alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74
          - [MB Docket No. 20-74, GN Docket No. 16-142; Report No. 3177; FRS 37431]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Petition for Reconsideration.

# SUMMARY:

Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Paul Margie, Paul Caritj, and Jason Neal, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, on behalf of Microsoft Corporation.

# DATES:

Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 3, 2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 13, 2021.

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ty Bream, Media Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, (202) 418-0644 or                         *ty.bream@fcc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3177, released June 23, 2021. The full text of the Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:                     *http://apps.fcc.gov/​ecfs/​.*                     The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.                

*Subject:*                     Rules Governing the Use of Distributed Transmission System Technologies; Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, FCC 21-21, 86 FR 21217, released January 19, 2021, MB Docket No. 20-74; GN Docket No. 16-142. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e).                     *See also*47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).                

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     1.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021-15077 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### Greenpoint Mortgage Corp. et al., Respondents, v Mary M. Lamberti, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[941 NYS2d 864]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Mary M. Lamberti appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated October 13, 2010, which, inter alia, denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of standing and granted that branch of the motion of Plaza Equities, LLC, which was, in effect, to be added as a party plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in determining that Plaza Equities, LLC, the assignee of the subject note and mortgage, should be added as a party plaintiff to this foreclosure action *(see Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v SimonErdan,*67 AD3d 750, 751 [2009]; *Central Fed. Sav. v 405*W. *45th St.,*242 AD2d 512 [1997]; *Signature Bank v 1775 E. 17th St., LLC,*32 Misc 3d 1240[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51645[U] [2011]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit or refer to matter dehors the record *(see Matter of Ross v Ross,*90 AD3d 669 [2011]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### SIRE v. BROWNING.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 15, 1912.)

Action by Meyer L. Sire against Edward F. Browning. No opinion. Motion granted. Time to serve papers on appeal extended until April 1st. Settle order on notice. See, also, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1151; infra.
# C_2020161EN.01001402.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/14

---

Appeal brought on 24 July 2019 by EMB Consulting SE against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 May 2019 in Case T-107/17, Frank Steinhoff and Others v European Central Bank

(Case C-571/19 P)

(2020/C 161/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: EMB Consulting SE (represented by: O. Hoepner and D. Unrau, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Frank Steinhoff, Ewald Filbry, Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG, Werner Bäcker, European Central Bank

By order of 12 March 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
Exhibit 32.3

THANKSGIVING COFFEE COMPANY, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 for the periods presented
therein.
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Sam KraynekChief Financial Officer March 31,
2009
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ARACELI NAVA A/K/A ARACELI 

MARRUFO-NAVA,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00226-CR

Appeal from the

346th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20140D01257)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s fifth motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until March 13, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Ruben P. Morales, the Appellant’s attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 13, 2015.

If the Appellant’s brief is not filed with this Court by March 13, 2015, this Court will 

find it necessary to send this case back to the trial court for a hearing as to why the Appellant’s

brief has not been filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of March, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
#### In re Sohail CHAUDHRY, Petitioner.

No. 11-2781.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. July 28, 2011.

Filed: Aug. 9, 2011.

Sohail Chaudhry, Seagoville, TX, pro se.

Jenny R. Kramer, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Respondent.

Faith S. Hochberg, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, for Nominal Respondent.

Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Sohail Chaudhry filed this pro se mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking an order that the United States District Court of New Jersey be compelled to rule on his pending § 2255 motion. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition without prejudice.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of circumstances. *See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,*418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.2005). A mandamus petitioner must establish that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the requested relief, and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. *Madden v. Myers,*102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996).

As a general rule, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is within its discretion. *See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig.,*685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir.1982). Indeed, given the discretionary nature of docket management, there can be no “clear and indisputable” right to have the district court handle a case on its docket in a certain manner. *See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 36, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Nonetheless, mandamus may be warranted where a district court’s delay “is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” *See Madden,*102 F.3d at 79.

This case, however, does not present such a situation. Chaudhry filed his § 2255 motion in June 2010. Through April 2011, the District Court has routinely exercised jurisdiction by ruling on various procedural motions filed by Chaudhry. The complained-of three-month delay in the disposition of Chaudhry’s § 2255 motion “does not yet rise to the level of a denial of due process.” *Id.*

Accordingly, we will deny Chaudhry’s mandamus petition without prejudice.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3337

_____________________________
J AMES B ROWN ,
Petitioner
,

v.

F LORIDA C OMMISSION ON O FFENDER R EVIEW , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction.

