alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on January 28, 2010, PCAS-Nanosyn, LLC, 3331-B Industrial Drive, Santa Rosa, California 95403, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethamphetamine (1105)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIPhencyclidine (7471)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDiprenorphine (9058)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
IIFentanyl (9801)
II
 The company is a contract manufacturer. At the request of the company's customers, it manufactures derivatives of controlled substances in bulk form only. The primary service provided by the company to its customers is the development of the process of manufacturing the derivative. As part of its service to its customers, the company distributes the derivatives of the controlled substances it manufactures to those customers. The company's customers use the newly-created processes and the manufactured derivatives in furtherance of formulation processes and dosage form manufacturing; pre-clinical studies, including toxicological studies; clinical studies supporting investigational Drug Applications; and use in stability studies. Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR § 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 13, 2010. Dated: October 6, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-25849 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
585 A.2d 391

#### JOHN T. HENDERSON, INC., REALTORS v. PRETTY BROOK CORPORATION.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES B. DANIELS.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification granted. (See 219 *N.J.Super.*550)
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 Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-2 (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 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 statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 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 Rules 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 certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc., as subservicer, Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.
 
  
 
  
 /s/ CHRISTIAN LOWN
584 A.2d 217

#### LISA BRESEMANN v. RICHARD D. JACOBS, M.D., ET AL.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
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



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his/her capacity as an
officer of Variflex, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:



the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: December 9, 2003   
|--------------------------
|                          
|By: /s/ Raymond H. Losi II
|Chief Executive Officer   
|                          
|Dated: December 9, 2003   
|                          
|By: /s/ Petar Katurich    
|Chief Financial Officer
584 A.2d 209

#### CARMEN LUTZ v. BIG RED PONTIAC-GMC TRUCK, INC.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
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 Merix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 26, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Mark R. Hollinger, 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated April 6, 2005 |  | /s/ Mark R. Hollinger  
|                    |  | Mark R. Hollinger      
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### The People v. David Stott.

*Obstructing highways*— Jurisdiction—Questions *of title.*

Questions of title cannot be tried in the recorder’s court of Detroit in a prosecution for obstructing and incumbering a public alley; citing *Jackson v. People,*9 Mich. 122; *Roberts v. Commissioners,*25 Id. 23; *Beecher v. People,*38 Id. 291; *Willson v. Gifford,*42 Id. 454; *Gregory v. Knight,*50 Id. 61.

*Certiorari*to the recorder’s court of Detroit to review proceedings resulting in the conviction of respondent on a charge of obstructing a public alley. (Chambers, J.)

Argued February 4, 1892.

Prisoner discharged February 19, 1892.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*James C. Smith, Jr.,*for respondent.

*Frank A. Rasch,*for the people.

Montgomery, J.

The defendant was prosecuted in the recorder’s court of Detroit, under a city ordinance, and convicted of the charge of obstructing and incumbering a public alley.*

It appeared on the trial that the premises were, in 1856, dedicated as a public alley, but that in 1888 the alley was fenced up by one Ball, who owned, the abutting property on both sides, and who had procured the passage of a resolution of the common council of the city vacating the alley in question, on condition that he (Ball) should dedicate and open another alley a little further south. Ball opened such new alley, and tendered a deed of it to the city, but was informed by the city attorney that no deed was necessary. In 1889, Ball conveyed to defendant all his title to the premises embraced in the original alley, as acquired by him under the resolution *344of the common council before mentioned, and defendant has since that time maintained ■ the fences about the premises. A year or more after this conveyance Ball closed up the second alley, -which he had dedicated, to the south of the one in question. On October 15, 1890, the common council passed a resolution professing to rescind their former action vacating the old alley, on the ground that the new alley had not been dedicated as required by the former resolution. It was also claimed on the trial that the original resolution had been procured by fraud.

Under these circumstances, the defendant’s good faith in attempting to maintain his alleged title to the *locus in quo*could hardly be questioned, and, so far as appears, was not questioned on the trial. At. the conclusion of the testimony the defendant moved the recorder to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that the question of title could not in this proceeding be tried, which motion was denied, and is the only ground of error alleged.

The conviction cannot be sustained. See *Beecher v. People,*38 Mich. 291; *Jackson v. People,*9 Id. 122; *Roberts v. Commissioners,*25 Id. 23; *Willson v. Gifford,*42 Id. 454; *Gregory v. Knight,*50 Id. 61.

The judgment of the recorder’s court will be set aside, and the prisoner discharged.

The other Justices concurred.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00014-CV

__________________

LUIS MORALES PEREZ, Appellant

V.

JAVIER LOPEZ FRANCISCO, JOHN DOE, PUMPCO INC., 

DEMETRIO GONZALEZ, AND MASTEC INC., Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-04-05322-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Luis Morales Perez filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. This 

motion is voluntarily made by Perez prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed notice of appeal. We grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal.
2

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on June 9, 2021

Opinion Delivered June 10, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 761 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 761

 To prohibit the use of premiums paid to the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
          Corporation as an offset for other Federal spending.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2017

     Mr. Renacci (for himself, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Kelly of 
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Bucshon) introduced the following bill; which was 
referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on 
the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of premiums paid to the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
          Corporation as an offset for other Federal spending.

    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 ``Pension and Budget Integrity Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF PREMIUMS AS AN OFFSET.

