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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Initial, Review Group, Neurological Sciences and Disorders A.                    

*Date:*                         November 3, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites Hotel, 4300 Military Road, Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Richard D. Crosland, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: September 16, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-23854 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Close et al. v. Hannig.

(No. .)

Appeal from Val Verde County.

H. O. Carter, counsel for appellants.

Jones & Jones and J. M. Coleman, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 331. *Jurisdiction; in foreclosure suit value of property is “amount in controversy;” plaintiff’s replevy bond; judgment should be rendered on, if the court is without jurisdiction of the suit.*Appellee sued appellants in *581county court to recover an indebtedness of $880 and interest, and to foreclose a lien given to secure said indebtedness upon certain household furniture alleged to be of the value of $1,008.25. Appellee sued out a writ of sequestration to seize said furniture, and under said writ all but a small portion of said furniture was seized, that seized being valued by the officer who executed the writ at $999.25. Appellants failed to replevy the property seized, and appellee replevied the same. The cause was dismissed by the court for the want of jurisdiction over the amount in controversy, said amount being the alleged value of the property upon which the lien was sought to be foreclosed, and that amount exceeding $1,000. By the judgment dismissing the cause no disposition was made of the property which had been replevied by appellee, the plaintiff in the suit. Appellants, by motion, asked the court for judgment upon appellee’s replevy bond for the property or its value, which motion was overruled, and said property was left in the hands of appellee. We are of the opinion that, although the court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, it did have jurisdiction to restore to appellants their property which had been taken from them by virtue of the process of the court, or, in case said property was not returned, to adjudge that they recover of appellee and the sureties upon his replevy bohd the value of said property, and for the value of the hire, rent, or revenue of the same. The suit was decided against appellee, and,' he having replevied the property, the statute required that judgment for the value, of said property, etc., should be rendered against him and the sureties upon his replevy bond [Sayles’ Civil St., arts. 4505, 4506]; said judgment subject to be discharged in the same manner as if the property had been replevied by appellants. [Sayles’ Civil St., art. 4502.] The judgment of the court below is here reformed so as to adjudge that appellants have and recover of appellee and the sureties upon his replevy *582bond the sum of $999.25, the value of the property replevied, and all costs. Appellants do not claim any hire, rent or revenue for said property.

January 22, 1890.

Reformed and rendered.
Amendment to Executive Supplementary Savings Plan


 Exhibit 10.1(b) 
 INSTRUMENT AMENDING 
 LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY 
 EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTARY SAVINGS PLAN 
 Lyondell Chemical Company hereby amends the Lyondell Chemical Company Executive Supplementary Savings Plan (“Plan”) by the addition of a new Termination Section at the end thereof which shall provide as follows: 
 Section 14. Termination 
 14.1 Applicability of this Termination Section: The provisions of this Termination Section 14 shall (i) override and supersede any conflicting terms and provisions of the Plan and (ii) shall be effective as of
January 1, 2009 (the “Termination Date”). 
 14.2 Eligibility: Notwithstanding any contrary provision of
this Plan, no Employee shall participate in the Plan on or after the Termination Date. 
 14.3 Cessation of
Contributions: Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this Plan, no contributions shall be made to the Plan for periods on or after the Termination Date. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized on behalf of the Company, has executed this Instrument on this 15th day of December, 2008. 
  

							
	ATTEST:	 	LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY
				
	BY:	 	 /s/ Mindy G. Davidson
	 	BY:	 	 /s/ Gerald A. O’Brien

		 	Assistant Secretary	 		 	Gerald A. O’Brien
		 		 		 	Vice President and General Counsel
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Deborah M. Evans , certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bay Banks of Virginia, 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 am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control 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
controls;

Date: March 22, 2007



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ Deborah M. Evans                     
|Deborah M. Evans                         
|Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer



58
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2013

s1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2013

147209 & (36)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147209

COA: 308549

Genesee CC: 11

- 028115

- FC

STANLEY LAJAN SMITH, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to

remand is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Annual Report of Docucorp International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
D. Andereck, President 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 and 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/  Michael D. Andereck
-------------------------------------

Michael D. Andereck
President and Chief Executive Officer
October 25, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         191,662
<SECURITIES>                                 7,922,994
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,787,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (39,492)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,118,548
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,468,932
<PP&E>                                       6,372,371
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,357,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,723,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,586,599
<BONDS>                                         86,183
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          248,891
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,734,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,723,833
<SALES>                                      5,118,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,118,369
<CGS>                                        2,213,843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,213,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,829,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,808,234)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,808,234)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,808,234)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.159)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.159)


</TABLE>
761 A.2d 1167

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Julie Renee MAKER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 11, 2000.

