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-61,810] 

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and a Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on August 7, 2007, applicable to workers of B.G. Sulzle, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Contemporary Personnel Services and Staffworks, North Syracuse, New York. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 27, 2007 (72 FR 49024).                 

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in employment related to the production of stainless steel surgical needles. 

New information shows that on March 22, 2006, Angiotech America, Inc. purchased B.G. Sulzle, Inc. and is currently known as Angiotech America, Inc. Workers wages at the subject firm are being reported under a separate Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax account for Angiotech America, Inc. 

Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to properly reflect this matter. 

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-61,810 is hereby issued as follows: 

“All workers of B.G. Sulzle, Inc., currently known as Angiotech America, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Contemporary Personnel Services (CPS) and Staffworks, North Syracuse, New York, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 9, 2006, through August 7, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.”

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of September 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-22121 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
**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 Cash Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ended February 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, being,
      Bruce Korman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edmund King, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.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 operation of the Company.







Dated: April 18, 2007/s/ Bruce Korman
            
            
            /s/ Edmund KingChief
              Executive Officer
            
            
            Chief
              Financial Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (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 Cash Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Cash Technologies,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 12 to the 1933 Act
      Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-193273) and Amendment No. 695 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under
      individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1443 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1443

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the Secretary of 
  the Treasury to disclose taxpayer identity information through mass 
       communications to notify persons entitled to tax refunds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

   Mr. Doggett (for himself, Mr. Stark, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Cardin, Mr. 
McDermott, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Tanner, 
  Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Holt, Mr. Sherman, Mr. 
 Capuano, and Mr. Etheridge) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the Secretary of 
  the Treasury to disclose taxpayer identity information through mass 
       communications to notify persons entitled to tax refunds.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `` IRS Refund Accessibility Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF TAXPAYER IDENTITY FOR TAX REFUND PURPOSES.

    Paragraph (1) of section 6103(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to disclosure of taxpayer identity information for tax 
refunds) is amended by inserting ``, and through any other means of 
mass communication,'' after ``media''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo GARAY-BURGOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50179.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Arturo Garay-Burgos appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garay complains *435that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Ga-ray thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the maximum terms of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

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. Garay 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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
U .S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HqMpSHIRE

[AVPfED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

LISA MURPHY, INDIVIDUALLY

AND AS MOTHER AND NEXT

FRIEND OF D.B.,

Plsintiffs,

SEP 12 2008

FILED

V. ) Civil No. 06-459-JD

FRANKLIN REGIONAL HOSPITAL

and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

PROPOSED ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' ASSENTED-TO MOTION FOR

APPROVAL OF MINOR'S SETTLEMENT WITH FRANKLIN REGIONAL HOSPITA L

PURSUANT TO R.s A 464-A:42 AN LOCAL RZII.E 17.1

Settlement approved. Counsel fees of $45,390.00 and litigation expenses of $5,009 .39

are to be paid to plaintiffs' counsel .

The sum of $40,000 shall be paid over to the Office of Public Guardian, as guardian over

the estate of the minor. Said funds shall, upon payment, be under the jurisdiction of the

appropriate Court of Probate and shall be administered in accordance with the requirements of

the Court of Probate. Any requests forwithdrawal shall be addressed to the Court of Probate for

its consideration .

The sum of $109,600.61 shall be paid to Lisa Murphy.

Approval is conditional upon compliance with this order with respect to payment of bills

and deposit of funds in accordance with this order. Counsel for the minor shall be responsible

for the settlement funds until said funds shall have actually been deposited in the appropriate

Case 1:06-cv-00459-JD Document 43 Filed 09/12/08 Page 1 of 2
guardianship account pursuant to the terms of this order and pursuant to the terms of the

guardianship.

:aPIL •f 21 r'°rn d

DATBD: ~ ~• /s/Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judg e

2

Case 1:06-cv-00459-JD Document 43 Filed 09/12/08 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
                                     OF 1934


         The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Learning
Priority, Inc. ("Learning Priority"), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly
Report of Learning Priority on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained i n such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
Learning Priority. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of
this statement has been provided to Learning Priority and will be retained by
Learning Priority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


  Date: July 16, 2008             By: /s/ Ian Rescigno
                                      --------------------------
                                      IAN RESCIGNO
                                      Chief Executive Officer and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Markem Corporation,

Plaintiff

v. Case No. 07-cv-06-SM

Zipher Ltd. and Videojet

Technologies, Inc.,

Defendants 

O R D E R

As all parties have not filed waivers with the Clerk of Court by the prescribed time the

undersigned is hereby recused from presiding over this matter. The Clerk shall reassign this case

in accordance with the usual practices.

SO ORDERED.

December 14, 2007 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cv-00006-PB Document 65 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Carol L. ALDERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INMAR ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1380.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 23, 2003.

Decided Feb. 27, 2003.

