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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-63,903] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 19, 2008 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Gramercy Jewelry Manufacturing Corp., New York, New York. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of August 2008. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-20687 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luther Ware, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered on January 6, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree and sentencing defendant as a predicate felony offender to a prison term of from 3 Vi to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1

 

Frontier Communications

3 High Ridge Park

Stamford, CT 06905

203.614.5600

www.frontier.com

 

Frontier Communications Corporation to Participate in Investor Conference

 

STAMFORD, Conn.,  June 5, 2014  – Frontier Communications Corporation  (NASDAQ: FTR) is scheduled to participate in the Morgan Stanley Leveraged Finance Conference in New Orleans.  John Jureller, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer is scheduled to present at 1:45 p.m. Central Time on June 11th.  

 

A live webcast will be available at Frontier’s Investor Relations website under “Webcasts and Presentations.”      

 

About Frontier CommunicationsFrontier Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: FTR) offers broadband,  voice, satellite video, wireless Internet data access, data security solutions, bundled offerings, specialized bundles for residential customers, small businesses and home offices and advanced communications for medium and large businesses in 27 states.  Frontier’s approximately 13,700 employees are based entirely in the United States.  More information is available at www.frontier.com.  

 

 

|  

						 

INVESTOR CONTACT: |   |   |  

						 

MEDIA CONTACT: |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| Luke Szymczak                           |   |   | Brigid Smith                         |
| Vice President, Investor Relations      |   |   | AVP, Corp. Comm.                     |
| (203) 614-5044                          |   |   | (203) 614-5042                       |
| luke.szymczak@ftr.com                   |   |   | brigid.smith@ftr.com                 |

 

 

###

			 		

----
209 La. 194

#### STATE v. PHILLIPS.

No. 37923.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 10, 1945.

J. Bennett Johnston, of Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Cul-ligan, Ásst. Atty. Gen., and Edwin L. *375Blewer, Dist. Atty.., and Wm. F. Woods, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.

FOURNET, Justice.

The state has filed a motion here to have the defendant’s appeal from his conviction and sentence on a charge of receiving and concealing stolen property dismissed on the ground that the motion for the appeal was taken and signed in chambers and not in open court, as required by Article 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conceding, for the purpose of this decision, that the appeal was properly lodged here, the position most favorable to the accused, we find that the case presents nothing for our review, for it is another of those appeals taken where no bills of exceptions were either filed or perfected and there is no error patent on the face of the record.

For the reasons assigned the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Lydia C. Betron, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: The Court of Claims abused its discretion in denying claimant’s application for leave to file a late claim on the ground that the claim does not appear to have merit under the circumstances presented herein. The record demonstrates that on November 6, 1987, claimant sustained personal injuries when the pickup truck in which she was a passenger slid out of control, crossed the center line of the highway and became involved in a three vehicle accident on State Route 16 in the Town of Olean. Claimant asserts that at the time of that accident the road surface was unreasonably dangerous in that it was covered with three, inches of snow. It is undisputed that on the preceding day a snowstorm struck the area. Given these circumstances, claimant should be permitted to file a claim alleging respondent’s breach of its nondelegable duty to maintain State Route 16 in a reasonably safe condition *(see, D’Alessio v State of New York,*147 AD2d 791, 792-793; *Freund v State of New York,*137 AD2d 908, *lv denied*72 NY2d 802). Claimant should also be permitted to assert a claim that respondent failed to develop a reasonable snow removal plan or failed reasonably to implement the plan *(see, Dubacs v State of New York,*140 AD2d 968; *see also, Friedman v State of New York,*67 NY2d 271; *Weiss v Fote,*7 NY2d 579, 589, *rearg denied*8 NY2d 934). (Appeal from order of Court of Claims, NeMoyer, J.—late notice of claim.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30959

Summary Calendar

 

HELEN RHEAMS, on behalf of Walter James Rheams; 

TAMMY RHEAMS; ALISHA MONIQUE THOMAS, on behalf of 

Jamilah Monet Rheams,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

VICTOR MARLER, ETC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

VICTOR MARLER, Officer; UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.;

JASON POE; LARRY JONES, Special Agent; WILLIE GRAVES;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-912

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

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants appeal from a judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 suit pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 
No. 02-30959

-2-

They assign error to the district court’s determination that

Walter Rheams’s pending criminal proceedings mandated that the

suit be dismissed or, alternatively, stayed until resolution of

the criminal proceedings. Rheams’s death during the pendency of

this appeal, however, necessarily brings a premature end to his

criminal proceedings. See United States v. Estate of Parsons,

314 F.3d 745, 748 (5th Cir. 2002). We therefore vacate the

judgment of the district court dismissing the suit and remand the

case for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51686-51687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20450]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11409 and <greek-i>11410]


Florida Disaster <greek-i>FL-00035

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1785-DR), dated 08/26/2008.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Fay.
    Incident Period: 08/18/2008 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 08/26/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/27/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/26/2009.

