alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: INDIANA FARM BUREAU COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION INC. and LOUIS M. JOHNSTON 

CITATION: 1982 CFTC LEXIS 797; 1982 WL 30266 

DOCKET NUMBER: 75-14; 234 

DATE: MARCH 1, 1982 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER GRANTING ORAL ARGUMENT 

NOTE: FORMERLY CEA DOCKET # 234 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of INDIANA FARM BUREAU COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., and LOUIS 

M. JOHNSTON. 

CFTC DOCKET NO. 75-14 

ORDER GRANTING ORAL ARGUMENT 

Respondents have requested oral argument before the Commission pursuant to § 

10.103(a) of the Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 10.103(a) (1981), in support of 

its arguments on appeal in the above-captioned matter. The Division of 

Enforcement has filed no response to the request. 

The grant or denial of oral argument is discretionary with the Commission. 

Because of the importance of the issues raised herein, the Commission has 

determined to hear oral argument in this case. 

The time for oral argument will be restricted to 30 minutes for each side. 

The Division of Enforcement will proceed first and may reserve a portion of its 

alloted time for rebuttal of respondents' argument. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that oral argument be set down for April 30, 1982, 

at 2:00 P.M. in the Commission's 5th floor hearing room, at the headquarters of 

the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 2033 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

20581. 

By the Commission (Chairman JOHNSON, and Commissioners GARTNER, STONE, 

PHILLIPS and HINEMAN). 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Jane K. Stuckey 

Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dated: March 1, 1982 

LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2008 
Page 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ELITE CARE, RX, LLC

v.

PREMIER COMP SOLUTIONS, LLC;

LAUNDRY OWNERS' MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION; UPMC BENEFIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

D/B/A UPMC WORK PARTNERS; LACKAWANNA CASUALTY COMPANY;

AND BRICK STREET MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY

PETITION OF: PREMIER COMP SOLUTIONS, LLC, AND BRICK STREET

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 156 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of October , 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Can a purported medical provider seeking payment for prescription medication in accordance with the provision of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (hereinafter “WCA”), specifically 77 P.S. § 501(a)(1), and corresponding

Medical Cost Containment Re gulations (hereinafter “MCCR”), 34 Pa. Code §§ 127.1

– 127.755, circumvent the exclusivity provisions of the WCA by initiating litigation outside the forums established by and under the WCA and MCCR for adjudicating such issues? Alternatively phrased, is the liability of the Employer and its Insurer or carrier exclusive in place of any and all other liability, given the WCA provides for an exclusive remedy barring any tort action flowing from a work

related injury?
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION BY 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 the Annual Report of GenVec, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul H. Fischer, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant for the dates and periods covered by the Report.





This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GenVec, Inc. and will be retained by GenVec, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





March 11, 2011/s/ Paul H. Fischer, Ph.D.Paul H. Fischer, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer
Roscoemanuel James DANIELS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-8815.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from S3
Incorporated Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the period ended
September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q
filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         130,808
<SECURITIES>                                    13,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,026
<INVENTORY>                                     52,865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               328,367
<PP&E>                                          44,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 446,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,918
<BONDS>                                        103,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       159,865
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   446,782
<SALES>                                        119,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,440
<CGS>                                           72,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,138
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,788
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,788
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-08 -051 3-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JAN UA RY

21, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ DA NI EL LU IS C AN CI NO , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 69 th DIS T RI CT COU RT OF DA L L AM COU NT Y; NO. 404 6; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ ON ABA TEMENT AND REMAN D