March 9 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

R OWE , R AY , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 James Brown, pro se
, Petitioner

. Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
#### Joanne Noel Higgins, Respondent, v West 50th St. Associates, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[942 NYS2d 83]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered August 11, 2011, which awarded plaintiff damages for past and future pain and suffering in the respective principal amounts of $1,500,000 and $1,000,000; awarded plaintiff damages for past and future lost earnings in the respective amounts of $129,004 and $2,000,000; and awarded plaintiff damages for past and future medical expenses in the respective amounts of $14,000 and $2,113,559, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the award for future lost earnings to $1,500,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 22, 2011, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Sufficient evidence of constructive notice was adduced at trial to support the jury’s finding of liability against defendants. It was uncontested that the roof drain did not have a strainer cover, as required by New York City Building Code Reference Standard RS 16 § PI 10.9 (Adminstrative Code of City of NY, tit 27, ch 1, Appendix), and plaintiff’s expert testified that the absence of the cover caused the roof drain to become clogged. It was also uncontested that the clog resulted in the water flowing down the stairs, causing plaintiff to slip and fall. Since defendants’ porter admitted knowing that the roof drain did not have a strainer cover, defendants were on notice of the defect which was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s accident *(cf. Avila v Rahman NY,*275 AD2d 271, 272 [2000]).

Nor were there errors at trial warranting vacatur of the verdict and remand for a new trial. No evidence was adduced that juror number 5 could not “communicate in . . . English” (Judiciary Law § 510 [4]), and it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to release another impaneled juror due to financial hardship *(see*CPLR 4106; *Holmes v Weissman,*251 AD2d 1078 [1998]), or to permit plaintiff to call a number of lay witnesses to testify concerning the impact of the accident upon *523her life. While plaintiff counsel’s reference to Social Security disability in her opening statement was improper, it did not require a mistrial, as the court’s curative instruction was sufficient (see *e.g. Smith v Vohrer,*62 AD3d 528 [2009]).

We reduce plaintiffs award for future earnings, as indicated, to conform to the evidence. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 32 Misc 3d 1203(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 51157(U).]
Motion Granted; Order filed October 17, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00272-CV

____________

BENJAMIN K. SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR 

SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT4, ASSET-BACKED 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT4, HOMEWARD 

RESIDENTIAL, INC. F/K/A AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE 

SERVICING, INC., AND REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC., 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-06133

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed June 20, 2013. On October 4, 2013, appellant 

filed a motion to correct the clerk’s record and extend time to file his appellate 

brief. According to appellant’s motion, the record does not contain:
a. Doc. 51211456 – Proposed Temporary Restraining Order and Order Setting 

Temporary Injunction Hearing

b. Doc. 54144012 – Notice of Submission

c. Doc. 54144013 – Proposed Order

d. Doc. 54166295 – Notice of Submission on Defendant Real Time Resolutions, 

Inc.’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment

e. Doc. 54166296 – Proposed Order

f. Doc. 54166300 – Notice of Submission

g. Doc. 54268254 – Proposed Order Setting Hearing

h. Doc. 54264023 – Plaintiffs’ Notice of Change of Telephone & Facsimile 

Numbers

i. Doc. 54281698 – Plaintiffs’ Verified Opposed First Motion for Continuance

j. Doc. 54281699 – Plaintiffs’ Verified Opposed Motion to Strike Deemed 

Admissions

k. Doc. 54281700 – Exhibit A – Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ First Request 

for Admissions

l. Doc. 54281752 – Proposed Order Granting Continuance

m.Doc. 54281701 – Proposed Order Striking Deemed Admissions

n. Doc. 54477966 – Order Signed Denying Continuance

o. Doc. 54905419 – Notice of Hearing on Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for New Trial

p. Doc. 55106115 – Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Sanctions against Defendant 

Real Time Resolutions, Inc. and its Counsel Anthony Petrocchi

q. Doc. 55106116 – Exhibit A

r. Doc. 55106117 – Exhibit B

s. Doc. 55106118 – Exhibit C
t. Doc. 55106119 – Exhibit D

u. Doc. 55070772 – Notice of Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Request for Sanctions

v. Doc. 55097429 – Notice of Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Verified Motion for Sanctions 

against Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. and its Counsel Anthony Petrocchi

w. Doc. 55099482 – Rule 11 Agreement

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before November 14, 2013, containing the above-listed items.

If the omitted items are not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed 

to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the 

omitted item is not a part of the case file. Appellant’s brief is due 30 days after the 

supplemental clerk’s record is filed.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 31.1



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



I, L. Don Stricklin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Texas United
Bancshares, Inc.;



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 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



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: March 30, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/     L. Don Stricklin             
|L. Don Stricklin                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ike Rayeford WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6364.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Ike Rayeford Williams, Appellant pro se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

*974Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ike Rayeford Williams appeals the district court’s order granting relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. *United States v. Williams,*No. 1:98-cr00101-NCT-3 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 2011). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
# C_2020247EN.01001002.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Oosterbosch v Parliament

(Case T-131/19) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Remuneration - Shiftwork allowance - Article 56a of the Staff Regulations - Legal certainty - Principle of legality - Concept of night work)

(2020/C 247/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marc Oosterbosch (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Windisch and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicant’s salary statements for the months of March, April and June 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Mr Marc Oosterbosch to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Marc Oosterbosch to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---