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

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtors.

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Sonia Akter, do declare and state as follows: 

1. I am employed at Prime Clerk LLC (“Prime Clerk”), the claims and noticing agent for

the debtors in the above-referenced chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

2. On November 12, 2019, at my direction and under my supervision, employees of Prime

Clerk caused the following documents to be served via First Class mail on the Notice Parties Service 

List attached hereto as Exhibit A:

• Notice to Plaintiff

• Order Re Initial Disclosures and Discovery Conference

3. I have reviewed the Notices of Electronic Filing for the above-listed documents, and I

understand that parties listed in each NEF as having received notice through electronic mail were 

electronically served with that document through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system.

4. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that

the foregoing is true and correct and that if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently 

testify thereto. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4772 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 15:12:04 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4772 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 15:12:04 Page 2 of

4
Exhibit A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4772 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 15:12:04 Page 3 of

4
Exhibit A

Notice Parties Service List

Served via first class mail

NAME NOTICE NAME ADDRESS 1 ADDRESS 2 CITY STATE PO

BAKER & HOSTETLER,

LLP Attn: Robert A. Julian 1160 Battery Street Suite 100 San Francisco CA 941

Diemer & Wei, LLP Attn: Kathryn S. Diemer

100 West San

Fernando Street Suite 555 San Jose CA 951

In re: PG&E Corporation, et al.Case No. 19‐30088 (DM) Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4772 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 15:12:04 Page 

4
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**
I, Robert C. Salipante, certify that: 

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.);

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

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

Date: August 12, 2004

 
 */s/Robert C. Salipante                       
Robert C. Salipante  
President*
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5298 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt student workers 

for purposes of determining a higher education institution’s employer 

health care shared responsibility. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2014 

Mr. TURNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 

student workers for purposes of determining a higher 

education institution’s employer health care shared responsibility. 

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 ‘‘Student Job Protection 

5 Act of 2014’’. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5298 IH

1 SEC. 2. STUDENT WORKERS EXEMPTED FROM DETERMINA2 TION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION’S 

3 EMPLOYER HEALTH CARE SHARED RESPON4 SIBILITY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 4980H 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by re7 designating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs 

8 (6), (7), and (8), respectively, and by inserting after para9 graph (4) the following new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(5) EXCEPTION FOR STUDENT WORKERS.— 

11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Services rendered as a 

12 student worker to an eligible educational insti13 tution (as defined in section 25A(f)(2)) shall 

14 not be taken into account under this section as 

15 service provided by an employee. 

16 ‘‘(B) STUDENT WORKER.—For purposes of 

17 this paragraph, the term ‘student worker’ 

18 means, with respect to any eligible educational 

19 institution (as so defined), any individual who— 

20 ‘‘(i) is employed by such institution, 

21 and 

22 ‘‘(ii) is a student enrolled at the insti23 tution and whose academic activity is con24 sistent with the normal full time work load 

25 as determined by the institution for the 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5298 IH

1 course of study the individual is pur2 suing.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to months beginning after Decem5 ber 31, 2013. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Leroy CUMBEE, Appellant, v. R. P. BALKCOM, Jr., Warden, Georgia State Prison, Appellee.

No. 22014.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 14, 1965.

*376Leroy Cumbee, pro se.

Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Albert Sidney Johnson, Peyton S. Hawes, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and EDGERTON* and SMITH,** Circuit Judges.

*

 Senior Circuit Judge of the D. C. Circuit, sitting by designation.

**

 Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

 As to all of the alleged grounds for relief under this state habeas corpus petition which have been heretofore submitted to the State Court for consideration, we conclude that the trial court did not err in holding that they could be disposed of without a hearing. On the claim of appellant that the trial court did not charge the jury at the time of his State Court trial, even if this should amount to such essential unfairness as to be the basis of a habeas corpus proceeding, we find that this contention has never been submitted to the State Court. There was thus a failure of the appellant to exhaust State remedies as to this contention.

The judgment is affirmed.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: BRANDED LLC,

Appellant

______________________

2018-1828

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 

86529647.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

JEFFREY FURR, Furr Law Firm, Utica, OH, argued for 

appellant. 

 THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by 

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, CHRISTINA J. HIEBER, JOSEPH MATAL,

FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, DYK, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 April 8, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO. DA 23-0149 

FIRST INTERNET BANK OF 

INDIANA. 

 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/ 

Appellee, 

vs. 

PONTUS SK PORTFOLIO, LLC, 

and MICHAEL K. PRESS, 

 

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs/ 

Appellants. 

vs. 

CHARLES D. KING 

Intervenor/Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO STAY 

Upon motion of the Appellants through counsel, Appellee Charles D. King 

having no objection thereto, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is stayed pending finalization 

of the settlement agreement entered into during appellant mediation. 

