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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 18, 2008.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1. Joseph E. O'Brien*, Peoria, Illinois, to acquire control of Marshall-Putnam County Bancorporation, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire control of Marshall County State Bank, both of Varna, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 29, 2008.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-20474 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          8,320,904
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,619,918
<ALLOWANCES>                                      217,000
<INVENTORY>                                     4,388,155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,686,833
<PP&E>                                          5,288,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,613,966
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,268,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,801,736
<BONDS>                                         9,361,581
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                        5,099,740
<OTHER-SE>                                        908,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,268,559
<SALES>                                         4,622,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4,622,468
<CGS>                                           3,421,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,421,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                7,512,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                351,025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,385,306)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,385,306)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,385,306)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.52)
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 23, 2013*

Decided January 23, 2013

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

        ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

        JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 12‐2750

GERALD ACE GUICE, JR.,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

CHARLES R. WINKLER, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Western Division.

No. 12 C 50175

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge.

ORDER

Gerald Guice received a smaller share than expected from his father’s estate and

blames his probate lawyer. He sued the lawyer in state court, alleging that counsel had

committed malpractice by fabricating a gift from his father to other relatives of stock

certificates that otherwise would have been distributed to Guice. After losing that suit,

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not

participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have

concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the brief and

the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 12‐2750 Page 2

Guice filed this action in federal court claiming that the presiding state judge, the defendant

probate attorney, and other lawyers involved in the malpractice litigation “conspired” to

prevent him from winning that case. Essentially he repeats his malpractice theory and adds

that the defendant judge not only ignored or misunderstood his evidence but also excluded

testimony from physicians that a head injury made it difficult for him to understand legal

issues.

The district court allowed Guice to file his complaint in forma pauperis but

dismissed it immediately as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among other reasons,

the court cited the Rooker‐Feldman doctrine, see D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462

(1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and the state judge’s absolute judicial

immunity. Guice did not appeal the dismissal but filed instead, more than a month after

entry of judgment, a motion that we construe as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b). See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a); Blue v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union 159, 676 F.3d 579,

583–84 (7th Cir. 2012). The district court denied the motion, prompting this appeal.

In this court Guice argues the merits of his civil‐rights lawsuit, but an appeal from

the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is not a means to challenge the underlying decision.

See Blue, 676 F.3d at 584; Tango Music, LLC v. DeadQuick Music, Inc., 348 F.3d 244, 247 (7th

Cir. 2003). Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy, Wills v. Lepine, 687 F.3d 826, 833 (7th Cir.

2012); Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir.

2009), and Guice does not assert any basis for relief specified in that rule.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In  connection  with the quarterly Report of Frontier  Communications  Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Mary Agnes Wilderotter, Chairman and 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; and
 
 (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Mary Agnes WilderotterMary Agnes WilderotterChairman and Chief Executive OfficerMay 6, 2010


This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Frontier Communications Corporation and will be retained by Frontier Communications Corporation and  furnished  to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Maxco, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Max A. Coon, as
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(1)
      This
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




MAXCO,
              INC.Date: April
              3, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Max
              A.
              CoonMax
              A. CoonChief
                Executive Officer




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.
   28
Order entered January 16, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01006

- CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF RUTH ELLEN BRUNER ,

AN INCAPACITATED PER SON

On Appeal from the Co unty Court at Law No. 2

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. G00682



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 14, 2019 second motion for an extension of time

to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 24, 2019

.

/s/ KEN M OLBERG JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-052
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
Outside Director Compensation



Exhibit 10.1




OUTSIDE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
APPROVED AT 3/3/05 BOARD MEETING 


	COMPENSATION COMPONENTS	BOARD OR COMMITTEE	OLD
AMOUNT	NEW
AMOUNT
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Director Retainer (Paid Quarterly @
$10,000)	All Directors	$40,000 	$40,000 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Committee Chair Retainer (Paid Annually 
in Arrears)	Lead Director
Chair of Audit Committee
Chair of Comp Committee
Chair of N/CG Committee	$10,000 
$10,000 
$  2,000 
-0- 	$10,000 
$10,000 
$10,000 
$  5,000 
	 	 	 	 
	Attendance at In-Person Meeting	Board
Audit Committee
Comp Committee
N/CG Committee	$  2,000 
$  3,000 
$  1,500 
$  1,500 	$  3,000 
$  3,000 
$  3,000 
$  1,500 
	 	 	 	 
	Participation in a Telephonic Meeting	Board
Audit Committee
Comp Committee
N/CG Committee	$     500 
$  1,000 
$     500 
-0- 	$  1,000 
$  1,000 
$  1,000 
$     500 
	 	 	 	 
	Reimbursement of Travel Expenses	All Directors	Actual Costs	Actual Costs
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Restricted Stock Grant	Chair of Board
Director	3,000 shares
1,500 shares	N/A
1,500 shares
	 	 	 	 
	New Director Stock Option Grant	New Director	15,000 shares	15,000 shares
	 	 	 	 
	Health and Basic Life Insurance Coverage	All Outside Directors
(voluntary participation)
#### Leonard Frank et al., Appellants, v City of New York, *255Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And Two Third-Party Actions.)

