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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-52-2020]

      ( print page 38010)    
                    In response to a request from Hexcel Corporation, the FTZ Board is inviting public comment on the rebuttal submission of Teijin Carbon Fibers, Inc. (TCF) (dated July 1, 2021) pursuant to 15 CFR 400.32(c)(2). The rebuttal submission was presented in the context of the FTZ Board's consideration of the pending application, as amended, requesting certain authority for TCF to produce polyacrylonitrile-based carbon fiber at its facility in Greenwood, South Carolina. In response to this invitation for public comment, parties may also address argument or evidence presented in the application and in other parties' direct and rebuttal comment submissions in earlier comment periods in this proceeding.[1]                                          The application and parties' submissions may be viewed in the Online FTZ Information System on the FTZ Board's website (accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz*).                

                    Public comment is invited from interested parties. The closing period for their receipt is August 18, 2021. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 2, 2021. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:                     *ftz@trade.gov.*

                    For further information, contact Diane Finver at                     *Diane.Finver@trade.gov*                     or (202) 482-1367.                

Dated: July 14, 2021.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             85 FR 49359, August 13, 2020; 85 FR 81875, December 17, 2020; 86 FR 23672, May 4, 2021.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2021-15266 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  Apr-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                          16,087
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   17,241
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     19,956
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                54,484
<PP&E>                          24,227
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  78,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           34,788
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        13
<OTHER-SE>                      21,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    78,711
<SALES>                         24,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                24,524
<CGS>                           17,758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   17,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                3,311
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 3,162
<INCOME-TAX>                    522
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1,403
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    1,403
<EPS-BASIC>                   0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.11



</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 99.10
                            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 Colmena Corp.  (the  "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended  September 30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam C. Wasserman,
Chief Financial Officer and Controller 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 fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Adam C. Wasserman
Adam C. Wasserman
Chief Financial Officer and Controller
December 30, 2002
#### Edward Deshan SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Anna KLEINSCHMIDT, Pharmacist; John Pritt, Pharmacist; Elizabeth McEwen, Pharmacy Technician; Brookshire Brothers, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-50472

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 15, 2011.

Edward Deshan Smith, Dime Box, TX, pro se.

*251Before KING, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice the claims of plaintiff — appellant against defendants— appellees Anna Kleinschmidt, John Pritt, Elizabeth McEwen, and Brookshire Brothers is affirmed for the reason stated in the district court’s May 16, 2011 Order and Memorandum Opinion.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Melissa Vega, Respondent, v MTA Bus Company et al., Appellants.

[946 NYS2d 162]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered October 11, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the grounds of lack of negligence and failure to establish a serious injury under the permanent loss, permanent consequential and significant limitation categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that defendant bus driver acted reasonably in an emergency situation not of his own making and thus was not negligent *(see Caristo v Sanzone,*96 NY2d 172, 174 [2001]; *Rahimi v Manhattan & Bronx Surface*
      *507
      *Tr. Operating Auth.,*43 AD3d 802, 803 [2007]). Indeed, the bus driver testified that the bus was crossing an intersection when a car, traveling in the opposite direction, crossed over the double yellow lines and cut in front of the bus in order to make a left turn, forcing the bus driver to apply the brakes. Plaintiff’s testimony that the bus driver was “speeding” was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alston v American Tr., Inc.,*82 AD3d 546, 547 [2011]).

Defendants also made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) by submitting expert medical reports finding normal ranges of motion in the claimed affected body parts and no objective evidence that any limitations resulted from the accident *(see Spencer v Golden Eagle, Inc.,*82 AD3d 589, 590 [2011]). The finding of a minor limitation in plaintiffs lumbar spine by one of defendants’ physicians was “insignificant for purposes of Insurance Law § 5102 (d)” *(Rosa-Diaz v Maria Auto Corp.,*79 AD3d 463, 464 [2010]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, since she did not submit any objective evidence of limitations based on a recent examination of any of the subject body parts *(see Shu Chi Lam v Wang Dong,*84 AD3d 515, 516 [2011]; *Townes v Harlem Group, Inc.,*82 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]). The most current medical evidence upon which plaintiff relied was the affirmed report of one of her treating physicians, outlining treatment she received in 2007, nearly three years before defendants’ experts’ findings of full range of motion *(see Zambrana v Timothy,*95 AD3d 422 [2012]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15714]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB258]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Mackerel, Squid, 
and Butterfish (MSB) Committee and MSB Advisory Panel will hold a joint 
public meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday, August 6, 2021, from 9 a.m. 
to 2 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar. Webinar connection, 
agenda items, and any additional information will be available at 
www.mafmc.org/council-events.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N 
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; 
www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is for the MSB 
Committee and MSB Advisory Panel to provide recommendations regarding 
Atlantic mackerel, potentially including: 2021/22 emergency action, 
future specifications, and/or rebuilding plan modifications and 
options.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Kathy Collins at the Council Office, (302) 526-
5253, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 20, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15714 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
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 Part 15
          - [ET Docket Nos. 20-36; Report No. 3178; FRS 37546]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Petition for reconsideration.

