alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13135]


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

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION


Announcement of OMB Approvals of Information Collections

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of OMB approval.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved a 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) information collection 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This notice lists the approved 
information collection and provides its OMB control number and current 
expiration date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Rifkin 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#790b101f12101757141c15100a0a1839091b1e1a571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="582a313e33313676353d34312b2b3918283a3f3b763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>), Attorney, Regulatory Affairs Division, 
Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 
1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-229-6563. TTY users 
may call the Federal Relay Service toll-free at 800-877-8339 and ask to 
be connected to 202-229-6563.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations require 
Federal agencies, after receiving OMB approval of information 
collections, to display OMB control numbers and inform respondents of 
their legal significance. In accordance with those requirements, PBGC 
hereby notifies the public that the following information collection, 
that is contained in PBGC's regulations and does not have a 
corresponding form, has been approved by OMB.
    <bullet> OMB Control Number 1212-0065 Disclosure of Information in 
Distress and PBGC-Initiated Terminations. The expiration date for this 
information collection contained in 29 CFR parts 4041 and 4042 is April 
30, 2024.
    The PRA provides that 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 OMB control number. Publication of 
this notice satisfies this requirement with respect to the above- 
listed information collections, as provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2)(ii).

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Hilary Duke,
Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2021-13135 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Henry Paul RICHARDSON, aka Packer, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7104.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13083]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-43-012]


ANR Pipeline Co., In FERC Gas Tariff

May 23, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 18, 1995, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, required by the 
Commission to be effective March 1, 1995:

Third Revised Sheet No. 176
Third Revised Sheet No. 187
First Revised Sheet No. 187.1
Original Sheet No. 187.2

    ANR states that the above-referenced tariff sheets are being filed 
in compliance with the Commission's May 3, 1995, ``Order on Compliance 
Filing'' in Docket No. RP94-43-011.
    ANR states that all of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 
No. 1 customers and interested State Commissions have been mailed a 
copy of this filing.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426 in accordance with rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such 
protests should be filed on or before May 31, 1995. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this application are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-13083 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

RAY A. JACKSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:15-cv-00279-PPS-SLC 

)

CK PRODUCTS, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is a motion for leave to amend answer (DE 22) filed by Defendant CK

Products, LLC, on February 23, 2016, seeking to amend its answer to add the after-acquired

evidence doctrine as an affirmative defense. Plaintiff Ray A. Jackson has not filed a response to

the motion, and his time to do so has now passed.

The deadline for any amendments to the pleadings by CK Products passed on January 7,

2016. (DE 16; DE 19). A party seeking to amend a pleading after the date specified in a

scheduling order must show “good cause” for the amendment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16(b)(4). See Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 719-20 (7th Cir. 2011)

(collecting cases). To show good cause, CK Products asserts that it very recently uncovered

evidence that Jackson purportedly “misrepresented both his criminal history and his work

history” from his application with CK Products. (DE 22 at 1). Specifically, CK Products states

that it learned of the alleged discrepancy after receiving Jackson’s answers to its Second Set of

Interrogatories on February 12, 2016. (DE 22 at 1). 

“[T]he decision to grant or deny a motion to file an amended pleading is a matter purely

within the sound discretion of the district court.” Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th Cir.

2008) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). “The court ‘should freely give leave when
justice so requires.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)); see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S 178,

182 (1962). “Although the rule reflects a liberal attitude towards the amendment of pleadings,

courts in their sound discretion may deny a proposed amendment if the moving party has unduly

delayed in filing the motion, if the opposing party would suffer undue prejudice, or if the

pleading is futile.” Soltys, 520 F.3d at 743 (citation omitted); see Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.

Here, as stated above, Jackson did not respond to the motion to amend. Thus, he does not

suggest that CK Products unduly delayed in filing the motion, that he would suffer undue

prejudice, or that the proposed amendment is futile. Accordingly, because CK Products has

shown good cause for the belated amendment, and because the Court should “freely give leave

when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), CK Products’s motion to amend its answer

(DE 22) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to show CK Products’s Second Amended

Answer (DE 22-1) filed. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated this 15th day of March 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00084-TLS-SLC   document 4   filed 02/11/15   page 1 of 6

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00084-TLS-SLC   document 4   filed 02/11/15   page 2 of 6

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00084-TLS-SLC   document 4   filed 02/11/15   page 3 of 6

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00084-TLS-SLC   document 4   filed 02/11/15   page 4 of 6

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00084-TLS-SLC   document 4   filed 02/11/15   page 5 of 6

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00084-TLS-SLC   document 4   filed 02/11/15   page 6 of 6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FIRST QUARTER 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       8,714,529
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,394,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     48,569,109
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (34,261,615)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,394,392
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,959
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,062
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             963,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,023,056)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,023,056)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,023,056)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (19.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (19.85)
        

</TABLE>
[No. 39173-9-I.

Division One.

September 15, 1997.]

#### Eric Treuter, *Respondent,*v. Barbara Jean Christopherson, *as Personal Representative, Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-2-14567-1, Nicole MacInnes, J., entered August 8, 1996. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Kennedy, A.C.J., concurred in by Coleman and Becker, JJ.
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

The undersigned, theChief Financial Officer of ChinaEdu Corporation (the “Company”), herebycertifies that, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,to her knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(c)                                                          the Form 20-F of the Company for theyear ended December 31, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(d)                                                         the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  Lily Liu            |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Lily  Liu                |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | June 30,  2009      |

 

----
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 1 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 1 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 2 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 2 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 3 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 3 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 4 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 4 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 5 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 5 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 6 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 6 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 7 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 7 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 8 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 8 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 9 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 9 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 10 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 10 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 11 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 11 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 12 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 12 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 13 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 13 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 14 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 14 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 15 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 15 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 16 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 16 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 17 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 17 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 18 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 18 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 19 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1 filed 07/30/12 page 19 of 19
case 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC document 2 filed 05/22/13 page 20 of 20 case 1:12-cv-00263-PPS-RBC document 1-1 filed 07/30/12 page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.3

Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I William F. Weissman, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Rubicon Technology, Inc.; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: April 29, 2016 |  | By: |  | /s/ William F. Weissman              
|                     |  |     |  | William F. Weissman                  
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

WATERFURNACE INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

B&S SHEET METAL MECHANICAL, 

INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

Case No. 1:15-CV-008 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

Now before the Court is Plaintiff WaterFurnace International, Inc.’s motion for attorney’s 

fees, expenses, and costs. [DE 20]. The Court previously granted a motion for default judgment 

as to defendants B&S Sheet Metal Mechanical, Inc.; B&S Sheet Metal Mechanical, Inc. d/b/a 

Jackson Geothermal HVAC and Drilling, LLC; and Jackson Geothermal HVAC and Drilling, 

LLC (the “entity defendants”), but denied the motion as to two individual defendants. In that 

order, the Court detailed the damages to be awarded pursuant to the default judgment, save for 

the amount of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, which WaterFurnace had not quantified in its 

motion for default judgment. WaterFurnace has now submitted those amounts and supported 

them with affidavits and billing records, and the defendants have not responded. 

As discussed in the previous order, attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses are awardable in 

this action because the contract upon which the action is based specifically provides for the 

recovery of such amounts incurred in collection of past due accounts. Stewart v. TT Commercial 

One, LLC, 911 N.E.2d 51, 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). WaterFurnace seeks a total award of 

$7,541.17 on this basis, which includes $3,178.50 in attorney fees for services provided by 

attorney Richard DeLaney (16.3 hours at $195.00 per hour); $3,510.00 in attorney fees for 
2 

services provided by attorney Adrian L. Halverstadt III (23.4 hours at $150.00 per hour); 

$520.00 in fees for services provided by a private process server; $151.67 for postage, copies, 

long-distance calls, and mileage; and $181 in court costs to initiate this matter in state court. The 

affidavits and billing records corroborate that those fees and costs were actually incurred, and the 

Court finds the amounts are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion [DE 20] 

and will award those additional amounts as part of the default judgment against the entity 

defendants. 

Finally, the Court again notes that the default judgment only resolves the claims against 

the entity defendants; this action remains pending as to the claims against the individuals. 

WaterFurnace has not moved for entry of a partial final judgment as to the entity defendants 

under Rule 54(b), nor has it taken any action relative to the individual defendants since the denial 

of the motion for default judgment as to those defendants. Accordingly, WaterFurnace is 

ORDERED to file a status report by no later than January 4, 2016 in which it indicates whether it 

intends to proceed with the claims that remain at issue in this case. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: December 1, 2015 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

DONNA MCKEE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO: 1:15-cv-00358-RLM-SLC

)

WALMART, INC., )

)

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, sued as Walmart, Inc., removed this case here

based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (DE 1). The notice of removal

reflects that Plaintiff is a citizen of Indiana. (DE 1 at ¶ 3). The notice further alleges that the

partners of Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, are WSE Management, LLC, and WSE Investment, LLC,

whose sole member is Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC. (DE 1 at ¶ 2). In addition, the notice alleges

that the parent company of Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC, is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and that the

principal place of business for all of the Wal-Mart entities is in Arkansas. (DE 1 at ¶ 2). 

Defendant’s allegations with respect to its own citizenship, however, are incomplete. 

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) (emphasis added) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). Here, Defendant’s

notice of removal does not identify the state in which Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is incorporated.

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to file an amended petition for removal on or
before December 16, 2015, that properly alleges its citizenship.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 2nd day of December 2015.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge 

2
#### Rodney Victor HARRIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SHERIFF OF GILES COUNTY; Sheriff's Dept. Personnel; Sheriff's Deputies of Giles County, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-7879.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 23, 2004.

Decided May 11, 2004.

Rodney Victor Harris, Appellant pro se. Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., Guynn, Memmer & Dillon, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

*885Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Victor Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss as to several of the claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint but denying the motion as to other claims. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Harris seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Harris’s motion for a continuance, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*