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about January 19, 1990, granting the motion of defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross claims asserted against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant Lord Electric Company, was assigned to lay drag lines through existing piping for the future installation of traffic cables near the intersection of Baxter and Grand Streets in Manhattan. Before descending into the street manhole owned by defendant Empire City Subway Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of New York Telephone Co., plaintiff parked his van, which had an ongoing flashing light, 15 feet west of the manhole. He then placed a "U”-shaped yellow gate around the manhole some two feet away and half a dozen brightly covered cones on both sides of the manhole extending from the "U” side to the front of the van. Plaintiff also placed two additional cones with flags in the two-foot space between the base of the manhole and the "U”. As if these precautions were not enough, plaintiff connected the van, the cone and the gate with a bright red safety tape. Despite these safety precautions, plaintiff was struck by an unidentified hit-and-run vehicle as he was standing on a ladder near the edge of the manhole cover at 10:15 a.m. Plaintiff thereafter commenced this personal injury action against the City of New York and several others asserting, *inter alia.,*that the city should be held liable in negligence for failing to close off the one-way traffic of Baxter Street or for failing to post a "people working” sign or other traffic device at the intersection.

Even if it were to be assumed that the city owed a duty to plaintiff and somehow acted improperly, plaintiff still bears the burden of demonstrating that the city’s failure to close or curtail the flow of traffic or post warning signs was a substantial cause of the events which produced his injuries. *(Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, 315, *rearg denied*52 NY2d 784, 829.) The instant record reveals that an unknown hit-and-run driver was solely responsible for causing the accident. *(See, Cimino v City of New York,*54 AD2d 843, 844, *affd on App Div mem*43 NY2d 966.) The city was in no position to prevent the accident. Even if the city had posted a work sign or placed a traffic light at the subject intersection, the only possible way it could be found liable would be if the jury were permitted to speculate that a traffic sign device would have *256caused the driver to stop. In view of the elaborate safety measures undertaken by plaintiff, which were ultimately ignored by the hit-and-run driver, it is clear that the city is not liable and summary judgment was properly granted. *(See, Price v Town of Canandaigua,*142 AD2d 974, 976.) Concur&emdash; Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
ON REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4551

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEMP SHIDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-02-123) Submitted: February 16, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. Moss, MOSS, KUHN & FLEMING, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Miller W. Shealy, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kemp Shider petitions this court for rehearing of his earlier appeal. In light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and United States v. Hughes , 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 4331 (4th Cir. Mar. 16, 2005), we grant the petition for rehearing solely as to the sentence and find that the district court plainly erred in imposing a sentence that exceeded the maximum allowed based on facts established by Shider’s guilty plea. We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for proceedings consistent with Hughes . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Project No. 1864-079] 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the proposed lake level amendment for the Bond Falls Project, located in the Ontonagon River Basin in Ontonagon and Gogebic Counties, Michigan and Vilas County, Wisconsin, and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA evaluates the environmental impacts that would result from revising the summer season end of month target lake level elevations and minimum flow trigger flow elevations pursuant to license Articles 401 and 402, respectively. The EA finds that approval of the amendment application would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

                    A copy of the EA is attached to a Commission order titled “Order Amending License Articles 401 and 402” issued August 26, 2008, and is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or it may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number (P-1864) excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free at 1 (866)-208-3372, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-20863 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Citizens Communications Company:

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement on
Form S-8 of Citizens  Communications Company (the "Company") of our report dated
March 6, 2002,  covering our audits of the  consolidated  balance  sheets of the
Company  and  subsidiaries  as of  December  31,  2001 and 2000 and the  related
consolidated  statements of income (loss),  shareholders' equity,  comprehensive
income  (loss),  and cash flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period
ended December 31, 2001,  which report appears in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.


                                                /s/ KPMG
New York, New York
June 21, 2002
<PAGE>
 
February 22, 1999


Presidential Life Corporation
69 Lydecker Street
Nyack, New York 10960

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American 
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of unaudited interim financial
information of Presidential Life Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods
ended September 30, 1998 and 1997, as indicated in our report dated October 30,
1998; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your 
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1998, is 
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-63831 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to rule 436(c) under 
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration 
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or 
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York