If the matter is not dismissed in 30 days, the appellant shall file a status 

report explaining the delay. 

/// 

05/18/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0149
ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW. 

Electronically signed by:

Beth Baker

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 18 2023
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4440-1 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/23/19 17:11:59 Page 1

of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT A

HOURS BY PROFESSIONAL

FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 THROUGH OCTOBER 17, 2019

PROFESSIONAL

POSITION

TOTAL

HOURS

Adam Goldberg Partner 11.50

Lanny Davis Partner 1.50

Alexander Lange Senior Director 62.00

Emily Seeley Account Manager 62.50

TOTAL 137.50

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4440-1 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/23/19 17:11:59 Page 2

of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2333

WAYNE P. RALEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT;

DAVID PETERSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-377-3)

Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 21, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Raley, Appellant Pro Se. Hunter Martin Robertson, Prince

George, Virginia; Christopher Lawrence Perkins, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C.,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Raley appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Raley v. Prince George County Police Dep’t,

No. CA-01-377-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 2001). 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
[Letterhead of KPMG]

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm              Exhibit 34.1.7

 

The Board of Directors

Citibank, N.A.:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that Citibank, N.A. (the Custodian) complied with servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii) set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB in connection with the servicing of residential mortgage loans (other than loans held for its own portfolio) for which the Custodian performs a particular servicing function pursuant to a custodial agreement covering transactions that are serviced on the Citilink, Mortgageserv, and Fidelity servicing platforms (the Platform), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for the Custodian’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessmentabout the Custodian’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Custodian’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Custodian processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Custodian during the period covered by this report. Our procedureswere not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Custodian during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Custodian’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Custodian complied with certain servicing criteria outlined in Exhibit A in the accompanying Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri

February 22, 2008
Exhibit 32.1



Certifications



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine month periods ended October 1, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                        |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2005 |  | By: |  | /S/ ROBERT S. VOR BROKER             
|                        |  |     |  | Robert S. Vor Broker                 
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Frank Flores et al., Respondents, v Las Americas Communications, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. New York National Bank et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Submitted February 5, 1996;

decided April 4, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying appellants’ motion to renew, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied, with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13726]



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



DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES



National Institutes of Health




National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting



    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. App), 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 materials, 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 Mental Health Special 

Emphasis Panel; National Cooperative Drug Discovery and Development 

Groups.

    Date: July 16, 2010.

    Time: 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health,Neuroscience Center, 6001 

Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 

Call).

    Contact Person: Vinod Charles, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 

Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental 

Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6151, 

MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-1606, 

<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80e3e8e1f2ece5f3f6e9c0ede1e9ecaeeee9e8aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c0f040d1e00091f1a052c010d050042020504420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>.



(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 

Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 

Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 

Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 

Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)



    Dated: June 1, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-13726 Filed 6-7-10; 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>
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5162 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to allow a certain parcel 

of land in Rockingham County, Virginia, to be used 

for a child care center’’ to remove the use restriction, 

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, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5162 RFS

1 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF USE RESTRICTION. 

2 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to allow a certain parcel 

3 of land in Rockingham County, Virginia, to be used for 

4 a child care center’’, approved October 31, 1990 (Public 

5 Law 101–479), is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF USE RESTRICTION. 

7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any restrictions 

8 in the deed, on and after the date of the enactment of 

9 this Act, the parcel comprised of approximately 3.03 acres 

10 of land transferred by the United States on April 11, 

11 1989, to the county of Rockingham, Virginia, in deed book 

12 number 953 at page 600, together with improvements 

13 thereon may be used by the county as if the land had been 

14 transferred in fee simple with no use or other restrictions. 

15 ‘‘(b) DOCUMENTATION.—As soon as practical after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

17 the Interior shall take such actions as are necessary to 

18 issue a fee simple deed with no restrictions to the land 

19 described in subsection (a) to the county of Rockingham, 

20 Virginia.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5448 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5448

To amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize appropriations for 
          the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 11, 2014

  Mr. Barletta (for himself and Mr. Carson of Indiana) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize appropriations for 
          the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``John F. Kennedy Center 
Reauthorization Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 13 of the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76r) is 
amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
following:
    ``(a) Maintenance, Repair, and Security.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Board to carry out section 4(a)(1)(H)--
            ``(1) $22,200,000 for fiscal year 2015;
            ``(2) $23,000,000 for fiscal year 2016;
            ``(3) $24,000,000 for fiscal year 2017;
            ``(4) $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2018; and
            ``(5) $27,000,000 for fiscal year 2019.
    ``(b) Capital Projects.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
the Board to carry out subparagraphs (F) and (G) of section 4(a)(1)--
            ``(1) $12,200,000 for fiscal year 2015;
            ``(2) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2016;
            ``(3) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2017;
            ``(4) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2018; and
            ``(5) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 2019.''.
                                 <all>
```