[[Page 51687]]


ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to:U.S. Small Business 
Administration,Processing and Disbursement Center,14925 Kingsport 
Road,Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 08/26/2008, applications 
for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):
    Brevard.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Florida: Indian River, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Volusia.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
    Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere...............      5.750
    Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere............      2.875
    Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere...............      8.000
    Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit         5.250
     Available Elsewhere.....................................
    Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit         4.000
     Available Elsewhere.....................................
For Economic Injury:
    Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without           4.000
     Credit Available Elsewhere..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 114098 
and for economic injury is 114100.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-20450 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ERIC LEROY BYRD , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. ( 8:10

- cr - 00481

- DKC

- 1; 8:17

- cv - 01679

- DKC )

Submitted : January 18, 2018 Decided: March 5, 2018 Amended: March 6, 2018

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Eric Leroy Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Ellen Elisabeth Cobb, Baltimore, Maryland, David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATT ORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Leroy Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of th e denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the co nstitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispo sitive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 13.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the
year ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Keshav MurugeshName:
    Keshav MurugeshTitle:
    Group Chief Executive Officer
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of M.R.A., H.A.C.A., * From the 220th District Court

and J.M.J.A., children, of Comanche County,

Trial Court No. FM00722.

No. 11-23-00161-CV * November 16, 2023

* Memorandum Opinion by Williams, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we 

affirm the order of the trial court.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                        Washington, D.C. 20549

                      ___________________________

                               FORM 10-Q

              Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d)

                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                   ________________________________

For the Quarter ended  June 30, 1999   Commission File Number  1-5447


                  PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD

    Pennsylvania                             25-6002536
(State of Organization)            (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

                       Telephone -(304)926-1124*

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

     Yes   X        No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's
classes of common stock, as of the close of the period covered by this
report.

          1,510,000 shares of beneficial interest, without par value.


                      ___________________________

* Notices and communications from the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the registrant may be sent to Robert A. Hamstead, Secretary and
Treasurer, #2 Port Amherst Drive, Charleston, WV 25306.
#### Mildred BOURG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William HAEMER, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 14730.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans

Nov. 14, 1934.

Cabral, Lenfant & Villere, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Racivitch *&*Hickerson, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

The plaintiff in this case claims $300 as damages from defendants, $100 thereof for physical injuries and $200 for mental anguish.

It appears that defendant, William Haemer, is the owner of a building in which his daughter, Mrs. George E. Roe, conducted a restaurant, and that on the 5th of May, 1933, the defendant entered the restaurant and demanded that his daughter vacate and surrender the keys. An altercation ensued during which the plaintiff, Mildred Bourg, a friend of defendant’s daughter, claims that Haemer, brandishing a Coca-Cola bottle, threatened to kill Mrs. Roe. She says she intervened to prevent injury to Mrs. Roe and that Haemer grabbed and held her arm so tightly that he bruised it to such an extent that it affected the freedom of movement of her wrist for a period of two weeks thereafter.

On behalf of the plaintiff, Mrs. Roe, defendant’s daughter, Rose Orlidge, a colored maid, and W. Birdrow, a taxicab driver, testified in substantial corroboration of her story. On the other hand, the defendant, Wm. Haemer, Jr., the defendant’s son,' and *525Angelo Mangiapane, his son-in-law, denied the charge that defendant had been guilty of any violence towards plaintiff. The testimony is hopelessly conflicting and irreconcilable.

The trial judge, in deciding the issue against the plaintiff, evidently believed the defendant’s witnesses and discarded plaintiff’s evidence. We are unable to say that, in reaching the conclusion that he did, he was guilty of manifest error.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
**CERTIFICATION            PURSUANT TO**

**18            U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS            ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906            OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | • | the                      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                      and |
|--|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                 | /s/                  Michael E. Mercer                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 27, 2007 | Michael E. MercerChief Financial Officer of EV Management                    LLC,general partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,general                      partner of EV Energy Partners,                      L.P. |

----
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD
                              FORM 10-Q
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
BALANCE SHEET

(Dollars in Thousands)

                                               June 30      December 31
                                                 1999           1998

ASSETS
     <S>                                          <C>            <C>
     Rentals receivable under capital lease       $9,150         $9,150
     Cash                                             46             42

                                                  $9,196         $9,192


LIABILITIES and SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

     Liabilities:
          Accounts payable and
            accrued liabilities                   $   16         $   23

     Shareholder's equity:

          Shares of beneficial interest, at
            no par value, 1,510,000 shares
            issued and outstanding                 9,145          9,145
          Income retained in business                 35             24

               Total Shareholders' Equity          9,180          9,169

               Total Liabilities and
                 Shareholders' Equity             $9,196         $9,192


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC LEROY BYRD,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:10-cr-00481-DKC-1; 8:17-cv-01679-

DKC)

Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: March 5, 2018

Amended: March 6, 2018

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Leroy Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Ellen Elisabeth Cobb, Baltimore, Maryland, David 

Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Leroy Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED