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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-377-000]

Take notice that on April 17, 2001, Northern Border Pipeline Company (Northern Border) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on the filing, to become effective May 17, 2001.

Northern Border states that the purpose of this filing is to revise Northern Border's currently effective Rate Schedules to offer negotiated rates.

Copies of this filing have been sent to all of Northern Border's contracted shippers and interested state regulatory commissions.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with §§ 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considerd by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at ­                    *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10324  Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6138 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to afford Federal employees residing 

in the District of Columbia the same opportunities for political participation as are available with respect to certain Federal employees residing 

in Maryland or Virginia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to afford Federal 

employees residing in the District of Columbia the same 

opportunities for political participation as are available 

with respect to certain Federal employees residing in 

Maryland or Virginia. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hatch Act National 

5 Capital Region Parity Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6138 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 7325(1) of title 5, United States Code, is 

3 amended by inserting after ‘‘subdivision’’ the following: ‘‘is 

4 the District of Columbia or’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.1





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 Covad Communications Group, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles E. Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.








/S/     CHARLES E. HOFFMAN





Charles E. Hoffman


Chief Executive Officer


August 8, 2002
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 3, 2022

No. 04-21-00568-CV

EDIFIKA INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a Military Village Apartments,

Appellant

v.

CHAIN & CHAIN CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CI-14175

Honorable Nicole Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On May 19, 2022, we ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court showing 

whether he requested the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s record. Appellant has 

responded, stating he has requested the record from Ms. Tracy Plummer. Appellant also 

provided proof he paid for the record. We therefore order Ms. Plummer to file the reporter’s 

record by June 21, 2022.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of June, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A0654. TERRELL MARK NELSON, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE

OF JIM MINTER NELSON, JR., DECEASED v. ANNE F. NELSON.

After the decedent’s will was admitted to probate, Terrell Mark Nelson, as

Executor of the Estate of Jim Minter Nelson,Jr., deceased, filed a motion for attorney

fees under OCGA § 9-15-14. The probate court denied Terrell Nelson’s motion, and

he filed a direct appeal to superior court. The superior court transferred the case here.

Anne F. Nelson has filed a motion to dismiss. We lack jurisdiction.

Appeals of attorney fees awards under OCGA § 9-15-14 must be taken by

application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10); Capricorn Systems v.

Godavarthy, 253 Ga. App. 840, 841-842 (560 SE2d 730) (2002). “Compliance with

the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human

Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Thus, Terrell Nelson’s

failure to follow the discretionary appeals procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over

this appeal. Accordingly, Anne Nelson’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this

appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 05, 2024

01/05/2024
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tony GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41018

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 20, 2011.

Terri Lynn Hagan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. At*402torney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Wesley Volberding, Esq., Tyler, TX, for D efendant-App ellant.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Tony Gonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Gonzalez has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Gonzalez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gonzalez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
- Home
- Media Center
- Yearly Press Archive

# 2003  Press Releases

### Birney Elementary Holiday Party

December 4, 2003

### Brick Incident at Cannon Door

November 3, 2003

### Gun In Cannon House Office Building

October 30, 2003

### DWI Checkpoint

October 9, 2003

### Capitol Police Announces the Departure of CAO

July 7, 2003

### Independence Day Events on US Capitol Grounds

July 2, 2003

### Area Police Chiefs Press Conference

July 2, 2003

### Man with a Grenade at Union Station

June 10, 2003

### Constitution Avenue Closure

June 3, 2003

### Birney Elementary School Career Day

May 29, 2003

-               Current page            1
-               Page            2
- Next page››
- Last pageLast »

## Media Center

              - Press Releases
              - USCP Arrests
              - USCP FAST FACTS

## Yearly Archive

                  - 2024               (4)          
                  - 2023               (26)          
                  - 2022               (36)          
                  - 2021               (73)          
                  - 2020               (9)          
                  - 2019               (15)          
                  - 2018               (14)          
                  - 2017               (28)          
                  - 2016               (18)          
                  - 2015               (10)          
                  - 2014               (14)          
                  - 2013               (10)          
                  - 2012               (10)          
                  - 2011               (13)          
                  - 2010               (10)          
                  - 2009               (18)          
                  - 2008               (11)          
                  - 2007               (14)          
                  - 2006               (23)          
                  - 2005               (18)          
                  - 2004               (24)          
                  - 2003               (15)
Exhibit 32.2****

 

CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPLE FINANCIAL 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 the Annual Report of MetroPCS, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael N. Lavey, the principle financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that: 

 

(1) TheReport 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/ Michael N. Lavey 

Michael N. Lavey 

Vice President, Controller and Interim Chief FinancialOfficer 

 

March 26, 2004
(8 Misc. Rep. 415.)

