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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

2:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 12, 2022.

# PLACE: 

The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

# STATUS: 

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

                        In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.sec.gov.*

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

Resolution of litigation claims; and

Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

Dated: May 5, 2022.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-10029 Filed 5-5-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 1, 2019.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D19-0013

Lower Tribunal No. 15-14018

________________

Thomas Machinery, Inc.,

Petitioner,

vs.

Ainsworth International, LLC,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge.

Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz, LLP, and Jordan A. Shaw and Kimberly A.

Slaven (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner.

Joseph E. Altschul, LLC, and Joseph E. Altschul and Alexandria L. Beaton

(Pembroke Pines), for respondent.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioner, defendant below, Thomas Machinery, Inc., seeks certiorari

review of a non-final order of the trial court denying Petitioner’s motion for leave

to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses. We grant Respondent’s

motion to dismiss the petition because we lack certiorari jurisdiction to review the

subject order; any error in denying Petitioner’s leave to amend its pleadings is

reviewable on plenary appeal. Harry Pepper & Assocs, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral,

369 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Petition dismissed.

2
In Re Kenneth Gaylord STOKES, petitioner.

No. 18-5064.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/10/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      228,069
COMMITMENTS
  29,677   41,147   40,290  127,467  126,992  197,435  208,429   30,634   19,640

CHANGES FROM 05/03/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     13,018)
     874      744   -1,251    8,789   10,269    8,412    9,762    4,606    3,256

