alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit _____________________ 

No. 17-1769 

ANTONIO BORRÁS-BORRERO; IVELISSE SERRANO-RODRÍGUEZ; CONJUGAL 

PARTNERSHIP BORRÁS-SERRANO, 

Plaintiffs, Appellants, 

v. 

CORPORACIÓN DEL FONDO DEL SEGURO DEL ESTADO; LIZA ESTRADA 

FIGUEROA; MIGDALI RAMOS-RIVERA; FRANCISCO IRLANDA MÉNDEZ; MARÍA 

ENID BARRETO-RODRÍGUEZ; JUAN ESCOBAR DEL VALLE 

Defendants, Appellees. 

__________________

ERRATA SHEET 

The opinion of this Court, issued on May 1, 2020, is amended 

as follows: 

On the coversheet, replace "Hon. Francisco A. Besosa" with 

"Hon. Carmen C. Cerezo" 

On page 8 at line 19, replace "Boráas" with "Borrás"
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-63,640] 

                    By application Dated July 30, 2008, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on July 16, 2008. The Notice of Determination was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44284).                 

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of touch screens for mobile phones 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 about the customers 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 1st day of August 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-18586 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4041 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4041

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 1996

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel of unused 
    agricultural land in Dos Palos, California, to the Dos Palos Ag 
                   Boosters for use as a farm school.

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

SECTION. 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, UNUSED AGRICULTURAL LAND, DOS PALOS, 
              CALIFORNIA.

    (a) Conveyance Authorized.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, including section 335(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1985(c)), the Secretary of Agriculture may 
convey to the Dos Palos Ag Boosters of Dos Palos, California, all 
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of 
real property (including improvements thereon) held by the Secretary 
that consists of approximately 22 acres and is located at 18296 Elgin 
Avenue, Dos Palos, California, to be used as a farm school for the 
education and training of students and beginning farmers regarding 
farming. Any such conveyance shall be final with no future liability 
accruing to the Secretary of Agriculture.
    (b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance under 
subsection (a), the transferee shall pay to the Secretary an amount 
equal to the fair market value of the parcel conveyed under subsection 
(a).
    (c) Alternative Transferee.--At the request of the Dos Palos Ag 
Boosters, the Secretary may make the conveyance authorized by 
subsection (a) to the Dos Palos School District.
    (d) Determination of Fair Market Value and Property Description.--
The Secretary shall determine the fair market value of the parcel to be 
conveyed under subsection (a). The exact acreage and legal description 
of the parcels shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the 
Secretary. The cost of any such survey shall be borne by the 
transferee.
    (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require 
such additional terms and conditions in connection with the conveyance 
under this section as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect 
the interests of the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4336

To restore the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to extend existing

and expiring contracts under the conservation reserve program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 1, 1996

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

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To restore the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture

to extend existing and expiring contracts under the conservation reserve program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND EXISTING AND EXPIR4 ING CONTRACTS UNDER CONSERVATION RE5 SERVE PROGRAM.

6 Section 727 of the Agriculture, Rural Development,

7 Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Ap8 propriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104–180; 110 Stat.

9 1600), is repealed.

Æ
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Robert JABLONSKI, Defendant/Appellant. Robert JABLONSKI, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 64042, 66711.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Aug. 29, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 17, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 21, 1995.

Deborah B. Wafer, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Beeky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, C.J., and SIMON and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Robert Jablonski appeals the judgment on his conviction, after a jury trial, of first degree assault in violation of § 565.050 RSMo 1986 and armed criminal action in violation of § 571.015 RSMo 1986, and his sentence of concurrent terms of ten years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from an order denying on the merits, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion. However, defendant has abandoned this appeal by failing to brief any errors with respect to the denial of post-conviction relief.

With respect to the direct appeal, no error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS IS A REFILING OF THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE TO CORRECT ERRORS IN A
PREVIOUS FILING
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         4004149
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         2395574
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    5099619
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        65217243
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          64974077
<LOANS>                                      109787844
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1500941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               190808722
<DEPOSITS>                                   164279105
<SHORT-TERM>                                   8500000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1628665
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        156
<COMMON>                                         15941
<OTHER-SE>                                    16384855
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               190808722
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               10308273
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              4306296
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              14614569
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             7433334
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7775412
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          6839157
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   695000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                5907107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1423312
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1423312
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    953712
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.39
<LOANS-NON>                                    1676064
<LOANS-PAST>                                     32000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 230201
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1190249
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   389308
<RECOVERIES>                                      5000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1500941
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1500941
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Company) for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Charles R. Howell IV, 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, as amended; and

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

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



|                      |  |     |  |                              
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles R. Howell IV     
|                      |  |     |  | Charles R. Howell IV         
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4119

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Received

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 475 Mulberry Street in Macon, Georgia,

as the ‘‘William Augustus Bootle Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4119 RDS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse

3 located at 475 Mulberry Street in Macon, Georgia, shall

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘William Augustus Bootle

5 Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William

11 Augustus Bootle Federal Building and United States

12 Courthouse’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 27,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By LINDA NAVE

Deputy Clerk.
Ex 12.2



CERTIFICATION





I, Arthur J. Ayres, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of MIGENIX Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The companys other certifying officers 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 company 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 company, 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 company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;



c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.





|      |                   |                               |                        
|----- | ----------------- | ----------------------------- | -----------------------
|Date: | July 31, 2006     |                              
|      |                   | Arthur J. Ayres              
|By:   | Arthur J. Ayres |                               | Chief Financial Officer
|      |                   | (Principal Financial Officer)
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 436