Decided Nov. 27, 2000.

*455Lawrence J. Casella, Pittsburgh, for Julie Renee Maker.

John G. Knorr, Gerald J. Pappert, Harrisburg, for Com. of Pennsylvania.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZARPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2000, the order of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. *Erie v. Pap’s A.M. t/d/b/a/ Kandyland,*529 U.S. 277, 120 S.Ct. 1382, 146 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000).

Justice NEWMAN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000920231
<NAME> TRANSACTION NETWORK SERVICES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          15,258
<SECURITIES>                                    12,158
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                       398
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,152
<PP&E>                                          23,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,059
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,172
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,717
<SALES>                                         38,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,941
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,742
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,907
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,668
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,660
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,239
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 CSAF celebrates Whiteman total force excellencePublished Feb. 19, 2016
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Miguel Lara III
                        
                        
                        509th Bomb Wing Public Affairs
                **WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo. (AFNS) --**
                Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III visited here Feb. 16-18 to engage with civic leaders and meet Airmen of the world's only B-2 Spirit stealth bomber base.While at Whiteman Air Force Base, Welsh met with leadership from the 509th Bomb Wing, the 131st Bomb Wing, the 442d Fighter Wing, and other tenant units to discuss the evolution of total force integration and to see firsthand the TFI model the base has established.Welsh communicated his support of the TFI mission with total force leaders during roundtable meetings and spoke about the modernization of TFI and B-2 bomber missions.During his visit, Welsh held an all call and stressed his three C's -- common sense, communication and caring -- to Airmen from the three total force wings at Whiteman AFB, and expressed how they can integrate these concepts into their unique missions."Apply common sense to all we do. If it doesn't seem right, make the change and use the chain," Welsh said. "We have four generations in the Air Force; we must use accountable communication to work as a professional organization. And lastly, know your Airmen better. Every Airman has a story. Care enough to know it."Welsh also expressed his gratitude and support to the total force Airmen in attendance and reminded them that the Air Force is rich in pride."Never forget how critically important you are to what we are doing," Welsh added. "We have great people with great training and education and pride -- we, the Air Force, are built on pride, and it shows in your performance. That's where we come from."Brig. Gen. Paul W. Tibbets IV, the 509th Bomb Wing commander, thanked Welsh for the visit and his leadership and echoed his sentiments."Our wing's heritage inspires us to take pride in the work we accomplish," Tibbets said. "We have a legacy of excellence. Through your efforts, we will continue that tradition for many years to come. Our pride will help us remain focused and allow us to face resource-constrained environments and ever evolving adversaries as we continue our strategic deterrence, global strike and combat support mission."Welsh wrapped up the all call with a question and answer session and reminded Airmen why he loves the Air Force and why he's served for so long."I will die for you," Welsh said. "We have only met for about an hour, and I'd die for you. I believe you'd do the same for me. That is what's so special about the Air Force."CSAF 



total force 



B-2 



Whiteman AFB 



visit
#### Ashley Marie COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D10-1441.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 13, 2011.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

VILLANTI, Judge.

This is in Anders1 appeal after modification of Ashley Cooper’s probation. Our independent review of the record reveals *582no issue of arguable merit, but we remand for entry of a revised order modifying probation that conforms to the trial court’s oral declaration.

Cooper admitted violating condition three of her probation by changing her residence without the knowledge and consent of her probation officer. The trial court orally found that she had violated condition three and modified her probation, extending it twelve months. However, the written order modifying probation does not conform to the trial court’s oral declaration because it does not reflect the specific condition of probation which Cooper violated. To avoid future confusion and to facilitate review, *Feezel v. State,*463 So.2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), requires that the order be corrected to reflect the specific condition of probation violated. Thus, we affirm the modification of Cooper’s probation but remand the case for correction of the order modifying probation.

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

NORTHCUTT and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

1

. *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1299 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1299

         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2007

Mr. Poe (for himself, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts, and Mr. Pearce) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings
    ``The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open 
sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the 
majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case 
would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of 
the parties before the Court.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 45 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the 
following:

``678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Eclipsys Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Robert J. Colletti, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 29, 2008



/s/ Robert J. CollettiRobert J. CollettiSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andChief Accounting Officer