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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 12, 2006 Decided May 29, 2007

No. 05-1382

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCERS,

PETITIONER

v.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,

RESPONDENT

On Petition for Review of Orders of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

James H. Holt argued the cause for petitioner Canadian

Association of Petroleum Producers. With him on the briefs

was Jill M. Barker.

Lona T. Perry, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the

brief were R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General, U.S.

Department of Justice, John J. Powers, III, and Robert J.

Wiggers, Attorneys, John S. Moot, General Counsel, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, and Robert H. Solomon,

Solicitor. Robert B. Nicholson, Attorney, U.S. Department of

Justice, entered an appearance.

Before: SENTELLE, GRIFFITH and KAVANAUGH, Circuit

Judges.
2

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: The Canadian Association of Petroleum

Producers (“CAPP”) has petitioned for review of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission’s Policy Statement on Income

Tax Allowances. Policy Statement on Income Tax Allowances,

111 FERC ¶ 61,139 (2005). Petitioners assert that the Policy

Statement is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to our

decision in BP West Coast Products, LLC v. FERC, 374 F.3d

1263 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Petitioners have brought a facial challenge to the Policy

Statement. They do not seek review of FERC’s income tax

allowance policy as applied to any individual pipeline’s rates.

The Commission argues that the petition should be dismissed on

either standing or ripeness grounds. Since the Policy Statement

does not grant an income tax allowance to any specific pipeline,

the Commission argues that petitioners have not suffered Article

III injury-in-fact as a result of the promulgation of the statement.

Along similar lines, the Commission contends that the Policy

Statement is not ripe for review because the statement, standing

alone, will not have an “immediate and significant” impact on

any party to this case.

We acknowledge that CAPP’s facial challenge to the Policy

Statement raises substantial issues of both standing and ripeness.

We need not address these threshold issues, however, because

we have resolved the merits arguments raised by CAPP in our

decision in the related case of ExxonMobil v. FERC, No. 04-

1102, et al. (May 29, 2007). We thus dismiss CAPP’s petition

for review as moot in light of our subsequent holding.

So ordered.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon MOYERS-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50466. D.C. No. CR-02-00019-YAP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*646Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Ramon Moyers-Torres appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being an alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Moyers-Torres has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. MoyersTorres has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Lawson SMITH, Appellant, v. PITTSBURG-MIDWAY COAL COMPANY et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 30, 1972.

Albert W. Spenard, Madisonville, for appellant.

Ronald M. Sullivan, Sandidge, Holbrook, Craig & Hager, Owensboro, for appellees.

REED, Judge.

Lawson Smith filed a claim for workmen’s compensation benefits against his employer, Pittsburg-Midway Coal Company. The board found that he had been in*118jured in a work-connected accident, but that he had sustained no occupational disability. He was awarded only his medical expenses. Smith appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court sustained the board’s decision. Smith then appealed to this court. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

The claimant, a 59-year-old coal miner, testified that while he was working as a mechanic in an underground mine he struck his head on a board affixed to the ceiling of the mine. He said that he was not able to work thereafter.

The medical evidence established that claimant suffered from arthritis prior to his accident and that he suffered from arthritis after he bumped his head. Dr. John Love, an orthopedic surgeon, stated that in his opinion the head bumping incident caused no permanent disability. Dr. Wallas Bell, a general practitioner, testified that claimant was physically and emotionally unable to go into the coal mines after his accident. Dr. Bell said that his “impression” at the time he discharged claimant from treatment was that traumatic neurosis was responsible for the disability which the physician believed existed. Dr. George Ainsworth stated that he found Smith suffered a 15 per cent disability from an orthopedic standpoint caused by arthritis. Dr. C. W. Van Hooser, an internist, stated that he was unable to find anything that would permit him to express an opinion that the accident precipitated any permanent injury.

The claimant’s brief states that the evidence is so convincingly clear that no conclusion could have been reached other than that claimant suffered a degree of permanent occupational disability caused by traumatic neurosis. Dr. Alan Johnson, a psychiatrist, testified that claimant had no psychiatric disease of such a degree as to cause substantial impairment in work.

