alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3882-3883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1326]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,367]


National Medical Care, Medical Products Division, a/k/a Erika of 
Texas, McAllen, Texas; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance applicable to all workers of the 
subject firm.
    The certification notice was issued on December 10, 1994 and will 
soon be published in the Federal Register.
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The investigation 
findings show many of the 

[[Page 3883]]
workers of the Medical Products Division of National Medical Care has 
wages reported under Erika of Texas; consequently, their unemployment 
insurance (UI) taxes were paid to Erika of Texas.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-30,367 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of National Medical Care, Medical Products 
Division, also known as (a/k/a) Erika of Texas, McAllen, Texas who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
September 19, 1993 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Section 223 of Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 4th day of January 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-1326 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

VITALIY KURNOSKIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-406

)

REINHART TRANSPORTATION LLC, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was filed in this Court on December 29, 2014, based on diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 1.) The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Vitaliy

Kurnoskin is a citizen of Florida. (Compl. ¶ 1.) As to Defendants, the complaint alleges that

Defendant Craig Riemersma is a citizen of Illinois and that “Defendant Reinhart Transportation,

LLC, is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business located at 1504 St. James

Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin, 54602.” (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) 

But Defendant Reinhart Transportation, LLC, presents by name as a limited liability

company, not a corporation. For purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, a limited

liability company’s citizenship is different than that of a corporation. Thomas v. Guardsmark,

LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). 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). 

Conversely, a limited liability company’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is

the citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). 

Therefore, if Defendant Reinhart Transportation, LLC, is a limited liability company as
its name reflects, the Court must be advised of the citizenship of all its members to ensure that

none of the members share a common citizenship with Plaintiff. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell,

439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006). Moreover, citizenship must be “traced through multiple

levels” for those members of Reinhart Transportation, LLC, who are a partnership or a limited

liability company, 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). 

Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file on or before January 20, 2015, an amended

complaint that properly recites each party’s citizenship, tracing it through all applicable layers of

ownership.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 5th day of January 2015.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

STEVEN LUGO, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case. No. 2:13-cv-00203-RL-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Relief

from Judgment Under Rule 60(b). (DE #25.) 

On December 2, 2014, in accordance with Seventh Circuit Rule 57 and pursuant to the

Commissioner’s request, the Court reviewed the record and agreed with the parties that further

administrative proceedings were warranted. The Court indicated that it was inclined to grant the

relief sought by the Commissioner if the case was remanded by the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for purposes of modifying the judgment. On February 20, 2015,

a mandate was issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, remanding

the case to this Court pursuant to Circuit Rule 57 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

12.1(b). 

Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED

and this case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). Upon remand, the Administrative Law

Judge shall update the record, including evidence relating to Plaintiff’s mental impairment;
reevaluate the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairment pursuant to the special technique;

reevaluate the medical opinions of record and explain the weight given to this evidence; consider

the reasons why Plaintiff did not seek treatment; reassess Plaintiff’s maximum residual

functional capacity, particularly his reaching and handling limitations; and, if necessary, obtain

supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations

on the occupational base.

Entered this 3nd day of April, 2015.

s/ Rudy Lozano 

Rudy Lozano

United States District Judge

2
EXHIBIT 32.1 PHARMOS CORPORATION
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION In connection
with the quarterly report of PHARMOS CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, ROBERT F. JOHNSTON,
Executive Chairman (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated. This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Date: August
 7, 2008By: /s/
 Robert F. Johnston A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Pharmos Corporation and will be retained
by Pharmos Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. 28
---

March 30, 2012

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | ----------------------------------------------
|    |                                               
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                    
|    |                                               
|    | Consent of Expert                             

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2011, (the Annual Report)
to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the SEC).

I, Marinus Andre de Ruijter, P.Eng., hereby consent to the use
of my name in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of
the following technical report (the "Technical Report"):

- Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska dated
  February 17, 2011

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Reports in the Annual Report.

Yours truly,

Original document signed by Marinus Andre de Ruijter

|                                
|--------------------------------
|Marinus Andre de Ruijter, P.Eng.
|                                
|Wardrop, a Tetra Tech Company   

---
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Ubiquitech Software Corporation(the
      Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended herein as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I. Brian Sobnosky, Chief
      Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 fully presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations or the Company.





Dated:
      November 28, 2007








By:
            /s/ Brian
                SobnoskyBrian
                Sobnosky
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              Chief
                Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT        32.2 **

**CERTIFICATION        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO **

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

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

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

|   | /s/                  Anthony R.                  Maresca                |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Anthony                  R. Maresca                                                                                                                |
|   | Chief                  Executive Officer                                                                                                           |
|   | October                  16, 2006                                                                                                                  |
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3273-000]

Chittenden Falls Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of Authorization for 
Continued Project Operation

    On May 31, 2019, Chittenden Falls Hydropower, Inc., licensee for 
the Chittenden Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 3273, filed an 
Application for a Subsequent License pursuant to the Federal Power Act 
(FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Chittenden Falls 
Hydroelectric Project is located on Kinderhook Creek, near the Town of 
Stockport, Columbia County, New York.
    The license for Project No. 3273 was issued for a period ending May 
31, 2021. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires 
the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from 
year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms 
and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or 
the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any 
other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license 
waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on 
section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and 
as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has 
filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 3273 is issued to 
Chittenden Falls Hydropower, Inc, for a period effective June 1, 2021 
through May 31, 2022 or until the issuance of a new license for the 
project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If 
issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on 
or before May 31, 2022, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 
16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Chittenden Falls Hydropower, Inc. is authorized to 
continue operation of the Chittenden Falls Hydroelectric Project, until 
such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent 
license.

    Dated: June 10, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12649 Filed 6-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Reef Oil & Gas Income and Development Fund III, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel C. Sibley, principal financial officer of Reef Oil & Gas Income and Development Fund III, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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 Partnership.

 
| Date:  April 15, 2011 |                                                                    |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | /s/   Daniel C. Sibley                                                  |
|                       | Daniel   C. Sibley                                                      |
|                       | Chief   Financial Officer and General Counsel of Reef Exploration, L.P. |
|                       | (P*rincipal Financial and Accounting Officer*)                          |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

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

 

1

----
Hilda ESPINOSA, petitioner, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION.

No. 13-5354.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                      SCHEDULE TO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT



     The following is a list of the current directors and executive officers of
Antigenics who are party to an Indemnification Agreement, the form of which was
filed as Exhibit 10.4 to our registration statement on Form S-1 (File No.
333-91747):

Garo H. Armen, Ph.D.
Pramod K. Srivastava, Ph.D.
Jeff D. Clark
Russell H. Herndon
Neal Gordon, Ph.D.
Renu Gupta
Noubar Afeyan, Ph.D.
Frank V, AtLee III
Gamil G. de Chadarevian
Tom Dechaene
Margaret Eisen
Wadih Jordan
Mark Kessel
#### MILES v. BARTON. DOBYNS v. COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. BAUCHELLE v. ROTHSCHILD. HYLAND v. WOODBURY INST. BRYANT v. CARR. HORSFORD v. MANVILLE. HOROWITZ v. BROADS MFG. CO. DEMPSEY v. RUTLAND MARBLE CO. HIRSCHFIELD v. HANLEY & CO. KEAR v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO. RICHTER v. COLON. ALTHAUSE v. BANKERS’ TRUST CO. DAMSKY v. WELTFISCH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Actions by Herbert L. Miles against James Barton, by Robert A. Dobyns against the Commonwealth Trust Company, by William M. Bauchelle against Jacob Rothschild, by Mary E. Hyland against the Wood-bury Institution, by J. Wilson Bryant against Austin Carr, by Elizabeth A. Horsford against Hiram E. Manville, by Morris Horowitz against the Broads Manufacturing Company, by John M. Dempsey against the Rutland Marble Company, by Morris Hirschfield against Hanley & Company, by Henry Kear against the New York City Railway Company, by John Richter against George Colon, by Walter Althause against the Bankers’ Trust Company, and by Annie Damsky against Abraham S. Weltfisch.

No opinions. Applications in each case denied, with $10 costs. Orders signed.
Exhibit 32.2

                         CHIMERA INVESTMENT CORPORATION
                           1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
                                   SUITE 2902
                            NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036


                                  CERTIFICATION


                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

                     SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 10 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Chimera Investment
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2007 to be filed,
I, A. Alexandra Denahan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, 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
     at the dates of, and for the periods covered by, the Report.

It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


                            /s/ A. Alexandra Denahan
                            ------------------------
                            A. Alexandra Denahan
                            Chief Financial Officer
                            February 29, 2008
Rasheen JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6934.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
case 1:13-cv-00279-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 09/04/13 page 1 of 3
case 1:13-cv-00279-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 09/04/13 page 2 of 3
case 1:13-cv-00279-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 09/04/13 page 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.28.1 (12/31/2014)




Exhibit 10.28.1
Third Point Reinsurance Ltd.
Schedule of Signatories to the Director and Officer Indemnification Agreement


John R. Berger
J. Robert Bredahl
Nicholas Campbell
Christopher S. Coleman
Christopher L. Collins
Steve Elliot Fass
Rafe de la Gueronniere
Manoj K. Gupta
Mary R. Hennessy
Daniel V. Malloy
Tonya L. Marshall
Neil McConachie
Jonathan Norton
Mark Parkin
William L. Spiegel
Joshua L. Targoff
Anthony Urban
Thomas Wafer
Gary D. Walters
EXHIBIT 32.1
 WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (i)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: August 6, 2010
    /s/ Henri CourpronHENRI COURPRONDated: August 6, 2010
    /s/ Frederick S. CromerFREDERICK S. CROMER -67-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAMIANE HARRIS, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 NO. 2:15CR90-PPS

OPINION AND ORDER

On October 4, 2016, I sentenced Damiane Harris to 24 months’ imprisonment on

the charge of interstate transportation of stolen property, which he had pled guilty to

on July 5, 2016. [DE 33, 21.] Harris did not appeal the sentence, and has not previously

challenged it in any way, but now has filed a motion asking me to amend the judgment

nunc pro tunc to provide that the prison term should run concurrent with sentences later

imposed in other cases that were pending against Harris at that time. [DE 36.]

Despite Harris’s suggestion that an agreement to concurrent sentences was part

of the “plea deal” in this case [DE 36 at 2], the parties’ plea agreement [DE 19] makes no

reference to concurrent sentences. And contrary to Harris’s assertions about what took

place at the sentencing hearing [DE 36 at 2], there was no agreement by the government

on the record to concurrent sentencing. Even more significantly, I reject Harris’s

contention that during the sentencing hearing I “acknowledged and stated in open

court that the (24) twenty four month sentence would be ran concurrent with any other

pending case....” [DE 36 at 2.] The transcript of the sentencing hearing indicates that
defense counsel made a request that I impose the sentence in this case to run concurrent

to any sentences yet to be imposed in two then-pending Illinois cases. [DE 37 at 19.] 

But I clearly stated on the record that I declined to make Harris’s federal sentence

concurrent, explaining that I would leave that determination up to the Illinois judge

who might impose a sentence on Harris in the future. [DE 37 at 34-35.] 

ACCORDINGLY:

Damiane Harris’s Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Amendment [DE 36] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 21, 2019.

 /s/ Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2