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 Deposit Insurance Corporation

# TIME AND DATE: 

10:17 a.m. on Tuesday, July 20, 2021.

# PLACE: 

The meeting was held via video conference on the internet.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Martin J. Gruenberg, seconded by Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Director David Uejio (Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Jelena McWilliams, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Debra A. Decker, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.

Dated this the 20th day of July, 2021.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

James P. Sheesley,

Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-15729 Filed 7-20-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Metallurg, Inc. ("Metallurg"),
hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 ("Form 10-Q"),
filed concurrently herewith by Metallurg, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Metallurg.


Date: November 10, 2003

                                      /s/ Barry C. Nuss
                              -----------------------------------
                              Barry C. Nuss
                              Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
RESTATED PRIOR PERIOD FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK
SPLIT EFFECTED FEBRUARY 26, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          17,928
<SECURITIES>                                    79,516
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,542
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,018
<PP&E>                                          13,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,694
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,585
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,968
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  67
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,775
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,263
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,512
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,512
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 160 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 160

   Designating May 6, 2011, as ``Military Spouse Appreciation Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2011

 Mr. Burr (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mrs. Boxer) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Designating May 6, 2011, as ``Military Spouse Appreciation Day''.

Whereas the month of May marks ``National Military Appreciation Month'';
Whereas military spouses provide vital support to men and women in the Armed 
        Forces and help to make the service of such men and women in the Armed 
        Forces possible;
Whereas military spouses have been separated from loved ones because of 
        deployment in support of overseas contingency operations and other 
        military missions carried out by the Armed Forces;
Whereas the establishment of ``Military Spouse Appreciation Day'' is an 
        appropriate way to honor the spouses of members of the Armed Forces; and
Whereas May 6, 2011, would be an appropriate date to establish as ``Military 
        Spouse Appreciation Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates May 6, 2011, as ``Military Spouse 
        Appreciation Day'';
            (2) honors and recognizes the contributions made by spouses 
        of members of the Armed Forces; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        ``Military Spouse Appreciation Day'' to promote awareness of 
        the contributions of spouses of members of the Armed Forces and 
        the importance of the role of military spouses in the lives of 
        members of the Armed Forces and veterans.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019263EN.01007201.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/72

---

Action brought on 24 June 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)

(Case T-376/19)

(2019/C 263/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Big Bang, trgovina in storitve, d.o.o. (Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY — Application for registration No 15 879 323

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 in Case R 1684/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Uphold the present action for annulment and, accordingly, annul the contested decision, which dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division (opposition B 2 840 414) by which EU trade mark No 15 879 323 was refused only in respect of the goods and services in the Classes to which the opposition related (7, 9, 11, 16, 35 and 42) with the exception of the following goods in Class 7 which are also granted: ‘machine coupling and transmission components (except for land vehicles); agricultural implements other than hand-operated; incubators for eggs; automatic vending machines’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the present action for annulment and, accordingly, annul the contested decision, which dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division (opposition B 2 840 414) by which EU trade mark No 15 879 323 was refused only in respect of the goods and services in the Classes to which the opposition related (7, 9, 11, 16, 35 and 42) with the exception of the following goods in Class 7 which are also granted: ‘machine coupling and transmission components (except for land vehicles); agricultural implements other than hand-operated; incubators for eggs; automatic vending machines’; and

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Steven A. McLEOD, Appellant v. H. Marshall JARRETT, Director, et al., Appellees.

No. 11-5176.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 2, 2011.

Steven A. McLeod, Perry, FL, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: GARLAND, BROWN, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed May 24, 2011, and June 29, 2011, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined that the adjudication of appellant’s 2006 Freedom of Information Act complaint bars this new action, which arises from the same nucleus of facts. *See Drake v. FAA,*291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C.Cir.2002). Appellant provides no support for his allegation that the government committed fraud in the 2006 Freedom of Information Act litigation. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for leave to file supplemental exhibits or in failing sua sponte to construe those exhibits as amendments to the complaint. *Cf. Firestone v. Firestone.*76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
# C_2020027EN.01007202.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/72

---

Order of the General Court of 26 November 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other)

(Case T-290/19) (1)

(2020/C 27/74)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TIMOTHY PHIPPS, SR.,

Appellant,

v.

ALITA DAVIS,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1431

[May 18, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

St. Lucie County; Michael C. Heisey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562017DR003222.

Timothy Clate Phipps I, Fredericksburg, Virginia, pro se.

No brief filed on behalf of appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Joseph Horman, Appellant, v Town of Kent et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from water contamination, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Beisheim, J.), dated August 19,1983, which, upon the motion of the defendants Putnam County and Putnam County Board of Health to dismiss the complaint as against them for nonjoinder of the State of New York as a necessary party, dismissed the complaint as against all defendants “without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs [szc] to pursue their [szc] claim against the defendants in the Court of Claims”.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. *(See, Baisley v Town of Kent,*111 AD2d 299.) Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Second Supervisory District, Suffolk County, Appellant, v BOCES II Teachers’ Association, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, petitioner Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated November 22, 1983, which dismissed the proceeding and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties’ collective bargaining agreement included the following clause: “No material derogatory to a teacher’s character or personality will be placed in their [sic] confidential personal file. This section shall not be interpreted to preclude the filing of evaluation forms”.

*169After BOCES refused to remove certain memoranda claimed to be derogatory from the “confidential personal file[s]” of a teacher and a guidance counselor, respondent BOCES II Teachers’ Association filed a grievance on behalf of the teacher and the guidance counselor, and subsequently demanded arbitration (the fourth stage of the grievance procedure).

