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. ER01-1965-000]

                    Take notice that on May 3, 2001, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd), filed a request, consistent with last year's authorization (                    *Notice of Interim Procedures to Support Industry Reliability Efforts*, 91 FERC ¶61,189 (2000)), to purchase power using a streamlined regulatory process from entities with small amounts of electric wholesale sales. ComEd requests authorization for the use of the streamlined regulatory procedures for the period from June 1, 2001 to September 30, 2001.                

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before May 22, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 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. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet 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.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-12183 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 1 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 2 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 3 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 4 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 5 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 6 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 7 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 8 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 9 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 10 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 11 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 12 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 13 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 14 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 15 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 16 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 17 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 18 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 19 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 20 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 21 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 22 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 23 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 24 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 25 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 26 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 27 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 28 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 29 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 30 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 31 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 32 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 33 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 34 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 35 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 36 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 37 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 38 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 39 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 9 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 40 of 40
#### Robert VAN ZANDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Russell STANALAND, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-15479.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2013.*

Filed May 22, 2013.

Robert Van Zandt, San Francisco, CA, pro se.

Russell Stanaland, San Mateo, CA, pro se.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Van Zandt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendant Russell Sta-naland, an attorney, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by recording an abstract of a state court judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Knievel v. ESPN,*393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Van Zandt’s FDCPA claim because Van Zandt failed to allege facts showing that the abstract of judgment was a “debt” under the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5) (defining “debt” as “any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes”); *see also Turner v. Cook,*362 F.3d 1219, 1226-28 (9th Cir.2004) (a tort judgment was not a debt within the meaning of the FDCPA, and the FDCPA did not apply, because the judgment did not arise from a consumer transaction).

The district court properly dismissed Van Zandt’s FCRA claim because Van Zandt failed to allege facts showing that Stanaland furnished inaccurate information to a credit reporting agency. *See*15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) (prohibiting a person from knowingly furnishing inaccurate information relating to a consumer to a credit reporting agency).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to amend because the deficiencies in Van Zandt’s complaint could not be cured by amendment. *See Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Van Zandt’s motion for relief from judgment because the intervening order in the underlying state court action has no bearing on the merits of Van *494Zandt’s claims. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.Ed 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 596.

#### The Baltimore Refrigerating & Heating Company of Baltimore City, Petitioner, *v.*Frank G. Wetzel et al., etc.

November 9, 1908.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. *Mr. George Whitelock*and *Mr. Robert H. Smith*for petitioner: *Mr. W. Calvin Chesnutt*and *Mr. Charles Markell, Jr.,*for respondents.
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 Justice

# DATES:

Comments must be submitted on or before May 30, 2001. Comments should be submitted to Region III, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, ATTN: Kathleen Root, Esq. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

# AVAILABILITY:

                        The proposed Purchaser Agreement and additional background information relating to the proposed Purchaser Agreement are available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the proposed Purchaser Agreement may be obtained from Suzanne Canning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,                               ( print page 27538)                            Regional Docket Clerk (3RC00), 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Comments should reference the “Genicom RCRA Site Prospective Purchaser Agreement” and “EPA Docket No. RCRA-03-2001-0272 and should be forwarded to Suzanne Canning at the above address.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Root (3RC43), Sr. Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 814-2684.

Robert Brook,

Department of Justice, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environmental and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 01-12392 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE, LLC

400 South 4th Street | 130 Grain Exchange Building | Minneapolis, MN 55415

612-321-7101

mgex.com

Via Portal Submission February 23, 2023

 MGEX Submission No. 23-11

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments Pursuant to Regulation 40.6(d)

Dear Secretary Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Exchange Act Section 5c and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Regulation 

40.6(d), the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, LLC (“MGEX”) submits this Weekly Notification of the following 

rule amendments made effective during the preceding week:

• February 16, 2023 Memo to MGEX Clearing Members advising of approved changes to clearing 

and exchange margin requirements for the Hard Red Spring Wheat (“HRSW”) spread margin rates, 

as well Volatility Scan Range changes. These changes were effective for positions held at the 

close of business on February 17, 2023.

A copy of the above-referenced memo is available at http://www.mgex.com under the “Announcements” 

tab. If there are any questions regarding this submission, please contact me at (612) 321-7143 or 

lhopkins@mgex.com.

Sincerely, 

Lindsay Hopkins

Vice President & Senior Counsel
# Draft of AEGIS SEF Product List
Exhibit 31.2

OMNI ENERGY SERVICES CORP.

A LOUISIANA CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, G. Darcy Klug, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OMNI Energy Services Corp., a Louisiana corporation (the registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I, are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness
of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: August 10, 2006



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/ G. Darcy Klug                  
|G. Darcy Klug                      
|Interim Principal Financial Officer



34
Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 19 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 19 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1




Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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 quarterly report of NIVS IntelliMedia Technology Group, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:




(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/
      Tianfu LiTianfu
      LiChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)November
      11, 2009/s/
      Simon ZhangSimon
      ZhangInterim
      Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)November
      11, 2009




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure
document and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of NIVS
IntelliMedia Technology Group, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(104 So. 139)

#### Ex parte STATE ex rel. ATTY. GEN.

(6 Div. 391.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 23, 1925.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Bumgardner & Wilson, of Bessemer, opposed.

BOULDIN, J.

Petition of the state of Alabama, on the relation of its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals- to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Fleming v. State, 20 Ala. App. 481, 104 So. 137.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
#### Simner *v.*McHugh, Appellant.

Argued October 30, 1925.

*Trespass*— Landlord *and tenant*— Eviction—Damages *to personal property.*

In an action of trespass by' a tenant to recover for damages to personal property resulting from eviction, the case was for the jury and] a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained where it appeared that the lease was oral and the parties differed as to the extent of the damages and the time the lease expired.

*Trials*— Points *for charge^*— Confining *to evidence*— New trials— *Assignments of error.*

A point which is not confined to the evidence in the case is bad and should be refused.

An assignment of error to the refusal to grant a new trial will not be sustained where no abuse of discretion appears.

Appeal No. 238, October T., 1925, by defendant from judgment of the Municipal Court, Philadelphia, December T., 1923, No. 1237, on verdict for plaintiff in the ease of Sarah Simner v. J. Joseph McHugh.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages to personal property. Before Knowles, J.

*59December 14, 1925:

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $650 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned,*was among others, refusal of defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*Charles J. Shull,*for appellant.

*Henry Arronson,*and with him *Gabriel D. Weiss,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Suit by tenant against her landlord for damages to her personal property resulting from eviction. The lease was oral and the evidence shows that parties differed as to whether it expired May 31 or September 1, 1923. The defendant, asserting expiration on May 31, ejected plaintiff and sent her goods to a warehouse. Alleging that she never got all of them and that some of them were damaged, she brought this suit. The parties also differed as to the extent of the damage, if any. It was the duty of the jury to find what the contract was and the damage, if any, and the verdict for the tenant indicates that her view was accepted.

There ¡are two assignments of error. The first is to the refusal of a point of charge, and need not be discussed, because the point was obviously bad, not being confined to the evidence in the case: Dinch v. Workman, 75 Pa. Superior Ct. 101, 105? The other assignment is to the refusal to grant a new trial; no abuse of discretion is suggested; in support of that assignment it is said that the articles alleged to have been lost or damaged were not sufficiently identified and that there was not sufficient evidence of their value. ' The assignment is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Approved Tribal-State Compact. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the                         **Federal Register**                        , notice of approved Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has approved the Second Amendment between the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the State of North Carolina, which was executed on November 14, 2000.                     

# DATES:

This action is effective January 17, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066. 

Dated: December 28, 2000. 

Kevin Gover, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 01-1260 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-02-P