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 Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

2:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 10, 2001.

# PLACE:

Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

Closed [Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10)].

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

It was determined by a unanimous consent vote of the Commission that the Commission consider and act upon the following in closed session:

1. Disciplinary Matter, Docket No. D 2000-1.

2. Disciplinary Matter, Docket No. D 2001-1.

No earlier announcement of the meeting was possible.

# Contact Person for Further Information: 

Jean Ellen (202) 653-5629/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 01-1482  Filed 1-12-01; 12:40 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ John C. Baird                                        |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  John C. Baird                                                  |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Chairman of the Board and Director |
|  Date:     |  June 1, 2010                                                   |

|   By: |   /s/ Leon M. Caldwell                          |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Leon M. Caldwell                                    |
|  Title:    |  Principal Financial Officer, President and Director |
|  Date:     |  June 1, 2010                                        |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Application of
FTSEF LLC for
Registration as a Swap Execution Facility

ORDER OF REGISTRATION

FTSEF LLC (“FTSEF”) has submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(“Commission” or “CFTC”), pursuant to Section 5h of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7
U.S.C. § 7b-3, and Commission Regulation 37.3(b), 17 C.F.R. § 37.3(b), an application for
registration as a swap execution facility, which includes submissions dated February 13, 2015
through April 4, 2016.

Having reviewed FTSEF’s application, the Commission HEREBY ORDERS that,
pursuant to Section 5h of the Act and Commission Regulation 37.3(b)(6)(i), FTSEF is granted
registration as a swap execution facility, subject to the terms and conditions specified herein:

(1) FTSEF shall comply with all representations and submissions made by FTSEF in
support of its application for registration as a swap execution facility, as shown in the application

record;



(2) FTSEF shall comply with all provisions of the Act and all requirements set forth
in the Commission’s regulations, as may be amended or adopted from time to time, that are
applicable to swap execution facilities, provided that, as prior relief granted by Commission staff
pursuant to Commission regulation 140.99 remains in effect:

(a) In lieu of complying with the specific requirements of Commission

Regulations 37.9(a)(2) and 37.203(a) that are addressed in CFTC Letter No. 15-24,

FTSEF shall comply with the terms and conditions of CFTC Letter No. 15-24, for the

duration set forth therein;

(b) In lieu of complying with the specific requirements of Commission

Regulation 43.2 that are addressed in CFTC Letter No. 15-60, FTSEF shall comply with

the terms and conditions of CFTC Letter No. 15-60, for the duration set forth therein; and

{c) In lieu of complying with the specific requirements of Commission

Regulations 37,205(a) and 37.205(b)(2) that are addressed in CFTC Letter No. 15-68,

FTSEF shall comply with the terms and conditions of CFTC Letter No. 15-68, for the

duration set forth therein;

(d) In lieu of complying with the specific requirements of Commission

Regulations 37,6(b), 37.1000, 37.1001, 45.2(a) and 45.3(a) that are addressed in CFTC

Letter No, 16-25, FTSEF shall comply with the terms and conditions of CFTC Letter No.

16-25, for the duration set forth therein; and



(3)  FTSEF shall be responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Order of Registration, with respect to all regulatory services performed by any third party service

provider on behalf of FTSEF, within or outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on this 26th day of May, 2016.

By the Commission

Cb, |.

Christopher J. Lode
Secretary of the Commission
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Asia Atlantic
Resources (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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.

Date: December 17, 2007

/s/ Christopher MurphyChristopher Murphy, Principal
Financial Officer

---
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1363 

Granting the authority provided under clause 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives to the Committee on Education and 

Labor for purposes of its investigation into underground coal mining 

safety. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2010 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Granting the authority provided under clause 4(c)(3) of rule 

X of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the 

Committee on Education and Labor for purposes of its 

investigation into underground coal mining safety. 

1 Resolved, That the Committee on Education and 

2 Labor is granted the authority provided under clause 

3 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representa4 tives in furtherance of the investigation by such committee 

5 into underground coal mine operator compliance with the 

6 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, 

7 and into other related matters. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1363 IH 

1 SEC. 2. (a) The chair of the Committee on Education 

2 and Labor shall transmit to the Committee on Rules, not 

3 later than 2 days following an adjournment sine die of 

4 the second session of the 111th Congress, or January 2, 

5 2011, whichever occurs first, a report on the activities of 

6 the Committee on Education and Labor undertaken pur7 suant to this resolution. Such report shall indicate— 

8 (1) the total number of depositions taken; 

9 (2) the number of depositions taken pursuant 

10 to subpoenas; and 

11 (3) the name of each deponent that the com12 mittee has publicly identified by name as a depo13 nent. 

14 (b) Upon receipt of the report described in subsection 

15 (a) by the Committee on Rules, the chair of the Committee 

16 on Rules shall submit such report for publication in the 

17 Congressional Record. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
**Supplement to the**

**Fidelity's Targeted International Equity Funds**®

**Fidelity**®**Canada Fund, Fidelity China Region Fund, Fidelity Emerging Markets Fund, Fidelity Europe Fund,**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

AK/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MANUEL FLOREZ, AKA Manuel Flores,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-30376

D.C. No. 1:99-cr-00048-JDS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Manuel Florez appeals from the 180-month sentence imposed following a

jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846. The instant appeal follows a successful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

FILED

MAR 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AK/Research 2 08-30376

allowing Florez to file an appeal out of time. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the sentence and remand to the district court.

