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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 09/79-0454]

Notice is hereby given that Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 160 Bovet Road, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94402, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security financing to Goodmail Systems, Inc., 2465 Latham Street, Mountain View, CA 94040.

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Emergence Capital Partners, L.P. and Emergence Capital Associates, L.P., all Associates of Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of Goodmail Systems, Inc.,  and therefore this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring prior SBA approval.

                    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate                           ( print page 45268)                        Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.                

Dated: July 3, 2008.

A. Joseph Shepard,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. E8-17807 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-12 Filed 09/21/10 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.33





 Exhibit 10.33 
 



 
 5215 Old Orchard Road, Suite 725 • Skokie, IL 60077 

Phone: (847) 626-1504 

October 21, 2016 
 Jim Andersen 

1010 Washington Blvd., 11th Floor 

Stamford, CT 06901 

Re:    Lease Extension – 888 North Keyser Ave. 

Dear Sirs: 
 By way of this letter, Vycom Corp.,
lessee of the property located at 888 North Keyser Ave., Scranton, PA. (the “Property”), hereby provides notice of its intention to extend the lease term on the Property for an additional four (4) years pursuant to Section 1.3 of
the Amended and Restated Industrial Lease between North Keyser Partners, LLC and Vycom Corp. dated May 10, 2005 (the “Lease”). Accordingly, the Extended Term shall be from May 11, 2017 through May 10, 2021. I request that
you sign below acknowledging and agreeing to this extension and send a copy back to me. 
 Should you have any questions regarding this,
please feel free to contact the undersigned. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	CPG International LLC


 
			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Brian Cooper


 
			
	Name:	 	Brian Cooper
	Title:	 	General Counsel


  

			
	Accepted and agreed: 


			
		
	By:	 	/s/ James G. Andersen


			
	Name:	 	James G. Andersen
	Title:	 	Managing Member
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONS 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 on Form 10-K for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 of Everest Reinsurance Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware (the “Company”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as enacted by section 906 of the        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: March 31, 2009 

 

 

|   |   |   |                                                                    |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | /S/ JOSEPH V. TARANTO                                                   |
|   |   |   | Joseph V. Taranto

Chairman and 

Chief Executive Officer               |
|   |   |   |  

                                                           |
|   |   |   |  

/S/ CRAIG EISENACHER                                            |
|   |   |   | Craig Eisenacher

Executive Vice President

and Chief Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Q Lotus Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marckensie Theresias, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended (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.





The foregoing statement is furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) and for no other reason.








/s/ Marckensie Theresias


Marckensie Theresias


Chief Financial Officer


February 23, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                                RANGO ENERGY INC.
             FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2012
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Hermander Rai, am the Chief Executive Officer of Rango Energy Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the six month period ended
June 30, 2012 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Quarterly
Report").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: August 20, 2012             By: /s/ Hermander Rai
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Hermander Rai
                                     Chief Financial Officer and Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

JASON OSANTOWSKI,

CATHERINE OSANTOWSKI,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CO.,

Defendant,

EARL SAGEMAN,

Third-Party Plaintiff.

/

Case Number 09-12079-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs Jason and Catherine Osantowski filed a complaint against Defendant Option One

Mortgage Co. on May 29, 2009, alleging claims arising out of the circumstances surrounding a

mortgage loan. Earl Sageman was also designated as a “third-party plaintiff” in the complaint.

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §

1601 et seq., and the usury statute, 12 U.S.C. § 86.

Now before the Court is a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Charles

E. Binder on November 4, 2009. The magistrate judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant

Option One Mortgage Co.’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment in its entirety. The

magistrate judge recommends that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ TILA

claims based on the statute of limitations, and on Plaintiffs’ usury claims based on both the merits

and statute of limitations. The magistrate judge also recommends that Defendant is entitled to

1:09-cv-12079-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 12/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 115
dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims because they are mere assertions of legal conclusions

unsupported by factual allegations. Finally, the magistrate judge recommends dismissing “thirdparty Plaintiff” Sageman’s claims on the same grounds, to the extent that he is a party to the lawsuit.

To the extent that he is not a party to the lawsuit, the Court does not have jurisdiction over his

claims.

As of today’s date, no party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further

right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).

Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to

independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 13] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment [Dkt.

# 10] is GRANTED and that Plaintiffs’ complaint [Dkt. # 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 4, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on December 4, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-12079-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 12/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 116
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23
 
Catalyst International, Inc.:

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8 No. 333-1394) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, as amended, 
of Catalyst USA, Inc. and (Form S-8 No. 33-97522C) pertaining to the 1997 
Director Stock Option Plan of Catalyst International, Inc. of our report 
dated January 30, 1999, with respect to the financial statements and schedule 
of Catalyst International, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) 
for the year ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Ernst & Young LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 26, 1999

<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1211 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1211

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, as the ``Jack F. Kemp Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 9, 2009

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, as the ``Jack F. Kemp Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JACK F. KEMP POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Jack F. Kemp Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jack F. 
Kemp Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
NUMBER 13-09-00084-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

FRIZO VALERO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 404th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This case is before the Court on the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal for want

of jurisdiction. Appellant’s notice of appeal states that appellant’s “‘appeal’ in this context

on these facts means an application to such an original proceeding seeking a writ of

prohibition with respect to this Court’s order of January 29, 2009....” Appellant has also

filed an original proceeding in this Court seeking a writ of prohibition. The State maintains
2

that appellant’s notice of appeal does not invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over the

matter and that appellant has acknowledged in his petition for writ of prohibition that he

does not have the right to appeal the order complained of. 