BOCES opposed arbitration on the ground that the subject memoranda on their face were performance evaluations. In addition, it was argued that if the provision in question precluded the placement of such memoranda in a “confidential personal file” without consideration of the fairness or accuracy of the information therein, then it would be violative of public policy since it would interfere with BOCES’ ability to properly evaluate a teacher’s performance as required by law *(see, Holt v Board of Educ.,*52 NY2d 625; *Board of Educ. v Areman,*41 NY2d 527).

While it appears that the arguments raised by BOCES may have merit, nevertheless, Special Term properly determined that the grievance was subject to arbitration pursuant to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement *(cf. Board of Educ. v Cracovia,*36 AD2d 851). The contention that “the arbitrator might make an award that could be said to be in violation of public policy do[es] not justify judicial intervention in the arbitration process at this stage” *(Matter of Board of Educ. [Connetquot Teachers Assn.],*60 NY2d 840, 842). In any event, although neither party raised the issue in its brief, we note that the subject collective bargaining agreement provides only for advisory arbitration; thus BOCES is not required to abide by the advisory arbitration decision *(Schwartz v North Salem Bd. of Educ.,*65 Misc 2d 472).

Accordingly, we find no basis to stay the arbitration. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Thompson and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Western Standard Energy Corp. - Exhibit 10.3







 

 






          IN WITNESS
  WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Assignment  as at the date first above written. 

	Assignor: 	Western Standard Energy Corp. 
	  	  
	  	  
	  	       /s/
      Peter Jenks 
	  	By: Peter Jenks, President 


Province of Saskatchewan 

County of ___________

On this 17th day of December 2009, before me, a
Notary Public, personally appeared Peter Jenks, known to me to be the President
of Western Standard Energy Corp., that is described in and that executed the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that the company executed the same.


GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, this December 17, 2009.


	My Commission Expires: 	 /s/ Linda A. Perry 
	November 30, 2011 	Seal 
	  	Linda A. Perry, Notary Public 
	  	Saskatchewan 


Page 2 of 3
(121 App. Div. 559.)

#### PEOPLE ex rel. CASAVOY et al. v. DIMOND et al., Board of Town Assessors.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

1. Taxation—Mortgages—Statutes.

Under Laws 1906, p. 1448, c. 532, substituting a recording tax on mortgages thereafter made, and exempting the mortgages so taxed from taxation by local authorities, in place of the tax imposed by Laws 1905, *p.*2059, c. 729, mortgages became subject to general taxation, as provided? by Tax Law, Laws Í896, p. 796, c. 908, §§ 2, 3.

2. Constitutional Law—Obligation oe Contract—Contracts Between

State and Individual.

Laws 1906, p. 1448, c. 532, imposing a recording tax on mortgages in the place of the tax prescribed by Laws 1905, p. 2059, c. 729, was not unconstitutional, as impairing a contract between the state and individuals- created by the act of 1905.

Appeal from Special Term, Westchester County.

Certiorari to review the action of the assessors of the town of Corflandt, in Westchester county, in assessing mortgages of relators for general taxation. From a judgment dismissing the writ, relators appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

Nathan P. Bushnell, for appellants.

Robert McCord, for respondents.

GAYNOR, J.

By chapter 729, p. 2059, of the Laws of 1905 provisions were added to the tax law by which mortgages on real estate were taxed one-half of one per cent, annually, and exempted from taxation by local authorities (Tax Law, art. 14).. By chapter 532, p. 1448». of the Laws of 1906 this scheme was superseded by provisions whidb substituted a recording tax on mortgages thereafter to be made, and; exempting all mortgages so taxed from taxation by local authorities» The provisions for the tax of one-half of one per cent, on previous-mortgages was dropped, and no other tax was prescribed in its stead.. This left such mortgages subject to general taxation under sections *2'*and 3 of the tax law, which include mortgages in the enumeration of taxable property. The contention that this is unconstitutional for impairing a contract between the state' and individuals by the said, act off 1905 is based on nothing and requires no discussion.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur^
### The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 17, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00742

- CR

Andres Solis VIELMA

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- 09

- 12304

- CR Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 368 U.S. 738 (1967). On July 22, 2014, appellant filed a motion requesting access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Appellant’s motion to access the record is GRANTED. I t is ORDERED the district clerk of Bexar County shall prepare and send a full and complete duplicate copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record for cause number 2013

- 09

- 12304

- CR to appellant at TDCJ No. 1964402, Garza West Unit, 4250 Highway 202, Beeville, TX 78102. It is FURTHER ORDERED the district clerk file written notice in this court no later than ten days from the date of this order confirming the date the record was sent to appellant.

It is further ORDERED the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant  s counsel, is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.

If, after reviewing the record, appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within thirty days from the date this court receives written notice that the record was sent to appellant by the district clerk. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.



### _________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WIT NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Quarterly Report of Loral Orion, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Bernard L. Schwartz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 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 results of operations of the
Company. /s/     Bernard L. SchwartzBernard L. SchwartzChief Executive Officer August 5, 2004 33
#### DALRYMPLE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK, O. & W. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Adelaide Dalrymple, as administratrix, etc., against the New York, Ontario & Western Railway Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### WRIGHT V. CUNNINGHAM.

*Assumpsit.*

(Decided Nov. 28, 1907.)

Appeal from Walker Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. A. Coleman.

M. L. Leith, and J. D. Actjff, for appellant.

Bankhead & Bankhead, for appellee.

Affirmed.

Opinion by

Tyson, C. J.

Dowdell, Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.
#### Janet Riley, Appellant, v County of Westchester Bureau of Purchase and Supply et al., Respondents.

—In an *732action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 28, 1984, which, after a hearing, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum decision of Justice Donovan at Special Term. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.