Florez contends that there is a reasonable probability that he would have

received a different sentence, had the district court known that the Sentencing

Guidelines were advisory. The government concedes, and we agree, that a limited

remand is appropriate. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for further

proceedings in light of United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir.

2005) (en banc).

Florez’s request for supplemental briefing is denied. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### Chaudry Construction Corp., Respondent, v James G. Kalpakis *&*Associates, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 78]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (John E.H. Stack-house, J.), entered September 15, 2008, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the answer reinstated. Appeal from earlier interim order, same court and Justice, later entered September 26, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate the default to the extent of setting *545the matter down for a traverse hearing, unanimously dismissed, -without costs, as academic.

Even assuming the affirmations of service by plaintiff’s counsel sufficiently raised a presumption of proper mailing, defendant rebutted that presumption by showing they were mailed to an incorrect address *(see Matter of Holland v New York City,*271 AD2d 609, 610 [2000]), necessitating a traverse hearing *(see Northern v Hernandez,*17 AD3d 285 [2005]). Furthermore, defendant’s submissions offered factual support for a meritorious defense *(see Mandell v Stein,*183 AD2d 488 [1992]).

At the traverse hearing, plaintiff failed to carry its burden of establishing proper service. Under such circumstances, the court erred in shifting that burden to defendant to disprove service. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
Exhibit 10.2

DMI LIFE SCIENCES, INC.

EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR NOTES PAYABLE

TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: $100,000

May 13, 2010

Greenwood Village, Colorado

On November 12, 2009 and December 4, 2009, the undersigned, DMI Life Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation following its
reincorporation in March 2010 (Maker) issued two promissory notes, each in the principal amount of $50,000 (the Notes) and promised to pay to the order of Michael Macaluso, together with any successors or assigns
(collectively, the Holder), the aggregate principal sum of One Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US $100,000), with interest accruing on the outstanding principal amount of the Notes at an annual rate of six percent
(6.0%) until the Notes are paid in full. The Notes had original due dates of April 30, 2010.

In consideration of this agreement and
the extension contemplated hereby and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Maker and the Holder have agreed to extend the due date of the Notes to the earlier of (i) the closing
and receipt by the Maker or its parent, Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., of debt or equity financing totaling $5 million or more, or (ii) September 2, 2010. All of the other terms of the original Notes remain unchanged.

Maker may prepay the Notes in part, or in full, prior to the due date of the Notes. Payments of principal and interest shall be made at the place that
Holder from time to time shall direct in writing.



|                               |  |                                         
|------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|Maker: DMI Life
Sciences, Inc.
|                               | 
|By:                            |  | /S/     BRUCE G.
MILLER                 
|                               |  | Bruce G. Miller, Chief Financial Officer
|                              
|Holder: Michael
Macaluso.     
|                               | 
|By:                            |  | /S/     MICHAEL MACALUSO                
|                               |  | Michael Macaluso
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 99

THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1996 CONTAINS CERTAIN SAFE
HARBORS REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS. FROM TIME TO TIME, INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY OR STATEMENTS MADE BY ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES MAY CONTAIN "FORWARD-LOOKING" INFORMATION SUBJECT TO NUMEROUS RISKS
AND UNCERTAINTIES. ANY STATEMENTS MADE HEREIN THAT ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF
HISTORICAL FACT ARE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE CHARACTERISTICS AND GROWTH OF THE COMPANY'S MARKETS
AND CUSTOMERS, THE COMPANY'S OBJECTIVES AND PLANS FOR FUTURE OPERATIONS AND
PRODUCTS AND THE COMPANY'S EXPECTED LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES. SUCH
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS ARE BASED ON A NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS AND INVOLVE A
NUMBER OF RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES, AND, ACCORDINGLY, ACTUAL RESULTS COULD DIFFER
MATERIALLY. FACTORS THAT MAY CAUSE SUCH DIFFERENCES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED
TO: THE CONTINUED AND FUTURE ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPANY'S PRODUCTS; THE RATE OF
GROWTH IN THE INDUSTRIES OF THE COMPANY'S PRODUCTS; THE PRESENCE OF COMPETITORS
WITH GREATER TECHNICAL, MARKETING AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES; THE COMPANY'S ABILITY
TO PROMPTLY AND EFFECTIVELY RESPOND TO TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE TO MEET EVOLVING
CUSTOMER NEEDS; RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH SALES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES; AND THE
COMPANY'S ABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY EXPAND ITS OPERATIONS.