_________

_________

_________

____ Bef ore QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. App ellant app eals f ro m h is convi ction for agg rav ate d assa ult. T he clerk’s record
w as f il ed on Dec ember 22, 2008, but t he repor ter ’s r ecord has not been fil ed. An
extens ion moti on w as filed by the cour

t repor ter on J anuar

y 5, 2009, rep re sent ing that appel lan t has not submi tted a r eq uestfor t he repor ter ’s r ecord. Accordin gly , w e ab ate this a ppe al and rem and t he cause t o the 69th Distri ct Court of Dallam Cou nty ( trial court) for f urthe r proceed ings. U pon rema nd, th e t ri a l co urt shall2

immedi atel y

ca use noti ce of a hear ing to be given a nd, t her eafter, co nducta he ar ing to d e te rm in e th e fo llo wing: 1. w hether

appel lan t des ires to prosec ute t he appe al; 2. w hether

appel lan t i s i ndi g ent; and, 3. w het he r th e ap pe l l an t i s en ti tl ed to a fr ee ap pe l l at e r ec ord du e to his ind ig ency . The tr ial co urt s hal l caus e the hear ing to be transc ri bed. So too s hal l it1) ex ecut e findi ng s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law address ing the forego in g i ss ues, 2) ca use to be dev elo ped a suppl emental cl er k’ s record c ontai nin g i ts findi ng s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law and all orders i t may

i ss ue as a re sul t of i ts hear ing in thi s matter , and 3) ca use to be dev elo ped a re por

ter ’s r ecord tr ansc ri bin g the ev ide nce and arg uments pr esent ed atthe aforementi oned he arin g , i f any

. Addi ti onal ly , t he di str ic t c our t s hal l then file the supp lem ent al records an d repo rter’s records transcribing the hea ring w ith the clerk of this
cour t on or before Febr uar

y 20, 2009. Shoul d furt her ti me be ne eded by

the tr ial co urt t o per form thes e tas ks , t hen s ame mustbe req uest ed befor e F ebr uar y 20, 2009. It is so order ed. Per C ur iam Do not p ubl is h.
Ronnie DAVENPORT, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6093.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<S>                            <C>
<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from ESI
Tractebel Funding Corp.'s balance sheet as of December 31, 1999 and statement
of operations for the year ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.

<CIK>                          0000934665
<NAME>                         ESI Tractebel Funding Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                1
<CASH>                               $1
<SECURITIES>                         $0
<RECEIVABLES>                   $26,333
<ALLOWANCES>                         $0
<INVENTORY>                          $0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                $26,334
<PP&E>                               $0
<DEPRECIATION>                       $0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 $445,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           $26,333
<BONDS>                        $418,880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                $0
<PREFERRED>                          $0
<COMMON>                             $1
<OTHER-SE>                           $0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   $445,214
<SALES>                              $0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                $43,468
<CGS>                                $0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        $0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     $0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              $43,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      $0
<INCOME-TAX>                         $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  $0
<DISCONTINUED>                       $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      $0
<CHANGES>                            $0
<NET-INCOME>                         $0
<EPS-BASIC>                        $0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        $0




</TABLE>
In re Peter ROTHING, petitioner.

No. 16-227.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador SAUCEDO-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50637

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 19, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Orlando Mondragon, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Salvador Saucedo-Fernandez 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). Saucedo-Fernandez has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Saucedo-Fer-nandez’s response discloses no nonfrivo-lous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the AP*469PEAL 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             580
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,761
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,404
<INVENTORY>                                     98,696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               193,786
<PP&E>                                          85,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,068
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 531,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,852
<BONDS>                                        111,394
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           204
<OTHER-SE>                                     167,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   531,905
<SALES>                                        486,773
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               486,732
<CGS>                                          348,443
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  471,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,877
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,176)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,115)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    703
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,818)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.39)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.36


 


	To:	Paragon Shipping Inc.	2 Burlington Plaza
	 	15 Karamanli Avenue	Burlington Road
	 	GR 16673	Dublin 4, Ireland
	 	Voula	Tel + 353(0)766244400
	 	Athens	Fax +353(0)766244655
	 	Greece	www.bankofireland.com/corporatebanking


 


	Dear Sirs,	11 April 2016.