# SUMMARY:

Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Catherine Wang, on behalf of Shure Incorporated.

# DATES:

Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 9, 2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 17, 2021.

# ADDRESSES:

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

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hugh VanTuyl, Office of Engineering and Technology Bureau, (202) 418-7506 or *Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3178, released July 7, 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:* Unlicensed White Space Device Operations in the Television Bands, FCC 20-156, published at 86 FR 11490, February 25, 2021, in ET Docket No. 20-36. 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.

Katura Jackson,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2021-15641 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### CHARLES HOHL, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. TOWNSHIP OF READINGTON, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

June 2, 1960.

*Mr. Edward Marshall*and *Mr. Leonard Adler*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Wharton, Stewart & Davis*for the respondent.

Denied.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 29, 2021.

# PLACE:

The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

                        In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.sec.gov*.                    

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

Resolution of litigation claims; and

Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: July 22, 2021.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-15936 Filed 7-22-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
No. 12422 

IN THE SUPKEME COUKT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1973 

JUMPING IIALNBO3 IUNCH, 

A Montana corporation, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

RLCHARD J. CONKLIN and 

MRS. RICHARD J . CONKLIN , his wife et al, 

Defendants and Appellants. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, 

Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellants : 

Richard J. Conklin argued, White Sulphur Springs, 

Montana. 

For Respondent : 

Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana. 

Ronald K. Olson argued, Bozeman, Montana. 

Arnold Huppert, Jr., Livingston, Montana. 

Submitted: March 28, 1973 

Decided : MAY - 2 1973 

File,: MRY -2 1973 
Honorable Edward T. Dussault, district judge, sitting in place 

of Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison. 

This is an appeal from an order in a quiet title action 

extending a temporary restraining order or injunction, restraining the county assessor of Park County from assessing certain 

lands located in said county and being claimed by appellants 

Conklin and Orser. 

The district court extended the injunction order for 90 

days on October 2, 1972. 

This appeal must be dismissed for two reasons: 

The question of the extension of the restraining order 

or injunction became moot prior to the date of the hearing on 

this appeal. From the order itself it appears that the extension expired on January 3, 1973. 

Secondly, the notice of appeal filed October 30, 1972 

reveals only an appeal on behalf of defendants Conklin and Orser 

and not the Park County assessor, Homer K. Langley, the real 

party in interest. 

No showing was made that the Park County attorney represented the county assessor at any stage of the proceedings thus 

far in district court or that the county assessor has ever 

authorized appellant's attorney to represent him in any part of 

the proceeding in district court on this appeal. 

In Wilson v. State Highway Comm'n, 140 Mont. 253, 257, 

370 P.2d 486, this Court said: 

" * * * This court has power, sua sponte, to dismiss any appeal which does not present an actual 

justiciable controversy. Gill v. Liquor Control 

Board, 133 Mont. 505, 326 P.2d 974." Olsen v. 

United Benefit Life Ins. Co. 150 Mont. 147, 432 

P.2d 381. 

The appeal is dismissed and the matter is remanded to 

the district court for trial on the merits. 
Hon. Edward T. Dussault, district 

judge, sitting in place of Mr. Chief 

Justice James T. Harrison. 

We concur: 

/ Associate Justices /
#### Raquel McMahon, Respondent, v Morgan McMahon, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 558]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated February 17, 2011, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for an award of pendente lite relief directing him (1) to pay the plaintiff maintenance in the sum of $26,000 per year, child support in the sum of $28,920 per year, and arrears on those awards retroactive to November 8, 2010, (2) to maintain life insurance payments, (3) to pay 84% of unreimbursed medical expenses and copays for the children, and (4) to pay interim counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires” *(Malik v Malik,*66 AD3d 968, 968 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Conyea v Conyea,*81 AD3d 869 [2011]; *Avello v Avello,*72 AD3d 850 [2010]; *Nealis v Nealis,*71 AD3d 851 [2010]; *Maksoud v Maksoud,*71 AD3d 643 [2010]). Any perceived inequities in pendente lite support can best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties’ financial circumstances can be fully explored *(see Avello v Avello,*72 AD3d 850 [2010]; *Levy v Levy,*72 AD3d 651 [2010]; *Nealis v Nealis,*71 AD3d 851 [2010]; *Maksoud v Maksoud,*71 AD3d 643 [2010]; *Swickle v Swickle,*47 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]).

The defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating exigent circumstances so as to warrant modification of the pendente lite award. Accordingly, the award will not be disturbed. Rivera, J.E, Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.