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    13.0     18.0     17.7     55.9     55.7     86.6     91.4     13.4      8.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      122)
      41       31       47       28       30      102       93
```

----

Updated May 13, 2010
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Tucows Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Cooperman,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to my knowledge,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 13,  2009 | /s/  Michael Cooperman   |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                               | Michael  Cooperman       |
|                               | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCES GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. No. 11-15122 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02039-NVW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 15, 2012 San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Frances Garcia appeals from the district court’s decision to remand her disability claim for further proceedings. She contends that the remand should have been solely for computation of benefits . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

# FILED

MAR 28 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS1 For similar reasons, we also reject Ga rcia’s argument that the district court abused its discretion in not applying the credit-as-true doctrine to her expert witness’s testimony. In cases, as here, where there are outstanding issues to be determined on remand before a finding of di sability can be made, application of the credit-as-true rule is discretionary, see Vasquez v. Astrue , 572 F.3d 586, 593 (9th Cir. 2009), and can be overturned only by the di strict court abusing its discretion. A district court’s decision whether a remand should be for further proceedings or for a calculation of benefits is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Harman v. Apfel , 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000). Remand for a computation of benefits is not appropriate unless the r ecord proves that the claimant is in fact disabled. Strauss v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. , 635 F.3d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2011). While the length of the proceed ings here is regrettable, there are outstanding issues to be determined on remand before a finding can be made that Garcia was disabled for the relevant pe riod. The vocational expert presented evidence that there were jobs in the re gional economy that Garcia could perform, but the expert’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”). The district judge did not abuse his discretion because further proceedings are necessary to determine wh ether the vocational expert can present a reasonable explanation for the conflict with the DOT. See Massachi v. Astrue , 486 F.3d 1149, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2007). 1 AFFIRMED.
Manuel VEGA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5274.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
In Re Damon GRAHAM, petitioner.

No. 18-8220.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
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 Deposit Insurance Corporation

          - 12 CFR Part 329

### CFR Correction

This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 300 to 346, revised as of January 1, 2022, make the following corrections:

§ 329.22 

1. Amend § 329.22 in paragraphs (a)(2) introductory text, (a)(2)(ii), (a)(4), and (a)(5), by removing the text “” in its place wherever it appears.” wherever it appears. 

§ 329.40

2. Amend § 329.40 in paragraph (a) by adding the words “An FDIC-supervised institution” to the beginning of the first sentence. 

[FR Doc. 2022-09989 Filed 5-6-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1447

To provide for the coordinated end-to-end testing and disclosure of the readiness of certain Federal and non-Federal computer systems for the year

2000 computer problem.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 15, 1999

Mr. FORD (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr.

MEEKS of New York, Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi,

and Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Science

A BILL

To provide for the coordinated end-to-end testing and disclosure of the readiness of certain Federal and non-Federal

computer systems for the year 2000 computer problem.

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 ‘‘National Y2K Test

5 Day Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL TEST DAY.

7 All Federal agencies that have responsibilities with

8 respect to health, safety, payments to individuals, delivery
2

•HR 1447 IH

1 of services to consumers, and national defense issues shall

2 participate, and all State, local, or private agencies or or3 ganizations having responsibilities with respect to those

4 issues shall be encouraged to participate, in a National

5 Y2K Test Day on July 1, 1999, to test the readiness of

6 mission critical computer systems in those areas for Janu7 ary 1, 2000, and to provide advance notice of problems

8 that may occur on such day with such computer systems,

9 with the interoperation of such computer systems, or both.

10 SEC. 3. NATIONAL DISCLOSURE DAY.

11 All Federal agencies that have responsibilities with

12 respect to health, safety, payments to individuals, delivery

13 of services to consumers, and national defense issues shall

14 participate, and all State, local, or private agencies or or15 ganizations having responsibilities with respect to those

16 issues shall be encouraged to participate, in a National

17 Y2K Disclosure Day on August 16, 1999, to disclose the

18 readiness of mission critical computer systems in those

19 areas for January 1, 2000, and to disclose advance notice

20 of problems that may occur on such day with such com21 puter systems, with the interoperation of such computer

22 systems, or both.

Æ
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.2.9



The Board of Directors of EMC Insurance Group Inc. authorized and approved the following fee structure to compensate the members of the Special Committee for their service on the Special Committee:


		
	•
	Each member of the Special Committee, other than the Chair of the Special Committee, shall receive a fee equal to the greater of:  (i) $80,000; or (ii) $2,500 per meeting for each meeting of the Special Committee held in connection with the Proposed Transaction (the “Member Fee”), payable as follows:




		
	o
	A credit of $7,500 shall be applied towards the Member Fee in recognition of the per-meeting fee of $2,500 previously paid to the members for the meetings of the Special Committee held on December 11, December 17 and December 19, 2018 (the “Previous Meetings”).




		
	o
	An amount equal to $72,500 ($80,000 less $7,500 credit) shall be paid to the members in equal installments of $14,500, with such installments payable on the 15th day of January, February, March, April and May, 2019. 




		
	o
	If and to the extent that the Special Committee holds more than 32 meetings in connection with the Proposed Transaction ($80,000 ÷ $2,500 = 32), including the Previous Meetings, then the members shall be paid a fee of $2,500 for each meeting held in excess of 32 meetings, payable on or about the date of each such meeting.




		
	•
	The Chair of the Special Committee shall receive a fee equal to the greater of:  (i) $100,000; or (ii) $3,125 per meeting for each meeting of the Special Committee held in connection with the Proposed Transaction (the “Chair Fee”), payable as follows:




		
	o
	A credit of $7,500 shall be applied towards the Chair Fee in recognition of the per-meeting fee of $2,500 previously paid to the Chair in connection with the Previous Meetings.




		
	o
	An amount equal to $92,500 ($100,000 less $7,500 credit) shall be paid to the Chair in equal installments of $18,500, with such installments payable on the 15th day of January, February, March, April and May, 2019.




		
	o
	If and to the extent that the Special Committee holds more than 32 meetings in connection with the Proposed Transaction ($100,000 ÷ $3,125 = 32), including the Previous Meetings, then the Chair shall be paid a fee of $3,125 for each meeting held in excess of 32 meetings, payable on or about the date of each such meeting.






#7987141v3
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                CERTIFICATIONS 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 Annual Report of Women First HealthCare, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward
F. Calesa, 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 to my 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) That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company.

          March 30, 2004         By:    /s/ Edward F. Calesa
                                 Name:  Edward F. Calesa
                                 Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


     In connection with the Annual Report of Women First HealthCare, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
G. Vincent, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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) That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company.

          March 30, 2004


                     By:    /s/ Richard G. Vincent
                     Name:  Richard G. Vincent
                     Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Jason McKINNEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9577.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Richard HUTCHINGS, et al., petitioners, v. AMEREN TRANSMISSION COMPANY OF ILLINOIS.

No. 18-1163.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
Gerardo CORREA-DIAZ, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 18-5150.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Dariusz DOLACINSKI, et ux., petitioners, v. BANK OF AMERICA.

No. 18-872.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 26216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09386]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Conference Grant Special Emphasis 
Panel.
    Date: June 29, 2022.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of General Medical Science, Natcher 
Bldg. 45, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Marc Rigas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences, National Institutes Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN12C, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-1074, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d2f343a3c2e301d303c343173333435733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d5f444a4c5e406d404c444103434445034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 27, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-09386 Filed 5-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Cite as State ex rel. Bobo v. McDonnell , 2011-Ohio-5840.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97370



## STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. VICTOR BOBO

RELATOR

vs. 

## JUDGE NANCY McDONNELL, ET AL.

RESPONDENTS



### JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 448813 Order No. 448900

RELEASE DATE: November 8, 2011 FOR RELATORVictor Bobo, pro se Cuyahoga County Jail P.O. Box 5600 Cleveland, Ohio 44101

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: {¶ 1} Victor Bobo has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Bobo seeks an order from this court, which requires Judge Nancy McDonnell to render a ruling with regard to a motion for jail-time credit as filed in the

criminal case of State v. Bobo , Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-544152. Bobo also seeks an order that requires the Cuyahoga County Sheriff to provide him with additional jail-time credit in the amount of ten days. {¶ 2} Attached to the joint motion for summary judgment, as filed by Judge McDonnell and the Cuyahoga County Sheriff, is a copy of a journal entry, as journalized on October 21, 2011, which demonstrates that Bobo has been granted an additional ten days of jail-time credit for a total of 212 days of jail-time credit. Bobo’s request for mandamus is thus moot. State ex rel.Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 658 N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163. In addition, the Cuyahoga County Sheriff possesses no duty to calculate jail-time credit . State ex rel. Dunbar v. Saffold , Cuyahoga App. No. 89260, 2007-Ohio-1143; State ex rel. Griffin v.

McFaul , Cuyahoga App. No. 84360, 2004-Ohio-3863. {¶ 3} Accordingly, we grant the respondents’ motion for summary judgment. Costs awarded to Bobo with costs waived. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ denied.

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR