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

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,494]

Johns Manville, Engineered Products Division, Spartanburg, SC; 
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated May 2, 2010, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding 
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
determination was issued on April 16, 2010. The Notice of Determination 
will soon be published in the Federal Register.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of polyester non-woven fabrics did 
not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm 
and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information pertaining to the operations and customer base 
of the subject firm.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of May 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-12894 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Case No, 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. §1111 (a). Transferee hereby gives notice 

pursuant to Rule 3001(e) (2), Fed. R. Bankr. P., of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this notice.

CONTRARIAN FUNDS, LLC

Name of Transferee

Address for all Communications/Notices:

CONTRARIAN FUNDS, LLC

411 WEST PUTNAM AVE., SUITE 425

GREENWICH, CT 06830

ATTN: ALISA MUMOLA

Phone: 203-862-8211

Fax: 203-485-5910

Email: tradeclaimsgroup@contrariancapital.com

Address for all Payments/Distributions:

CONTRARIAN FUNDS, LLC

ATTN: 392426

500 ROSS ST 154-0455

PITTSBURGH, PA 15262

MISTRAS GROUP

Name of Transferor

Name and Current Address of Transferor:

MISTRAS GROUP

YANIRA MEYERS

CREDIT AND COLLECTION REPRESENTATIVE

195 CLARSVILLE RD

PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ 08550

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice

is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

By:_______/s/ Alisa Mumola_________

 Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Date: July 1, 2019

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571.

Schedule/Claim No. Creditor Name Amount Debtor Case No.

Schedule F Mistras Group, Inc $184,114.00 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 19-30089

Claim No. 1634 Mistras Group $153,838.91 PG&E Corporation 19-30088

Claim No. 2997 Mistras Group $28,390.91 PG&E Corporation 19-30088

Claim No. 3452

Amends both claim nos. 1634 & 2997

Mistras Group $184,114.00 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 19-30089

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2812 Filed: 07/01/19 Entered: 07/01/19 14:32:02 Page 1 of

2
3452

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2812 Filed: 07/01/19 Entered: 07/01/19 14:32:02 Page 2 of

2
#### In the Matter of the Petition of the Southfield Beach Railroad Company, Appellant, for the Condemnation of Certain Property. Robert W. Barnes and Others, Respondents.

Order modified by reducing the compensation of commissioners to six dollars per day, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. No opinion.

Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Woodward, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 32(i)

                            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 Monroe Bancorp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark D. Bradford,
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; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


/s/ Mark D. Bradford
--------------------
Mark D. Bradford
President, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
August 13, 2004


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed for any other purpose.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Joseph Cohen, Deceased.

—Motion is denied, but appeal will be dismissed at the next term if appellant is not then ready to argue.
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

MARCH 22, 2016

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 84.16(b).

1. SD34011 IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.R., Minor,

M.N.R., Mother, Respondent-Appellant,

vs.

S.A.P., D.S.P., MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL

SERVICES – CHILDREN’S DIVISION, and JASPER

COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondents-Respondents
Exhibit 27.3

restated                               yes         yes         yes
period type                       3 months    6 months    9 months
fiscal year end                  31-Dec-97   31-Dec-97   31-Dec-97
period start                      1-Jan-97    1-Jan-97    1-Jan-97
period end                       31-Mar-97   30-Jun-97   30-Sep-97
exchange rate                        blank       blank       blank
cash                                 7,528       7,373       6,534
securities                               0           0           0
receivables                         22,892      20,689      20,274
allowances                             948         861         920
inventory                           13,454      15,042      14,025
current assets                      43,324      46,644      45,566
pp&e                                20,349      21,332      22,139
accumulated depreciation            -1,798      -2,165      -2,541
total assets                        62,064      65,974      65,358
current liabilities                 14,405      16,871      19,466
bonds                               18,859      21,435      23,190
preferred mandatory                      0           0           0
preferred                           13,500      13,500      13,500
common                                  57          57          57
other stockholders equity           15,243      14,111       9,145
total liability and equity          62,064      65,974      65,358
sales                               29,213      59,729      91,721
total revenue                       29,213      59,729      91,721
cgs                                 17,316      35,383      53,825
total costs                         17,316      35,383      53,825
other expenses                      13,128      26,560      44,487
loss provision                          17          18          20
interest expense                       398         833       1,360
income pre tax                      -1,437      -2,766      -7,632
income tax                               0           0           0
income continuing                   -1,437      -2,766      -7,632
discontinued                             0           0           0
extraordinary                            0           0           0
changes                                  0           0           0
net income                          -1,437      -2,766      -7,632
eps basic                            -0.27       -0.52       -1.40
eps diluted                          -0.27       -0.52       -1.40
#### Katherine J. L. Reis, Plaintiff, v Michael E. Decker et al., Defendants.

County Court, Delaware County,

April 13, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Eaton, Griffith & DeGroat*for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Robert L. Estes, J.

In her testimony before the Referee appointed to compute and report in this mortgage foreclosure proceeding, the plaintiff has testified that in addition to the principal balance and accrued interest, the defendants owe 17 installments of late charges authorized by section 254-b of the Real Property Law, in the amount of $5.28 each, aggregating $89.76. The Referee has reported that such amounts are due and owing to the plaintiff.

*742The plaintiff may not properly claim late charges in this proceeding. To the extent that she has, her testimony was inaccurate and the Referee’s reliance thereon was misplaced.

It is evident from the terms of the mortgage and from the pleadings of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has elected to accelerate the debt pursuant to paragraph "17” of the mortgage, and to proceed by foreclosure. By so doing, she has elected to seek recovery of the full amount due, rather than to sue only for those installments which are currently due. The purpose of late charges is to compensate a creditor for the expense and inconvenience of collecting installments. Such charges are proper and recoverable in actions to recover installments which are due and unpaid, but are not recoverable in a foreclosure proceeding whereat one seeks to recover a full accelerated principal debt.

Except for the finding indicating that late charges are due, the Referee’s report will be approved, and judgment for the plaintiff will be entered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      12,104,172
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          75,313
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               800,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 59,081,353
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      22,730,393
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        22,388,655
<LOANS>                                    174,517,877
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,962,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             284,109,042
<DEPOSITS>                                 261,386,833
<SHORT-TERM>                                   612,487
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,193,325
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,617,390
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,169,363
<COMMON>                                       248,334
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,881,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              17,299,007
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,392,800
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,146,987
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                52,238
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,592,025
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,021,987
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,119,298
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,472,727
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  216,962
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,770
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,588,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                704,244
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     704,244
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   548,268
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.42
<LOANS-NON>                                    213,994
<LOANS-PAST>                                   608,680
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,967,326
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  255,983
<RECOVERIES>                                    34,144
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,962,449
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            72,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,890,449


</TABLE>
#### Joan C. Lipin, Appellant, v Robert M. Bender, Jr., et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 18, 1995;

decided January 11, 1996

Appeal, insofar as taken from the Appellate Division’s September 14, 1995 order, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that that order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal, insofar as taken from so much of the Appellate Division’s June 20, 1995 order as affirmed Supreme Court’s August 31, 1994 judgment, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that that portion of the June 20, 1995 order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### Commonwealth, Appellant, *v.*Lewis

(No. 2).

Argued Oct. 3, 1905.

Appeal, No. 137, Oct. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of Q. S. Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1904, No. 469, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. G. Lambert Lewis.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

Reversed.

October 23, 1905 :

Per Curiam,

The sentence of the court of quarter sessions in this case is reversed and set aside, and the record is remitted to the. said court with direction to proceed to sentence defendant anew in due order and according to law.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1227

MICHAEL A. SCOTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; KENNETH E. WILLIAM; STEVEN G. 

JACKSON; ELIAS I. VEGA,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1228

MICHAEL A. SCOTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief 

District Judge. (2:95-cv-00377-RBS; 2:95-cv-00815-RBS)

Submitted: July 19, 2016 Decided: July 27, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Johnson Webster, 

WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia; Roy Barrow Blackwell, 

Hunter Wilmer Sims, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Michael A. Scott appeals the 

district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) 

motion and his motion for reconsideration. We grant Scott’s 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed 

the record and affirm for the reasons cited by the district 

court. Scott v. Norfolk S. Corp., No. 2:95-cv-00377-RBS; 2:95-

cv-00815-RBS (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2016; Feb. 22, 2016). We deny 

the Appellees’ motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12992]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1888-027]


York Haven Power Company, LLC; Notice of Dispute Resolution Panel 
Meeting and Technical Conference

May 24, 2010.
    On May 19, 2010, Commission staff, in response to the filing of a 
notice of study dispute by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection on April 29, 2010, convened a single three-person Dispute 
Resolution Panel (Panel) pursuant to 18 CFR 5.14(d).
    The Panel will hold a technical conference at the time and place 
noted below. The technical conference will address a dispute pertaining 
to the study of resident fish passage at the York Haven East Channel 
Fishway.
    The purpose of the technical session is for the disputing agencies, 
applicants, and Commission to provide the Panel with additional 
information necessary to evaluate the disputed study. All local, State, 
and Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, and other interested parties are 
invited to attend the meeting as observers. The Panel may also request 
information or clarification on written submissions as necessary to 
understand the matters in dispute. The Panel will limit all input that 
it receives to the specific studies or information in dispute and will 
focus on the applicability of such studies or information to the study 
criteria stipulated in 18 CFR 5.9(b). If the number of participants 
wishing to speak creates time constraints, the Panel may, at their 
discretion, limit the speaking time for each participant.

Technical Conference

    Date: Monday, June 14, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m.-5 p.m. (EDT)
    Place: Harrisburg Holiday Inn and Conference Center, I-83 & PA 
Turnpike, Exit 242, New Cumberland, PA.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12992 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00237-CR

Juan Caudana, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 006722, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury found appellant Juan Caudana guilty of multiple counts of aggravated sexual

assault of a child, indecency with a child by contact, and indecency with a child by exposure. See

Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 21.11, 22.021 (West Supp. 2002). In his sole point of error, appellant

contends the sixty-five-year term of imprisonment imposed by the jury for the aggravated sexual

assaults is grossly disproportionate to the offenses. We will affirm.

The Eighth Amendment has been held to prohibit punishments that are grossly

disproportionate to the offense. U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 287 (1983);

Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 685 (1978). Under the Supreme Court’s disproportionality analysis,

we must consider the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, the sentences imposed

on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and the sentences imposed for the commission of the same

crime in other jurisdictions. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. at 292; see McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d

313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992) (reviewing Solem v. Helm and Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991)).
2

The evidence in this cause shows that appellant sexually assaulted his stepdaughter

repeatedly over a three-year period, sometimes at knifepoint. He threatened to kill her and her family

if she disclosed his acts. Appellant had previous convictions for physically assaultive behavior. Given

this evidence, we do not believe that the punishment imposed by the jury is grossly disproportionate

to the offenses. Further, the record contains no information by which we could compare appellant’s

sentence to sentences for similar offenses in Travis County or other jurisdictions. The point of error

is overruled.

The district court prepared separate judgments for each count. The judgments are

affirmed.

__________________________________________

Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: February 22, 2002

Do Not Publish
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2701-1    Filed: 06/21/19    Entered: 06/21/19 11:43:00    Page 1of 2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2701-1    Filed: 06/21/19    Entered: 06/21/19 11:43:00    Page 2of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135130 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135130 

 COA: 279440 

Saginaw CC: 00-018711-FC 

STEVENSON DEMONT BELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 6, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 8, 2008 

 Clerk
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5154 

To direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the 

Administrator of General Services to make rules to streamline and simplify the registration system used by small business concerns, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2014 

Mr. PETERS of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the Administrator of General Services to 

make rules to streamline and simplify the registration 

system used by small business concerns, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Open Government 

5 Technology Work to More Businesses Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5154 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS FOR BUSINESS REGISTRATION SYS2 TEM TO BE CONSIDERED FOR FEDERAL CON3 TRACT. 

4 (a) UPDATING REGISTRATION SYSTEM.—Not later 

5 than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 

6 the Administrator of the Small Business Administration 

7 and the Administrator of General Services shall jointly 

8 make rules— 

9 (1) to streamline and simplify the registration 

10 system used by small business concerns to be consid11 ered for an award of any Federal contract; 

12 (2) that establish procedures by which a small 

13 business concern may self-certify its eligibility for a 

14 Federal contract under section 8 of the Small Busi15 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 637); and 

16 (3) that establish procedures by which a major17 ity of small business concerns may complete the reg18 istration process not later than 4 weeks after begin19 ning such process. 

20 (b) UNIFIED ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.—Not later than 

21 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

22 Administrator of the Small Business Administration and 

23 the Administrator of General Services shall make the reg24 istration system described in subsection (a)(1) available 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5154 IH

1 in a unified electronic format accessible through the Inter2 net. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Barbara Lauber, Respondent, v. The Jamaica and Brooklyn Road Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

All concur.