The board found against the claimant. The sole issue is whether claimant’s evidence is so clear and convincing that it was unreasonable for the board not to be convinced by it. The medical evidence was conflicting, but actually preponderated to the conclusion that no occupational disability was caused by the accident. The courts are not authorized to disturb the board’s decision.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                     FORM 15

             Certification and Notice of Termination of Registration
    under 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Suspension of Duty
               to File Reports Under Sections 13 and 15(d) of the
                        Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        Commission File Number 333-43167

                       CITICORP MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
           (Issuer in respect of the REMIC Pass-Through Certificates)
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                          909 Third Avenue, 30th Floor
                            New York, New York 10043
                                 (212) 559-6727
   (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of
                    registrant's principal executive offices)

                     REMIC Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1998-2
            (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)

                                 Not Applicable
   (Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
                      under Section 13(a) or 15(d)remains)

         Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

      Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i)       [ ]          Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii)      [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii)      [ ]          Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i)       [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i)       [ ]          Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii)      [ ]
      Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii)      [ ]          Rule 15d-6                [x]
      Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i)       [ ]

Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or
notice date:  73

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Citicorp Mortgage Securities, Inc. has caused this certification/notice to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.


Dated as of:  January 26, 1999             BY:      /s/ Carol Koch
                                                    --------------
                                                    Carol Koch
                                                    Assistant Secretary

Instruction: This form is required by Rules 12g-4, 12h-3 and 15d-6 of the
General Rules and Regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
registrant shall file with the Commission three copies of Form 15, one of which
shall be manually signed. It may be signed by an officer of the registrant, by
counsel or by any other duly authorized person. The name and title of the person
signing the form shall be typed or printed under the signature.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 6342]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “S'abadeb—The Gifts: Pacific Coast Salish Art and Artists,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, WA, from on or about October 23, 2008, until on or about January 11, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202-453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

Dated: August 28, 2008.

C. Miller Crouch,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-20655 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6852 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to extend to private or commercial 

interstate carriers the same protections enjoyed by letter and mail carriers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 

Mr. PHILLIPS (for himself, Ms. ROSS, Mr. EVANS, Mr. TIFFANY, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. PETERS, Mr. TIMMONS, Ms. PORTER, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Mr. 

COSTA, and Mr. MORELLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to extend to private 

or commercial interstate carriers the same protections 

enjoyed by letter and mail carriers, 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 ‘‘Porch Pirates Act of 

5 2022’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6852 IH

1 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

2 It is the sense of Congress that Congress has the au3 thority to extend to private or commercial interstate car4 riers the same protections enjoyed by letter and mail car5 riers pursuant to its authority to regulate interstate com6 merce. 

7 SEC. 3. PRIVATE OR COMMERCIAL INTERSTATE CARRIER 

8 PROTECTIONS. 

9 (a) OBSTRUCTION OF CORRESPONDENCE.—Section 

10 1702 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

11 (1) by inserting after ‘‘any post office’’ each 

12 place it appears the following: ‘‘, private or commer13 cial interstate carrier facility,’’; 

14 (2) by inserting after ‘‘authorized depository for 

15 mail matter’’ the following: ‘‘or private or commer16 cial interstate carrier drop off’’; 

17 (3) by inserting after ‘‘letter or mail carrier’’ 

18 each place it appears the following: ‘‘or private or 

19 commercial interstate carrier’’; and 

20 (4) by inserting after ‘‘or authorized deposi21 tory’’ the following: ‘‘or private or commercial inter22 state carrier drop off’’. 

23 (b) THEFT OR RECEIPT OF STOLEN MAIL MATTER

24 GENERALLY.—Section 1708 of title 18, United States 

25 Code, is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6852 IH

1 (1) by inserting after ‘‘station thereof’’ the fol2 lowing: ‘‘, or any private or commercial interstate 

3 carrier facility’’; 

4 (2) by inserting ‘‘or private or commercial 

5 interstate carrier’’ before ‘‘route’’; 

6 (3) by inserting after ‘‘other authorized deposi7 tory for mail matter’’ the following: ‘‘or private or 

8 commercial interstate carrier drop off’’; 

9 (4) by striking ‘‘or other authorized depository 

10 of mail matter’’ and inserting ‘‘or other authorized 

11 depository for mail matter or private or commercial 

12 interstate carrier drop off’’; and 

13 (5) by inserting after ‘‘mail carrier’’ the fol14 lowing: ‘‘or private or commercial interstate carrier’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Swordfish Financial, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending March 31, 2015,, I, William Westbrook, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1.

Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2015, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2015, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  August 10, 2015

Swordfish Financial, Inc.