#### KOHN v. MANHATTAN RY. CO.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

May 7, 1894.)

Appeal—Service op Case—Time.

Under general rule of practice 32, providing that a case must be made and served within 10 days after service of a copy of the decision and of written notice of entry of the judgment thereon, the decision must be signed by the judge, and it must direct, by its own proper force, the judgment which is to be entered, and service of a copy of a “proposed” decision does not set the time running within which a case must be served.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Sandor Kohn against the Manhattan Railway Company. From an order declaring defendant’s case abandoned, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before SEDGWICK, C. J., and FREEDMAN, J.

R. L. Maynard, for appellant.

W. W. Badger, for respondent.

SEDGWICK, C. J.

Below the defendants took the position that their case should not be declared abandoned, because their right to make and propose one still existed. They asserted that a copy of the decision in the case had not been served upon them. The thirty-second general rule is:

“Whenever it shall be necessary to make a case, the same shall be made and a copy thereof served on the opposite party within the following times: If the trial was before the court or a referee, within ten days after service of a copy of the decision or report, and of written notice of the entry of judgment thereon.”

I am of opinion that the service of the copy and of the written notice should be made at the same time. It is unnecessary to determine this now, as it seems to be clear that the decision referred to in the rule is the decision provided by the Code. That is, it must be signed by the judge by his own hand, and it must direct, by its own proper force, the judgment which is to be entered. In this case no copy of a decision was served, but of what the plaintiff proposed to the judge should be his decision. It was called a “proposed” decision. This was not a decision. It did not apprise the defend*666Ants of what the rule meant they should know before they should be called upon to make a case. The judge might, after the service of the proposed case, .refuse to sign it, and might make a different legal foundation of the judgment. I therefore think that, as the time within which to serve a case had not expired, the case should not -have been declared abandoned. Order appealed from reversed, with $10 costs, and the motion below is denied, with $10 costs.
ex10t.htm


AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated as of January 25, 2008 (the “Amendment”), to EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN COMMERCIAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and SUCCESSOR COMPANIES AND JOHN D. REIERSEN, dated as of September 13, 2006 (the “Agreement”).







RECITALS







WHEREAS, Commercial Mutual Insurance Company (the “Company”) and John D. Reiersen (the “Employee”) have entered into the Agreement which sets forth the terms and conditions upon which the Employee is employed by the Company and upon which the Company compensates the Employee.







WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree that, notwithstanding anything in the Agreement to the contrary:







1. The Employee’s employment may be terminated by the Company at any time with or without cause upon written notice by the Company to the Employee to such effect.  In the event of termination by the Company, the Employee will be entitled to severance as provided for in the Agreement, payable in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll policies.







2. The Employee’s title as President and CEO of the Company beyond the next annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) (the “Next Annual Board Meeting”) is subject to the approval by the Board of such titles at such Next Annual Board Meeting.







3. The Employee’s service as a director of the Company is subject to the right of the policyholders to elect and remove directors pursuant to applicable law and the Company’s by-laws.







4. All references in the Agreement to the Employee serving as a consultant are deleted.  Accordingly, effective January 1, 2010, the Employee will serve as an employee of the Company and will provide employment services, including, without limitation, services relating to strategic planning, regulatory compliance, reinsurance, industry relations, product development and auditing, and other specified duties as established by the Board, subject to the right to the Company to terminate his employment with or without cause and the obligation to pay severance, as provided for in the Agreement, payable in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll policies.







5. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.









  





  











  






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Employee have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.







COMMERCIAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY









 


By: /s/Barry Goldstein


Barry Goldstein, Chairman of the Board


 


 


/s/ John D. Reiersen


John D. Reiersen
Exhibit 12.1  I, Serge Weinberg, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Sanofi;  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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The companys other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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  (d)Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the Audit Committee of the companys Board of Directors:  (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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: March 10, 2015  By:
/s/   Serge WeinbergName:
Serge   WeinbergTitle:
Chairman   and Chief Executive Officer (1)  
 (1)Principal executive officer.
#### AUBURN BUTTON CO. v. SILVESTER et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

June 20, 1894.)

Action by the Auburn Button Company against Philip L. Silvester and others.

No opinion. Motion to amend decision granted, so as to show that the judgment be reversed on questions of fact, as well as questions of law, but on condition that the defendant, if so advised, may discontinue his appeal to the court of appeals, without costs of the appeal. See 25 N. Y. Supp. 237.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

58 

KA 09-00819 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KAREEM GUILLORY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

ROBERT TUCKER, CANANDAIGUA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (BRIAN D. DENNIS

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F.

Kocher, J.), rendered March 13, 2009. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree

and intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Same Memorandum as in People v Guillory ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d

___ [Feb. 18, 2011]).

Entered: February 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court