Appellant has responded to the State’s motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction

conceding the State’s motion to dismiss while contesting the accuracy of some of the

statements and law set forth in the motion. Appellant acknowledges that this Court does

not have appellate jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, the State’s motion to dismiss

is GRANTED and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 23rd day of April, 2009.
MIED (Rev. 9/03) Notice to Appear

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

LBUBS 2007-02 TOWNE CENTER ROAD

LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAGINAW SH-MG, et al.,

Defendants.

/

CASE NUMBER: 09-13249-BC

DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS LUDINGTON

NOTICE TO APPEAR FOR MOTION HEARING

You are hereby notified to appear for a hearing on Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default

Against Defendants, before the Honorable Thomas L. Ludington on the following date and time.

DATE TIME LOCATION

OCTOBER 2, 2009 2:30 PM Courtroom 214

1000 Washington Avenue

Bay City, MI 48708

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this notice was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of

record were served on this date. 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 By s/Tracy Jacobs 

Date: September 22, 2009 Deputy Clerk

Case 1:09-cv-13249-TLL-CEB Document 35 Filed 09/22/2009 Page 1 of 1
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 09-0776

IN RE  BREITBURN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P., BREITBURN OPERATING L.P., BREITBURN GP, LLC, BREITBURN OPERATING GP, LLC, RANDALL H. BREITENBACH, HALBERT S. WASHBURN, GREGORY J. MORONEY AND CHARLES S. WEISS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief and stay, filed September 15, 2009, is granted.  The order dated August 28, 2009 and the amended order dated September 16, 2009, in Cause No. 048-233656-08, styled *Quicksilver Resources Inc. v. BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P., BreitBurn Operating L.P., BreitBurn GP LLC, BreitBurn Operating GP, LLC, Randall H. Breitenbach, Halbert S. Washburn, Gregory J. Moroney, Charles S. Weiss, Randall J. Findlay, Thomas W. Buchanan, Grant D. Billing, and Provident Energy Trust*, in the 48th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The real party in interest is requested to respond to relators’ petition for writ of mandamus on or before 3:00 p.m., September 28, 2009.

3.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this September 16, 2009.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000698 06-SEP-2012 03:25 PM

NO. SCPW-12-0000698 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I FRANCIS GRANDINETTI, Petitioner,
vs. THE HONORABLE SHUNICHI KIMURA and THE HONORABLE RIKI MAY AMANO, JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NO. 93-0141) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Francis Grandinetti’s August 8, 2012 “Application for Habeas Corpus and Mandamus Remedy”, which we review as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of mandamus, the documents attached thereto and the record herein, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to habeas or mandamus relief. Petitioner presents no special reason for invoking the supreme court’s original jurisdiction. See Oili

v. Chang , 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976). Moreover, petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right torelief. See Kema v. Gaddis , 91 Hawai ' i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, September 6, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

-2­
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4338 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4338

To provide relief for domestic producers of tailored wool apparel from 
             increased imports of such apparel from Canada.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 1996

 Mr. LaFAlce introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide relief for domestic producers of tailored wool apparel from 
             increased imports of such apparel from Canada.

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

SECTION 1. RENEGOTIATION OF QUANTITIES OF WOOL ARTICLES ELIGIBLE FOR 
              TARIFF PREFERENCE LEVELS.

    By not later than January 1, 1998, the President shall take the 
necessary steps to renogotiate with Canada the annual quantity 
limitations of tailored wool apparel assembled in Canada from fabric or 
yarn produced or obtained in a country other than a NAFTA country, that 
is eligible for preferential tariff treatment under Appendix 6.B.1 to 
Annex 300-B of the NAFTA, to reflect current conditions in the wool 
apparel industry located in Canada and the United States, including the 
ability of tailored wool apparel producers to obtain supplies of wool 
fabric within the territories of Canada and the United States.

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF SAFEGUARD PROCEDURES.

    For purposes of part 1 of subtitle A of title III of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3351 and 
following)--
            (1) the term ``Canadian article'' shall be deemed to 
        include tailored wool apparel assembled in Canada from fabric 
        or yarn produced or obtained in a country other than a NAFTA 
        country, that is eligible for preferential tariff treatment 
        under Appendix 6.B.1 to Annex 300-B of the NAFTA; and
            (2) subsection (d)(2) of section 302 of the North American 
        Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3352(d)(2)) 
        shall not apply to articles described in paragraph (1).

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act--
            (1) the term ``NAFTA'' means the North American Free Trade 
        Agreement approved by the Congress under section 101(a) of the 
        North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 
        U.S.C. 3311(a)); and
            (2) the term ``NAFTA country'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 2(4) of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
        Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3301(2)).
                                 <all>
```
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 Q Lotus Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary A. Rosenberg, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended (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.





The foregoing statement is furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) and for no other reason.








/s/ Gary A. Rosenberg


Gary A. Rosenberg


Chief Executive Officer


May 27, 2011