By:    /s/ William Westbrook

William Westbrook
#### Laura Fox et al., Appellants, v Slavko Bicanic et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), entered December 20, 1988, which granted the defendants’ motion to vacate their default in appearing in the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants attribute their delay in answering to the fact that , the summons and complaint, which were mailed to the claims department of their insurance carrier were never received by the latter. The defendants had initially forwarded the summons and complaint to their insurance broker who in turn mailed those papers together with a loss report to the insurance carrier. Thereafter, upon receipt of the notice of inquest, the defendants again contacted their insurance broker and relied upon his assurances that the insurance carrier would handle the matter. Neither the defendants nor a representative of their insurance carrier appeared at the scheduled inquest. At the inquest damages were assessed. The defendants, represented by counsel, then moved to vacate the *273default. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the motion.

The excuse proffered by the defendants for their default in appearing is akin to law office failure *(see, e.g., Eveready Ins. Co. v Devissiere,*134 AD2d 323; *Kliman v Hutchinson Assocs.,*91 AD2d 626). CPLR 2005 authorizes the court to vacate defaults arising from law office failure. In support of their motion to vacate the default the defendants were required to establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action *(see, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co.,*60 NY2d 693). We conclude that the defendants have met this dual burden. Accordingly, in view of the relatively brief delay, the absence of any intent on the part of the defendants to default, the absence of any demonstrated prejudice to the plaintiffs, and the long-standing public policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in excusing the defendants’ default *(cf., Swidler v World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.,*85 AD2d 239). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Ben Choi
                                 ----------------------
                                 Ben Choi
                                 Chief Financial Officer

June 1, 2011
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the following RegistrationStatements of Primoris Services Corporation of our reports dated March 10,2010, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Primoris ServicesCorporation (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and therelated consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flowsfor each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2009, and theeffectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2009, which report appears in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2009:

 

·      Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-159491)pertaining to the Long-Term Incentive Equity Plan of Primoris ServicesCorporation; and

·      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No 333-161331)pertaining to the registration of 1,737,936 shares of common stock.

 

Ourreport with respect to the consolidated financial statements refers to theCompany’s adoption of Statements of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141(R),*Business Combinations*(codified in FASBASC Topic 805, *Business Combinations*), effectiveJanuary 1, 2009.

 

/s/ Moss Adams, LLP

 

Irvine, California

March 10, 2010

 

----
Exhibit 10.11

AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO

TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

This Amendment Number Two is effective as of
August 16, 2010, by and between Rewards Network Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Corporation), and Christopher J. Locke (Executive), and hereby amends the Severance Agreement dated November 7, 2007 by and between
the Corporation and Executive, which was previously amended effective January 1, 2009 (the Agreement).

I.

The Agreement is hereby amended to provide that for all purposes under the Agreement, a Change in
Control shall be deemed to have occurred if a Change in Control occurs for purposes of the Corporations 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as the same may be amended from time to time.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment Number Two as of the date first written above.



REWARDS NETWORK INC.By:

/s/ Ronald L. BlakeName:  Ronald L. BlakeTitle:  President and CEO/s/
Christopher J. LockeChristopher J. Locke
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                      Registration No. 333-20803

                                 $1,000,000,000
                                    CITICORP
                       Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series E
                    Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E
                Due From 9 Months to 50 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing Supplement, dated February 25, 1997 (To Prospectus Supplement, dated
March 26, 1996, to Prospectus, dated February 8, 1996).

                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

      The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement and
modify, to the extent applicable, the description of general terms and
provisions of Citicorp's Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E, set forth in
the accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement. Capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:                     7.00% Subordinated Notes Due March 15, 2007
                                    (the "Notes").

Aggregate
Principal Amount:                   $10,000,000.00.

Price to Public:                    100.00%.

Issue Date:                         March 5, 1997

Stated Maturity Date:               March 15, 2007.

Interest Rate:                      7.00%.

Interest Payment Dates:             Monthly, on the 15th day of each month,
                                    commencing in April 1997, and at Stated
                                    Maturity.

Regular Record Dates:               The first day of the month in which the
                                    related Interest Payment Date occurs.

Sinking Fund:                       None.

Redemption:                         The Notes are subject to redemption, in
                                    whole but not in part, at the option of
                                    Citicorp, on not more than 60 or less than
                                    30 days' notice, on any Interest Payment
                                    Date, on or after March 15, 2000, at a
                                    redemption price of 100% of their principal
                                    amount plus accrued and unpaid interest to
                                    the redemption date.

Selling Agent:                      J.W. Korth & Company.

Agent's Commission:                 2.00%.

Minimum Denomination:               $1,000.

CUSIP Number:                       17303 MGE 3.