 


Re: Notice of Cancellation re PIK Note
Certificate No. 1 dated 8 January 2016.


 


We refer to:


 


		(a)	the Fifth Supplemental Agreement dated 7 January 2016 supplemental to the Loan Agreement dated
30 March 2009 (as amended) made between (1) yourselves as Borrower, (2) the banks and financial institutions listed therein as
Lenders and (3) ourselves as Arranger, Agent, Swap Bank and Security Trustee; and



 


		(b)	the PIK Note Certificate No. 1 dated 8 January 2016 issued by the Borrower in favour of ourselves
(the “PIK Note Certificate”).



 


Words and expressions defined
in the PIK Note Certificate shall have the same meanings when used herein, unless otherwise defined or unless the context otherwise
requires.


 


We hereby notify you that we
have cancelled the PIK Note Certificate with effect from the date of this Notice. The Borrower is hereby discharged from all of
its obligations under the PIK Note Certificate which shall be treated as null and void.


 


This Letter (and any non-contractual
obligations connected with it) shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law.


 


Yours faithfully,


 


	 	 


 


For and on behalf of


 


THE GOVERNOR AND COMPANY


 


OF THE BANK OF IRELAND


 


As Lender, Arranger, Agent,
Swap Bank and Security Trustee
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 Maritime Commission

Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515). 

Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. 

## Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant

                    CTX Express, Inc., 6122 Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 105, Buena Park, CA                           ( print page 33086)                        90620. Officers: Nancy Y. Shen, Secretary (Qualifying Individual), Su-Chung Kuo, President                 

## Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicants 

Central Global Express Inc., 12225 Stephens Road, Warren, MI 48089. Officers: Sam W. Frank, President (Qualifying Individual), Hal Briand, Vice President 

Starwood, Inc., 1352 N.W., 78th Avenue, Miami, FL 33126. Officers: Gregory R. Antoni, CEO (Qualifying Individual), Paul Peake, President 

Baska Logistics & Trading, Inc., 150 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 1008, Miami, FL 33131. Officers: Jose M. Rivas, Officer (Qualifying Individual), Luiz Antonio Silva Ramos, President 

## Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant 

Compass Shipping Inc., 325 Empire Blvd., Brooklyn, NY 11225. Officers: Hiladrius Borroughs, President (Qualifying Individual), Theresa Burroughs, Owner 

Dated: June 15, 2001.

Theodore A. Zook, 

Asst. Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-15478 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### Ram BHAROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-17015.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

*714Ram Bharose, Sacramento, CA, pro se.

Kenneth W. Rosenberg, Esq., Frank P. Cihlar, Esq., Henry C. Darmstadter, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC, fpr DefendantAppellee.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ram Bharose (also known as Raghvendra Singh) appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his petition to quash an IRS summons directing a third party to produce records relating to the tax liabilities of Raghvendra Singh and another individual. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Ip v. United States,*205 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bharose’s petition for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to initiate, by certified or registered mail, and within twenty days after the summons was mailed, the proceeding to quash, and also failed to mail a copy of his petition to the summoned financial institution. *See*26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(B); *Ponsford v. US,*771 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir.1985) (holding that the procedural requirements of section 7609(b) are jurisdictional).

Bharose’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Cost-U-Less, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Jeffrey Meder,
President and Chief Executive 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 11, 2006

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ J. Jeffrey Meder                 
| |                                      
| | J. Jeffrey Meder                     
| | President and Chief Executive Officer

---
#### Rick Alton FOLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dora SCHRIRO, Director; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-17037.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 9, 2012.

Rick Alton Foley, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Wanda Hofmann, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rick Alton Foley, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). *Henderson v. Duncan,*779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Foley’s action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order because Foley failed to respond to the court’s order requiring him to complete his portion of the Joint Pretrial Order, despite being warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b); *see also Henderson,*779 F.2d at 1423 (listing factors to consider before dismissing under Rule 41(b)).

Foley’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.