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 Transportation

###### Federal Railroad Administration 

          - 49 CFR Parts 209 and 230 
          - [FRA Docket No. RSSL-98-1, Notice No. 4] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). 

# ACTION:

Public meetings on final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        On November 17, 1999, FRA published the final rule on inspection and maintenance of steam locomotives (64 FR 62828). The Inspection and                               ( print page 20381)                            Maintenance Standards for Steam Locomotives, title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 209 and 230, which took effect on January 18, 2000, sets forth new inspection and implementation requirements. FRA will hold public meetings to explain the implementation schedule and general requirements for inspection and maintenance of steam locomotives under the rule. These meetings will also provide interested parties with the opportunity to discuss the rule and ask questions of the presenters. All parties interested in the new rule on inspection and maintenance of steam locomotives are invited to attend these meetings.                     

# DATES:

The meetings will be held on April 26, 2000, at 9 a.m.; May 17, 2000, at 9 a.m.; and June 28, 2000, at 9 am. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meetings will be held on April 26, 2000, at the Steamtown National Historic Site, Lackwana & Cliff Street, Scranton, PA 18503; May 17, 2000 at the California State Railroad Museum, 111 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; and June 28, 2000 at the Clarion Hotel, 4813 Central Avenue, Hot Springs, AR 71913. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Scerbo, Motive Power & Equipment Specialist, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6249); or Paul F. Byrnes, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-493-6032). 

Michael J. Logue, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Compliance and Program Implementation. 

[FR Doc. 00-9402 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
#### In the Matter of Jessica L., Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 585]

— In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, Jessica L. appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), dated June 9, 2011, which directed that she be detained for a period of no more than 30 days until suitable placement was found, (2) a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 16, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that she violated the terms of her probation and found her to be incorrigible, ungovernable, or habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of her parents or other lawful authority, and (3) an order of disposition of the same court dated July 8, 2011, which, upon the fact-finding order, vacated a prior order of disposition dated May 11, 2011, placing her probation, and thereupon placed her in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Orange County for a period of up to 12 months for the purpose of effecting a suitable placement.

Ordered that the appeals from the order dated June 9, 2011, and the fact-finding order are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as those orders were superseded by the order of disposition, and since the order dated June 9, 2011, has expired by its own terms; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition dated July 8, 2011, as placed the appellant in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Orange County for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of placement has expired; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition dated July 8, 2011, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court did not err in vacating an original order of *849disposition dated May 11, 2011, which placed the appellant on probation. The presentment agency adduced “competent proof that the [appellant] without just cause failed to comply with [the] terms and conditions” of her probation (Family Ct Act § 779; *see Matter of Dominique R.,*57 AD3d 550 [2008]). Accordingly, the order of disposition dated July 8, 2011, must be affirmed insofar as reviewed. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.
MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 227TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 3, 2014, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment between

Shawn L. Sanders, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-14-00570-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2012CR5452

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion issued this date, this appeal is 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, 

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on March 2, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
#### MAAS, Respondent, v. CUNARD S. S. CO., Limited, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

October 30, 1896.)

Action by Henry Maas against the Cunard Steamship Company, Limited.

Lord, Day & Lord, for appellant.

Mashbir & Cukor, for respondent.

FITZSIMONS, J.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant for the value ■of certain baggage lost by the defendant. The plaintiff resides in Brooklyn, and the cause of action arose there. The defendant is a foreign ■corporation, and was served with the summons and complaint in this city. Upon this appeal, the_ defendant contends that the court has no jurisdiction herein. In making this claim, we think the defendant is in error. The cause of action arose within this state. Plaintiff is a resident of this state, and defendant was served with process in this city. Under such circumstances (see section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure), this court has jurisdiction herein. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. VAN WYCK, O. J., concurs.
# C_2021170EN.01000601.xml

| 6.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/6

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2021/C 170/05)

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sodium gluconate | The People’s Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/94 of 19 January 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium gluconate originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 16, 20. 1.2017, p. 3) | 21. 1.2022 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Sodium gluconate

The People’s Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/94 of 19 January 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium gluconate originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 16, 20. 1.2017, p. 3)

21. 1.2022

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2351 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2351

    To amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to provide 
          additional safety standards for professional boxing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2015

 Mr. Cartwright (for himself, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and 
 Mr. Veasey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to provide 
          additional safety standards for professional boxing.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Professional Boxing Safety 
Enhancement Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS.

    Section 5 of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 
6304) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or 
        an alternative requirement in effect under regulations of a 
        boxing commission that provides equivalent protection of the 
        health and safety of boxers'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
        (5) and (6), respectively; and
            (3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
            ``(2) A boxer must provide with the application for a 
        license or for renewal of the license an original or certified 
        copy of the results of medical tests which--
                    ``(A) were performed by a laboratory during the 
                calendar year for which the license is being issued or 
                no earlier than 30 days before the date on which the 
                application is submitted;
                    ``(B) show that the boxer is not infected with the 
                human immunodeficiency virus; and
                    ``(C) show that the boxer is not infected with the 
                hepatitis virus.
            ``(3) An ambulance continuously present on site.
            ``(4) Emergency medical personnel with appropriate 
        resuscitation equipment continuously present on site.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1





PERICOM
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended September 27, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief 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.