    (a) In General.--In the Senate and the House of Representatives, 
for purposes of determining points of order under the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) or any concurrent resolution 
on the budget, any provision that increases, or extends the increase 
of, any premiums payable to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
shall not be counted in estimating the level of budget authority, 
outlays, or revenues--
            (1) in the Senate, for any bill, joint resolution, 
        amendment, amendment between the Houses, conference report, or 
        motion; or
            (2) in the House of Representatives, for any bill or joint 
        resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon.
    (b) Rules of Senate and House of Representatives.--Congress adopts 
the provisions of this section--
            (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
        and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such is 
        deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, and 
        supersede other rules only to the extent that they are 
        inconsistent with such rules; and
            (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
        either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
        procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
        to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
        House.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,810,000
<SECURITIES>                                 6,125,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,353,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   163,000
<INVENTORY>                                    335,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,358,000
<PP&E>                                       1,487,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 899,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,149,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,340,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,697,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,149,000
<SALES>                                      2,926,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,245,000
<CGS>                                        2,279,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,865,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,380,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   881,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,499,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,499,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        


</TABLE>
584 A.2d 223

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. AARON BANKS.

May 21, 1990

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7293 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7293

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 770 Ayrault Road in Fairport, New York, as the ``Louise and Bob 
                        Slaughter Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2018

Mr. Morelle (for himself, Mr. Zeldin, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Suozzi, 
    Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. 
Jeffries, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Donovan, Mrs. Carolyn 
 B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Serrano, Mr. 
Engel, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Mr. Faso, Mr. 
 Tonko, Ms. Stefanik, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Reed, Mr. Katko, and Mr. Higgins 
 of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 770 Ayrault Road in Fairport, New York, as the ``Louise and Bob 
                        Slaughter Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LOUISE AND BOB SLAUGHTER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 770 Ayrault Road in Fairport, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Louise and Bob Slaughter Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Louise and 
Bob Slaughter Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
**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 theQuarterly Report of Consolidated Graphics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joe R. Davis,Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

# (1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

#  

# (2)           Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

#  

Dated:    July 27,2005

 

 
|   | /s/ Joe R. Davis                                                |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Joe R. Davis                                                    |
|   | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Kennedy *v.*Kennedy.

[No. 19,631.

Filed October 8, 1962.

Rehearing dismissed November 14, 1962.]

*57
      *Nathan R. Glover,*of Gary, for appellant.

*Harry Schell,*of Gary, for appellee.

Ryan, J.

This cause was transferred to this court by the Supreme Court of Indiana (see *Kennedy*v. *Kennedy*(1961), 241 Ind. 633, 173 N. E. 2d 56, rehearing denied 174 N. E. 2d 410), in which the Supreme Court had consolidated two appeals. The first appeal was from a judgment rendered on May 15, 1959 and in which the appellant filed a petition to vacate and set aside such judgment on May 28, 1959. Subsequently, on November 24, 1959, the trial court overruled appellant’s motion to set aside the judgment, and then appellant filed his motion for a new trial on November 27, 1959. Thereafter the appellant filed his assignment of errors in the office of the clerk of this court on April 4,1960.

Burns’ Ind. Anno. Sts. §2-2403 (1946 Replacement) provides that a motion for a new trial must be filed within thirty (30) days after the return of the verdict or decision. Such time is not extended by the intermediate filing of a motion to vacate the judgment. *Kennedy*v. *Kennedy, supra.*

Further, it is apparent by the record that the transcript and assignment of errors was filed with the clerk of this court on April 4, 1960, and no petition for extension of time to file such transcript and assignment of errors was ever filed. Supreme Court Rule 2-2 requires the assignment of errors and transcript of the record to be filed in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court within ninety (90) days from the date of the judgment or *58the ruling on motion for a new trial. We thus have no jurisdiction to decide any question concerning the appeal from the judgment of May 15, 1959, granting a divorce to the appellee.

The second of the consolidated appeals apparently was attempted to be taken from a judgment modifying the previous decree of divorce as to the amount of support money and also from a later order granting appellee attorney’s fees. Again the record indicates that the appellant at no time presented any question concerning error in the above orders to the trial court, but merely filed an appeal bond. While such orders are appealable, *Haag*v. *Haag*(1959), 240 Ind. 291, 163 N. E. 2d 243, any question concerning such orders must first be presented to the trial court by proper pleadings.

Therefore, the first purported appeal questioning the divorce decree of May 15, 1959, is dismissed; and as to the second purported appeal, the orders modifying the original decree of divorce which the appellant now attempts to question, are affirmed.

Cooper, P. J., and Ax and Myers, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 185 N. E. 2d 304.
Exhibit 11
                                  HMN Financial, Inc.
                       Computation of Earnings Per Common Share



						             Three months ended March 31,
                                                  2001                2000
                                              --------------------------------
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding used in basic earnings per
  common share calculation		            3,722,627	       3,998,038

Net dilutive effect of:
 Options		                                216,704	         114,964
 Restricted stock awards		                  735              1,953
                                               ----------         ----------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding
 adjusted for effect of dilutive securities     3,940,066          4,114,955
                                               ==========         ==========

Income available to common shareholders	    $ 1,590,908	       1,529,714
Basic earnings per common share		    $      0.43	            0.38
Diluted earnings per common share		    $      0.40	            0.37