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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on July 25, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the Open Mobile Alliance (“OMA”) filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Beijing InfoThunder Technology Ltd., XiCheng District, Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; InfoComm Development Authority of Singapore, SINGAPORE; Nil Holdings, Inc., Reston, VA; Semiconductores Investigacion Y Diseno S.A., Madrid, SPAIN; Simartis Telecom SRL, Bucharest, ROMANIA; Ubipart Ltd., Helsinki, FINLAND; and WINIT Inc., Daejeon, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Reigncom Ltd., Gangnamngu, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA has withdrawn as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OMA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 18, 1998, OMA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 31, 1998 (63 FR 72333).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 25, 2008. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36569).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E8-20566 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Nancy E. Kieffer, Respondent, v Leonard P. Kieffer, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Same memorandum as in *Kieffer v Kieffer*([appeal No. 1] 163 AD2d 907 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—counsel fees.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Valentine JIMENEZ-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50182.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Valentine Jimenez-Diaz appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea *434conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Jimenez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Jimenez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Jimenez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *434published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 5.1


                         Citizens Communications Company
                                3 High Ridge Road
                               Stamford, CT 06905
                                 (203) 614-5600


                                  May 29, 2008


Citizens Communications Company
3 High Ridge Park
Stamford, CT  06905

         Re:  Statement on Form S-8
              ---------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     I have acted as counsel to Citizens  Communications Company (the "Company")
in connection  with the  preparation and filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission   of  the   Company's   Registration   Statement  on  Form  S-8  (the
"Registration  Statement")  under the Securities  Act of 1933, as amended,  with
respect to 1,195,115  shares of the Company's  common stock, par value $0.25 per
share (the "Common  Stock"),  that may be issued under the terms of the Citizens
Utilities Company 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the "Plan").

     In so acting, I have examined  originals or copies  (certified or otherwise
identified to my satisfaction) of the Registration  Statement and such corporate
records,  agreements,  documents and other instruments, and such certificates or
comparable  documents of public officials and of officers and representatives of
the Company,  and have made such inquiries of such officers and  representatives
as I have deemed relevant and necessary as a basis for the opinions  hereinafter
set forth.

     In such examination,  I have assumed the genuineness of all signatures, the
legal  capacity  of all  natural  persons,  the  authenticity  of all  documents
submitted  to me as  originals,  the  conformity  to original  documents  of all
documents submitted to me as certified,  conformed or photostatic copies and the
authenticity of the originals of such latter  documents.  As to all questions of
fact material to these opinions that have not been independently  established, I
have  relied  upon   certificates  or  comparable   documents  of  officers  and
representatives of the Company.

     Based on the foregoing,  and subject to the qualifications stated herein, I
am of the opinion  that the Common  Stock to be issued  pursuant to the terms of
the Plan have been duly authorized  and, when issued,  delivered and paid for in
accordance with the terms of the Plan,  will be validly  issued,  fully paid and
non-assessable.  The opinions expressed herein are limited to the corporate laws
of the State of  Delaware  and the  federal  laws of the  United  States,  and I
express no opinion as to the effect on the  matters  covered by this  opinion of
the laws of any other jurisdiction.

<PAGE>

     I  hereby  consent  to  the  use  of  this  letter  as an  exhibit  to  the
Registration Statement.

                                      Very truly yours,

                                      /s/ Hilary E. Glassman

                                      Hilary E. Glassman
                                      Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
                                      Secretary
                                      Admitted in New York only
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                          ____________________________

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

       Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): November 1, 1998


                       SALOMON SMITH BARNEY HOLDINGS INC.

               (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)


       DELAWARE                         1-4346                22-166-0266
(State or other jurisdiction  (Commission File Number)       (IRS Employer
      of incorporation)                                   Identification Number)


388 GREENWICH STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK                        10013
(Address of principal executive offices)                      (Zip Code)


Registrant's telephone number,
including area code:                                       (212) 816-6000


                                 NOT APPLICABLE
         (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)


<PAGE>

Item 5. Other Events.

      On  November  1, 1998,  Citigroup  Inc.,  of which  Salomon  Smith  Barney
Holdings Inc. is a wholly owned  subsidiary,  issued a press release  announcing
the integration of its corporate business and certain related executive matters.
The  relevant  portions  of that press  release are  attached  hereto as Exhibit
99.01.

Item 7. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.

     (c)  Exhibits:

Exhibit No.    Description
-----------    -----------

99.01          Press Release of Citigroup Inc. dated November 1, 1998


                                       2


<PAGE>

                               SIGNATURES

      Pursuant to the  requirements of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


                                        SALOMON SMITH BARNEY HOLDINGS INC.
                                        (Registrant)


                                        By: /s/ Charles W. Scharf
                                            ---------------------
                                            Charles W. Scharf
                                            Chief Financial Officer


Dated: November 3, 1998
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PATRICK HUFF,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3750

[March 3, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Charles A. Schwab, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562017CF000792A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina JimenezOrosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Kovaleski v. State, 103 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 2012) 

(holding that partial courtroom closure pursuant to section 918.16(2), Fla. 

Stat., complied with the Waller test) (citing Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 

48, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984)).

LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

| I, PAUL J. EVANSON, certify that: |
|-----------------------------------|

 

| 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

|               | /s/ Paul J. Evanson                          |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| Date:  May 8, 2006 | Paul J. Evanson

Principal Executive Officer |
| (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)                             |   |          |   |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------|--------|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                             |   | Third Quarter |   |   | First Nine Months |   |
|                                                             |   | 2010          |   |   | 2009              |   |   | 2010   |   |   | 2009   |   |
|                                                             |   |          |   |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net Earnings (1)                                                 |   | $             | 13,213 |   |              | $      | 16,705 |   |   | $      | 41,387 |   |   | $ | 40,905 |   |
|                                                             |   |          |   |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)                   |   |          | 6,863  |   |              |   | 6,856  |   |   |   | 6,861  |   |   |   | 6,853 |   |
|                                                             |   |          |   |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Common share equivalents relating to stock options when dilutive |   |          | 2      |   |              |   | -      |   |   |   | 1      |   |   |   | - |   |
|                                                             |   |          |   |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Adjusted common and common equivalent shares for computation (3) |   |          | 6,865  |   |              |   | 6,856  |   |   |   | 6,862  |   |   |   | 6,853 |   |
|                                                             |   |          |   |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net earnings per share:                                          |   |          |   |   |              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   Basic (1 divided by 2)                               |   | $             | 1.93   |   |              | $      | 2.44   |   |   | $      | 6.03   |   |   | $ | 5.97 |   |
|   Diluted (1 divided by 3)                             |   | $             | 1.92   |   |              | $      | 2.44   |   |   | $      | 6.03   |   |   | $ | 5.97 |   |
#### John E. Nicolo, Appellant-Respondent, v Paul Greenfield et al., Defendants. New York Department of State et al., Nonparty Respondents-Appellants.

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff moved for the discovery of various documents from nonparties, New York State Department of Transportation and New York Department of State. Both nonparties responded to the motion by objecting to the production of 36 of the documents on the grounds that they were exempt from discovery by reason of attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, and the exemption provided for materials prepared for litigation and attorney work product.

Supreme Court inspected the documents in camera and directed production of 14 of the documents. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the court erred in not ordering disclosure of *838the remaining 22 documents, and the Departments of State and Transportation cross-appealed, contending that the court erred in ordering disclosure of three of the documents.

Having viewed the documents, we conclude that the court was correct in determining that the 22 documents were exempt from disclosure. Some of the items were materials prepared for litigation and others were subject to the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege applies to communications with attorneys, whether counsel on the corporate staff or outside counsel, and extends to the attorney’s communications to the client *(Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield,*73 NY2d 588, 592).

Three of the 14 documents that the court ordered disclosed are exempt from disclosure. Document A is a communication from the Deputy Secretary of State to a supervising attorney of the Department. Document B is a memorandum prepared by general counsel of the Department of State addressed to the Secretary of State. Document C is a memorandum prepared by general counsel addressed to the Director of Administration of the Department of State. These three documents did not deal with pending cases, but they did concern legal rights and obligations of the Department and recommended legal strategies *(see, Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield, supra,*at 594). All three documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Consequently, we modify the order appealed from by striking from the list of the items ordered to be produced, the following: (a) letter dated January 24, 1985 from Jim Baldwin to Pat Cea; (b) intraagency communication dated November 2, 1987 from Maureen Glasheen to Gail S. Shaffer; and (c) memorandum dated March 29, 1988 from Maureen Glasheen to Samuel Messina. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—discovery.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation. 

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 30, 2008, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of permit applications                           ( print page 52072)                        received. A permit was issued on August 29, 2008 to: Judit Hersko, Permit No. 2009-012.                 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-20628 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit32.2– Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
          Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
          2002.
  
 The
          undersigned, Donald L. Sytsma, Chief Financial Officer of Gulf Western
          Petroleum
          Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
          1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
          that:
 
 (1)
          the
          Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2007 (the "Report")
          which this statement accompanies 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
          the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
          November 28, 2007
 
 /s/
                    Donald L. SytsmaChief
                    Financial Officer(principal
                    financial and accounting
                    officer)