September
25, 2009




/s/
      Alex C. HuiAlex
      C. HuiChief
      Executive OfficerPericom
      Semiconductor Corporation
#### In the Matter of Norberta F. Krupczak, Appellant, v Albert Mancini et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Montgomery, et al., Respondents.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (White, J.), entered August 11, 1987 in Montgomery County, which denied petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, to, *inter alia,*declare invalid the certificates of authorization naming respondent Lesley Lanzi as the Republican candidate for the office of Alderperson for the City of Amsterdam in the September 15, 1987 primary election.

*289Due to the fact that petitioner is not a member of the Republican Party and her challenge is based on claimed defects in party procedure, she lacks standing to challenge the validity of the certificates of authorization at issue *(see, Matter of Wydler v Cristenfeld,*35 NY2d 719; *Matter of Bennett v Justin,*77 AD2d 960, *affd*51 NY2d 722). The judgment should therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001018744
<NAME> OVLC FINANCIAL CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
(November 24, 1986)

#### In the Matter of Philip W. Schunk, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

Respondent is also directed to submit, on or before December 8, a written plan for supervision and monitoring of his practice by the New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Alcoholism for the court’s consideration at the appearance in mitigation. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### PEETSCH v. QUINN. In re CURRAN.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

December 12, 1896.)

Action by Henry C. L. Peetsch against William H. Quinn. For former report see 33 N. Y. Supp. 87. Johnson & Johnson, for appellant. M. H. Curran, for respondent.

FITZSIMONS, J.

We think that the proceeding herein against Curran was a special proceeding, and, as costs were therein awarded Curran, he had the right to examine the plaintiff under the order granted herein. Plaintiff having failed to pay such costs, the remedy so taken, in our judgment, was not objectionable merely because it was retroactive. The order must be affirmed, with costs.
Amend No. 1 to 2020 BATL LTIP

AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE
BATTALION OIL CORPORATION
2020 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
This Amendment No. 1 to the Battalion Oil Corporation 2020 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) was approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of Battalion Oil Corporation (the “Company”) on April 13, 2021, subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company, which was obtained on June 8, 2021. Accordingly, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of June 8, 2021, as follows:

1.The first sentence of Section 1.3 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

“Subject to the limitations set forth herein, Awards may be made under this Plan for a total of 1,805,284 shares of the Company's Common Stock.”
In all other respects, the Plan remains unchanged and in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan has been executed to be effective as of June 8, 2021.
	 
	Battalion Oil Corporation

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Richard H. Little

	 
	 
	Richard H. Little

	 
	 
	Chief Executive Officer



​
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 12, 2022

No. 04-22-00168-CV

IN THE MATTER OF J. E. R-P,

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021JV1000086L1

Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In the underlying case, the State filed a Petition for Waiver of Jurisdiction and 

Discretionary Transfer of Juvenile to Criminal District Court to be Tried as an Adult Under 

Criminal Proceedings pursuant to section 54.02(a) of the Texas Family Code. After an 

evidentiary hearing, the trial court signed an order granting the State’s petition, waiving 

jurisdiction, and transferring the juvenile, J.E.R.-P., to criminal district court. J.E.R.-P. has filed 

a notice of appeal, stating his intent to appeal the trial court’s order. 

In his notice of appeal, J.E.R.-P. also requests acceleration of disposition. We GRANT

J.E.R.-P.’s request as this appeal is one designated as accelerated by statute and supreme court. 

Section 56.01(h-1) of the Texas Family Code provides that the “supreme court shall adopt rules 

accelerating the disposition by the appellate court and the supreme court of an appeal of an order 

waiving jurisdiction under Section 54.02 and transferring a child to criminal court for 

prosecution.” TEX. FAM. CODE § 56.01(h-1). In 2015, the supreme court adopted an order 

requiring courts of appeals to dispose of these types of cases within 180 days from the time the 

notice of appeal is filed. See Order Accelerating Juvenile Certification Appeals and Requiring 

Juvenile Courts to Give Notice of the Right to an Immediate Appeal, Misc. Docket No. 15-9156 

(Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Thus, this appeal is accelerated. 

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of April, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
----

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 **

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

|   | 1. | The                Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Daniel R. Baty      |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Daniel                R. Baty          |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer |
|   | May                10, 2006            |
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Classic Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lisah M. Frazier, Chief Operations Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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.




Date: August 19, 2003                      /s/ Lisah M. Frazier
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Lisah M. Frazier
                                           Chief Operations Officer and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer