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 Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# Time and Date: 

10 a.m., Thursday, October 7, 2010.

# Place: 

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

# Status: 

Open.

# Matters to be Considered:

                         The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Jayson Turner*                         v.                         *National Cement Company of California,*                         Docket No. WEST 2006-568-DM. (Issues include whether the administrative law judge's denial of a miner's discrimination complaint was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# Contact Person for More Info: 

Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2010-25379 Filed 10-5-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
868 A.2d 1030

#### WAWA, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. TOWNSHIP OF WESTAMPTON AND WESTAMPTON TOWNSHIP LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

February 4, 2005.

This matter having been duly considered and the Court having determined that certification was improvidently granted;

It is ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed.
#### In re Christy Marie RHOADES.

No. 2011-OB-0191.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 26, 2011.

In re Rhoades, Christy Marie; —Plaintiff; Applying For Permission to Take Bar Examination.

Denied.
864 A.2d 1107

#### IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL A. DEMIRO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

January 10, 2005.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-139, concluding that as a matter of final discipline pursuant to *Rule*l:20-13(c), MICHAEL A. DeMIRO of VERONA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1976, and who thereafter was temporarily suspended from the practice of law pursuant to *Rule*1:20 — 13(b)(1) by Order of this Court filed June 2, 2003, and who remains suspended at this time, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months on the basis of his plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice (18 *U.S.C.A.*371), conduct in violation of *RPC*8.4(b) (criminal act reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer) and *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);

And respondent having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL A. DeMIRO is suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months and until the further Order of the Court, retroactive to June 2, 2003; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that he continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of *Rule*l:20-20b(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a *249period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of *RPC*8.1(b) and *RPC*8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to *Rule*1:10-2; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 7196]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 2004 re-designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.

Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained.

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register.**

Dated: September 28, 2010.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010-25333 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
#### John Ranson v. Berry Gatewood.

(No. 2926.)

Appeal from Ellis County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

*(Transferred from Austin.J*

§ 364. *Petition; inconsistent and uncertain allegations in.*The petition alleged that defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff a note for $500. That afterwards defendant took up this note and executed another note in lieu of it for $789.33 — which last note had been lost or mislaid. It charged that defendant was indebted to plaintiff in both said notes, and prayed for judgment for his debt, interest and costs. *Held,*the special exceptions to the petition: 1, that it did not set forth a full and clear statement of the cause of action; 2, that it was uncertain upon which of the notes the plaintiff relied for a recovery; and 3, that it was inconsistent in alleging an indebtedness upon both notes, were properly sustained. These defects in the original petition were cured, however, by an amended petition, in which it was made clear that the plaintiff sought a recovery alone upon the new *318note which had been given in lieu of the first one. The defendant pleaded that the alleged new note had never been executed and delivered by him in a manner that would make it a valid obligation. The jury found in favor of this plea, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.

October 22, 1884.

Affirmed.
#### STATE ex rel. Gayle NEIDHARDT v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1196.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Neidhardt, Gayle; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial *991District Court Div. B, No. 90-2672; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-203.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.
#### Chad Michael VAUGHN v. Julia Ransonet VAUGHN.

No. 2011-C-0806.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Vaughn, Chad Michael; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 64,296; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CU 2201.

Denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00372-CR

Ex parte Elida Uribe §

§

§

§

§

From the 367th District Court

of Denton County (F-2009-1488-E)

March 9, 2017

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_______________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
| (logo) WELLS 

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreementdated as of August 1, 2014, by and among RBS COMMERICAL FUNDING INC., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer,CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCBMaster Servicer, NCB, FSB, as Co-op Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATEADVISORS, INC., as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asCertificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, andWILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C21 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton,Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer duringthe period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “ReportingPeriod”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has beenmade under my supervision, and 

 

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicerhas fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0390 RANDYLAEDEKE,

Plaintiffand Appellant, DARLA PRENN, and THE ESTATE OF LILA M. LAEDEKE,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. BILLINGS CLINIC,

Defendant and Appellee. 