AN ACT

To require the head of any Federal agency to diffor other purposes. and greases, in issuing certain regulations, and mal, marine, or vegetable origin, and other oils ferentiate between fats, oils, and greases of ani-
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 436

AN ACT

To require the head of any Federal agency to differentiate

between fats, oils, and greases of animal, marine, or

vegetable origin, and other oils and greases, in issuing

certain regulations, 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,
2

•HR 436 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Edible Oil Regulatory

3 Reform Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. DIFFERENTIATION AMONG FATS, OILS, AND

5 GREASES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

7 (c), in issuing or enforcing any regulation or establishing

8 any interpretation or guideline relating to a fat, oil, or

9 grease under any Federal law, the head of any Federal

10 agency shall—

11 (1) differentiate between and establish separate

12 classes for—

13 (A) animal fats and oils and greases, and

14 fish and marine mammal oils, within the mean15 ing of paragraph (2) of section 61(a) of title

16 13, United States Code, and oils of vegetable

17 origin, including oils from the seeds, nuts, and

18 kernels referred to in paragraph (1)(A) of such

19 section; and

20 (B) other oils and greases, including petro21 leum; and

22 (2) apply different standards to different class23 es of fats and oils as provided in subsection (b).

24 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In differentiating between

25 the class of fats, oils, and greases described in subsection

26 (a)(1)(A) and the class of oils and greases described in
3

•HR 436 EH

1 subsection (a)(1)(B), the head of the Federal agency shall

2 consider differences in the physical, chemical, biological,

3 and other properties, and in the environmental effects, of

4 the classes.

5 (c) EXCEPTION.—The requirements of this Act shall

6 not apply to the Food and Drug Administration and the

7 Food Safety and Inspection Service.

8 (d) FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.—

9 (1) Section 1004(a)(1) of the Oil Pollution Act

10 of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) is amended by strik11 ing ‘‘for a tank vessel,’’ and inserting ‘‘for a tank

12 vessel carrying oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue

13 (except a tank vessel on which the only oil carried

14 is an animal fat or vegetable oil, as those terms are

15 used in section 2 of the Edible Oil Regulatory Re16 form Act)’’.

17 (2) Section 1016(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of

18 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2716(a)) is amended in the first

19 sentence by striking ‘‘, in the case of a tank vessel,

20 the responsible party could be subject under section

21 1004(a)(1) or (d) of this Act, or to which, in the

22 case of any other vessel, the responsible party could

23 be subjected under section 1004(a)(2) or (d)’’ and
4

•HR 436 EH

1 inserting ‘‘the responsible party could be subjected

2 under section 1004(a) or (d) of this Act’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No. 04-08-00409- CV Robert L ee G ILL , J r. , Appellant

v . STA TE of Texas, County of B exar, et al., Appellee s Fr om the 45th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-TA 1-03238 Honora ble J anet P. L ittlejohn, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Marc h 18, 2009 DI SMI SSED Appellant Robert L ee Gill J r.’s brief was orig inally due on November 7, 2008. We gr anted Robert L ee G ill J r. an e x tension to Dece mber 8, 2008, t o fi le his appellant’s br ief. No a ppellant’s brief w as filed. We then notified Robert L ee Gill J r. by written order t hat i f hi s appellant’ s brief w as not filed by

Fe bruary 9, 2009, we would dismiss this appeal for w ant of prose cution. To date, no appellant’ s brief ha s been filed. We, the ref ore, dismiss this a

ppeal for want of prose cution. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a)( 1); 42.3. PER C URI AM
#### Gustave Burgdorf, Respondent, *v.*Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company, Appellant.

Second Department,

January 22, 1909.

Costs — section 3228, Code Civil Procedure, construed — right to costs where venue is laid in Supreme Court, county of Queens, but defendant served in Kings county.

In subdivision 5 of section 3228 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing that in all actions brought in the Supreme Court triable in the county of New York or Kings, which, except for the amount claimed, could have been brought in the County Court of Kings county, the plaintiff shall not have costs unless he recover over §500, the word “triable” means place of trial as indicated by the venue. Hence, where the venue of an action to recover §5,000 damages for personal injuries was laid in the county of Queens and there tried, the plaintiff , is entitled to costs, although the defendant was personally served in the county of Kings, for the action was triable in Queéns.

Appeal by the defendant, the Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 1st day of December, 1908.

*D. A. Marsh [George D. Yeomans*with him on the brief], for the appellant.

*Frederick S. Martyn,*for the respondent.

Jenks, J.:

The defendant appeals from an order of the Special Term denying its motion for an order disallowing the taxation of costs by the plaintiff upon his verdict for $100, rendered in his action wherein his claim was for $5,000 damages for personal injuries, caused by the defendant’s negligence. The motion was made under subdivision 5 of section 3228 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff laid the venue in the Supreme Court in the county of Queens and there the action was tried. But the defendant shows that it was served personally with process in the county of Kings, and its contention is that as the action could have been brought in the County Court of Kings county save for the amount of the claim, the *254said statute applies. We held in *Waldstreicher*v. *Solomon*(127 App. Div. 364) that each county stands separate in the application of the statute. I see no reason for rescission.. I think that the word “ triable ” as used in this statute means the place of trial as indicated by the venue; in' other words, this action was triable in the county of Queens. *(Chubbuck*v. *Morrison,*6 How. Pr. 367; *Askins*v. *Hearns,*3 Abb. Pr. 184; *Bangs*v. *Selden,*13 How. Pr. 374.)

The order must be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. •