ARGUED: David Christopher Pishko, Elliot Pishko Morgan, P.A., Winston Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Richard Lee Rainey, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and Morton I. GREENBERG, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Carol L. Alderman appeals from the district court’s order and judgment entered March 8, 2002, granting defendants Inmar Enterprises, Incorporated’s and Carolina Coupon Clearing, Incorporated’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Alderman’s complaint against defendants under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621*et seq.,*and under North Carolina state law for wrongful termination in violation of North Carolina public policy. *Alderman v. Inmar Enter., Inc.,*201 F.Supp.2d 532 (M.D.N.C.2002). In addition, the district court declined to exercise supplemental *48jurisdiction over defendants’ counterclaim for conversion against Alderman which it thus dismissed without prejudice. We are not concerned, however, with the dismissal of the counterclaim as neither party appeals from that dismissal. We review the district court’s order *de novo, see Higgins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,*863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988), and thus will affirm if we determine that there is no dispute as to any material fact and defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

After a careful review of this matter we are in agreement with the district court that defendants are entitled to summary judgment and we affirm essentially for the reasons the district court set forth. We emphasize only that even if Alderman satisfied the *McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,*411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), burden-shifting process to the extent that defendants were obliged to set forth legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for their employment termination decision, she did not produce a basis for a court to conclude that defendants’ asserted reasons were pretextual. She cannot meet this burden simply by disagreeing with her employers’ assessment of her. As this court indicated in *Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc.,*203 F.3d 274, 280 (4th Cir.2000), “[W]e have repeatedly held that in a wrongful discharge action it is the perception of the decision maker which is relevant, not the self-assessment of the plaintiff.” (Internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).

*AFFIRMED.*
**Annual
      Compliance Statement**





VIA:
      EMAIL





Morgan
      Stanley Capital I Inc.


585
      Broadway


New
      York,
      New York 10036





Re:
      Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2006-IQ11 (the "Trust"), Commercial Mortgage
      Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-IQ11, issued pursuant to the Pooling
      and
      Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2006 (the "Agreement"), among Morgan
      Stanley Capital I Inc., as depositor (the "Depositor"), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
      as general master servicer (the "General Master Servicer"), LNR Partners, Inc.,
      as general special servicer (the "General Special Servicer"), NCB, FSB, as
      master servicer with respect to the NCB, FSB Loan and NCB Loan only (the "NCB
      Master Servicer"), National Consumer Cooperative Bank, as special servicer
      with
      respect to the Co-op Mortgage Loans only (the "Co-op Special Servicer"), and
      LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee, paying agent and certificate
      registrar (the "Trustee").





I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Trustee hereby certify that:





(1)
      A
      review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year
      and
      of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
      supervision; and





(2)
      To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all
      its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
      year or a portion thereof.











Date: February
      1, 2007








LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Trustee








/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2021


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: January 13, 2022
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kasenia R., by and through

her parents and next best 

friend, M.R. and C. B. 

v. Case No. 05-cv-292-SM

Brookline School District

ORDER

Re: Document No. 56, Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Decision (Rule 72(a)) re: denying additional evidence.

Ruling: Other: Having reviewed the pleadings and the

Magistrate Judge’s Order, the order is affirmed as neither clearly

erroneous nor contrary to law. I would add that the record

discloses that plaintiff’s counsel was afforded more than adequate

time and opportunity to present plaintiff’s administrative case,

and chose to allocate that time as she thought appropriate.

Plaintiffs cannot now complain about those strategic choices. 

Indeed, the hearing officer expressed understandable frustration

with counsel’s seeming lack of organization and focus in presenting

the case. With respect to Dr. Afshar, it is apparent that he was

present and could have been called at the hearing, though it also

seemed to have been established that his specific (as opposed to

generic) recommendations had not previously been made available to

the IEP team. In any event, counsel made a proffer as to what Dr.

Afshar’s testimony would have been in substance, which is part of

the record and adequate for review in this court. Administrative

due process hearings in this context are not meant to be marathons

limited only by counsel's desire to continue to jog; the hearing

officer can and should require parties and counsel to focus on the

relevant issues, and to get to the point, presenting witnesses and

evidence effectively and in a focused manner, and counsel and

parties ought to be able to do so. Here, counsel had a full

opportunity to, and easily could have, called all the relevant

witnesses she desired, and could have presented all the available

evidence she thought useful. No "solid justification" has been

shown warranting additional evidence in this forum on appeal.

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: December 26, 2006 

cc: Theresa Kraft, Esq.

Dean B. Eggert, Esq. 

Case 1:05-cv-00292-JL Document 60 Filed 12/26/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Certifications

I, David Weisman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Eagle Broadband,
Inc.;

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. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
     internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
     supervision, to provided reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
     financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
     external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
     principles; and

     c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions abut the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;


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.

Date: July 29, 2004

/s/David A. Weisman
-------------------
David A. Weisman
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)