                                       54
Exhibit 16

POWER OF ATTORNEY

	We, the undersigned Trustees of the Fidelity Investment Trust (the Trust) hereby constitute and appointThomas C. Bogle, Joseph R. Fleming, John V. O'Hanlon, Robert W. Helm. Megan C. Johnson and Anthony H. Zacharski, each of them singly, our true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution, and with full power to each of them, to sign for us and in our names in the appropriate capacities, the Registration Statement of theTrust on Form N-14 under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 relating to proposedreorganizations of each of Fidelity Advisor Series VIII: Fidelity Advisor Europe Capital Appreciation Fund and Fidelity Investment Trust: Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation Fund into Fidelity Investment Trust: Fidelity EuropeFund, a series of the Trust, any and all subsequent Amendments, Pre-Effective Amendments, or Post-EffectiveAmendments to said Registration Statement, and any supplements or other instruments in connection therewith, andgenerally to do all such things in our names and behalf in connection therewith as said attorneys-in-fact deem necessary or appropriate, to comply with the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of1940, and all related requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  We hereby ratify and confirm allthat said attorneys-in-fact or their substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.  This power of attorney iseffective for all documents filed on or after October 1, 2013.
Exhibit (d)(125)

**Form of**

**SUB-ADVISORY AGREEMENT**

**between**

**FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY**

**and**

**FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH (Far East) INC.**

**and**

**FIDELITY INVESTMENT TRUST ON BEHALF OF**
Moscow Exchange FBOT Form

APPENDIX 4

[Clearing Agreement]

Please find attached:

 Form of the Clearing Agreement
Moscow Exchange FBOT Form

APPENDIX 4

[Clearing Agreement]

Appendix No.1

to the NCC Clearing Rules 

(Part I “Common Part”)

Clearing Agreement No____________

Moscow ______________________ (date)

Clearing Member

(full company name)

Clearing Organization Bank National Clearing Centre (Joint-Stock Company)

1. The Clearing Organization undertakes, in accordance with the Clearing Rules, to provide clearing 

and other associated services to the Clearing Member, and the Clearing Member undertakes to 

pay for such services.

2. The composition of the services, terms and procedure for their rendering, the fees and payment 

procedure, as well as other rights and obligations of the parties related to clearing services are 

settled by the Clearing Rules of the Clearing Organization. The Clearing Organization is entitled

to approve any clearing rules regulating various spheres of clearing activities.

On behalf of the Clearing Member On behalf of the 

Clearing Organization

Full name 

Position

Ground for 

Powers

Signature; 

seal
NUMBER 13-16-00269-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A.T., D.R.M., J.Y.M., D.M.M., and D.N.M., 

MINOR CHILDREN

On appeal from the 430th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellee’s first unopposed motion for extension 

of time to file its brief. This Court, having fully examined and considered appellee’s

motion is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellee’s first motion for extension 

of time to file its brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, requires strict 

adherence to the briefing rules in appeals of parental termination cases, such as this 
2

appeal, and looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by such extension requests. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6; see also id. at R. 28.4.

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART appellee’s first motion for 

extension of time. This motion is GRANTED insofar as the Court will extend appellee’s

deadline to file the brief until July 28, 2016. This motion is DENIED insofar as the Court 

will not allow an extension until August 8, 2016. Further motions for extension of time 

will not be favorably entertained by this Court, absent extraordinary circumstances.

 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

22nd day of July, 2016.
#### In the Matter of Steven C. Kratunis, Petitioner, v Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, Respondent.

[876 NYS2d 189]—

Malone Jr., J.

Froceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a plant utility engineer at Stony Brook University Medical Center in Suffolk County, retired from his position in 2004 due to a heart condition. He thereafter filed an application *1251for disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law article 15. His application was initially denied and he requested a hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing at which both he and the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System presented evidence, the Hearing Officer denied his application on the ground that he did not demonstrate that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties. Respondent accepted the Hearing Officer’s findings and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. “To establish entitlement to disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law article 15, petitioner is required to establish permanent incapacity from performing the duties of his regular employment” *(Matter of Regan v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*14 AD3d 927, 928 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 709 [2005] [citation omitted]; *see Matter of Hall v McCall, 2*AD3d 1026, 1026 [2003]). In this regard, it is important to note that respondent is vested with the authority to weigh conflicting medical evidence and to credit the opinion of one medical expert over that of another *(see Matter of Merring v Hevesi,*29 AD3d 1202, 1202-1203 [2006]; *Matter of Hall v McCall, 2*AD3d at 1027). Respondent’s determination will be upheld “if supported by credible evidence ‘in the form of an articulated, rational, and fact-based medical opinion’ ” *(Matter of Hoehn v Hevesi,*14 AD3d 761, 762 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 708 [2005], quoting *Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*90 NY2d 139, 148 [1997]).

In the case at hand, conflicting medical evidence was presented concerning the extent of petitioner’s disability. The cardiologist who examined petitioner on behalf of the Retirement System gave extensive testimony regarding his examination of petitioner and the seriousness of his condition, opining that petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties as a plant utility engineer. Respondent chose to credit this testimony over the medical reports of petitioner’s treating physicians. Inasmuch as respondent’s determination was based upon the articulated, rational and fact-based opinion of the Retirement System’s cardiologist, we decline to disturb it.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.