus petition trying

to challenge a prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 12-12-395) that was held on January 17,

2013, where the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of possessing a

controlled substance in violation of B-202 and deprived of 90 days earned credit time and

demoted him to Credit Class 2. In McNeeley v. Superintendent, 3:13-CV-401 (N.D. Ind.

filed May 13, 2013), Mr. McNeeley challenged the same prison disciplinary hearing that he

is challenging in this petition. That habeas corpus petition was dismissed with prejudice

on January 28, 2014. This is a successive habeas corpus petition. 

This court doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear an unauthorized successive habeas

corpus petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). Regardless of whether the

claims that are asserted now are new or whether they were presented in his previous

petition, this petition must be dismissed because it hasn’t been authorized by the Seventh

Circuit. “A district court must dismiss a second or successive petition . . . unless the court
of appeals has given approval for its filing.” Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th

Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original). 

For the forgoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: August 25 , 2014

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United State District Court

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-5-TLS 

)

CHARLEY J. GONZALEZ, IV )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 40], filed on June 9, 2015. The Defendant has waived objection to 

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and 

Recommendation [ECF No. 40] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject 

to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 2 of the Indictment is hereby 

accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on June 24, 2015.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
食物傳播疾病可妥善預防

我和我的寶寶 Manuel 同時發燒並有腹瀉 我必須去上班,不然就有可能丟了此份工 我當時真的很希望可以留在家中好好照顧 Manuel,

症狀,我也整晚熬夜照顧寶寶,隔天我仍 作。 上班時心中總是牽掛著他。

計畫如常上班。

Mary 正與她的父親一同享用午餐。 麵包相當美味,但 Mary 殊不知吃下 隔天,由我服務的幾位客戶抱怨回家後身體感

肚的還有其他的東西。 到不適,有嘔吐與腹瀉的症狀。

而 Mary 由於天生免疫系統脆弱,病況相當 幾天後 Mary 需仰賴生命維持系統維持生 我沒有想到我會因此危害他人健康,現在卻有

嚴重。 命,25 名客戶則有嘔吐與腹瀉等生體不適的 人由於我手上的病菌可能丟掉生命。

症狀。餐廳因此歇業,而我也失去了工作。

為維護大眾健康,請適時確實洗手。請勿赤手碰觸即食食物。
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWMBS, INC.
                     CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2007-16
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-16


     The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i)  A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) 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 respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                         Dated: March 14, 2008
----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
Lazaro LOPEZ-POMPA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9465.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

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