## OCT 2 5 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clcrk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiffand Appellant Randy Laedeke filed a Petition for Rehearing in this matter. On October 14, 2022, Defendant and Appellee Billings Clinic responded in opposition to Laedeke's petition. Under M. R. App. P. 20, this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only ifthe opinion "overlooked some fact material to the decision," ifthe opinion "overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case," or if the opinion "conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by the Court. M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)(i-iii). Laedeke asserts rehearing is warranted in this case because the Court "overlooked a major material fact" and "overlooked a question presented
. . . that would have proven decisive to the case." Having reviewed Laedeke's petition and Billings Clinic's response, the Courtconcludesrehearingis notwarranted under M.R.App. P. 20. Laedeke'spetition for rehearing merely rehashes the same arguments regarding the tolling ofthe statute of limitations until he received certain medical documentation that he made in his initial briefing and which this Court squarely addressed and rejected in our Opinion. "A petition 10/25/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0390forrehearingisnota forum inwhich torehash argumentsmade in the briefs and considered

by the Court." State ex rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 217 P.3d 475, 486, 2009 Mont. LEXIS 443. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. The Clerk ofthis Court shall provide a copy ofthis Order to Randy Laedeke and to all counsel ofrecord• 44-, DATED this ZS day ofOctober, 2022.

ChiefJustice

• 

# Al Justices

2
Order entered August 28, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00958
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF I .L.S., A CHILD On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 09
- 7655 

### O RD ER Before the Court is appellant’s August 19, 2013 response to this Court’s order dated August 5, 2013. We treat appellant’s response as a motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal. We GRANT appellant’s motion. Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on July 15, 2013 is deemed timely for jurisdictional purposes. Appellant’s brief is due October 4, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1515 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1515

  To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to treat 
    certain communities as metropolitan cities for purposes of the 
               community development block grant program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2007

  Mr. Costello (for himself and Mr. Shimkus) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to treat 
    certain communities as metropolitan cities for purposes of the 
               community development block grant program.

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

SECTION 1. METROPOLITAN CITIES.

    Paragraph (4) of section 102(a) of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new sentence: ``Notwithstanding any other provision 
of this paragraph, with respect to any fiscal year beginning after the 
date of the enactment of this sentence, the cities of Alton and Granite 
City, Illinois, shall be considered metropolitan cities for purposes of 
this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATE
      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 Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.
      Stewart Parker., 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 to the best of my knowledge:





(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/
              H.
              Stewart ParkerH.
              Stewart ParkerPresident
              and
              Chief Executive OfficerMay 3, 2006





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.




This
      certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as
      Exhibit 32 to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and in accordance
      with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. This certification is not being
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and is not and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into the
      Form 10-Q or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
**Exhibit 31.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Pehong
      Chen, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BroadVision, 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)
      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. I
      have disclosed, based on my 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:
      May
      14, 2007


*/s/
                PEHONG CHEN*Pehong
                Chen*Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer*
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Northfield Laboratories Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven A. Gould, M.D.,
Chief Executive Officer of Northfield Laboratories Inc., 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 Northfield Laboratories Inc.

Date: January 13, 2004

/s/ Steven A. Gould, M.D.
-------------------------
Steven A. Gould, M.D.
Chief Executive Officer
#### HARBIN MILL AND LUMBER COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 2901, AFL-CIO, Appellee.

No. 13968.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 12, 1960.

Robert L. Taylor of Taylor & Taylor, Philip D. Peeler, Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.

Anthony J. Sabella, Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.

Before McALLISTER, Chief Judge, POPE, Circuit Judge*, and THORNTON, District Judge.

*

 Judge Walter L. Pope, of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The above cause coming on to be heard on the record, the briefs of the parties and the arguments of counsel in open court, and the Court being duly advised:

Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the District Court be and is hereby affirmed on the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Judge Boyd.