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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact indicator under the Public Assistance program for disasters declared on or after October 1, 2010, will be increased.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         October 1, 2010, and applies to major disasters declared on or after October 1, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tod Wells, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3834.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

44 CFR 206.48 provides that FEMA will adjust the statewide per capita impact indicator under the Public Assistance program to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.

FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact indicator will be increased to $1.30 for all disasters declared on or after October 1, 2010.

FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 1.1 percent for the 12-month period ended in August 2010. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 17, 2010.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Public Assistance Grants.)

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-25334 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25160]



[[Page 61772]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Meeting of the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park 
Advisory Commission

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 
92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1,10), notice is hereby given of the 
meeting of the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Advisory 
Commission.

DATES: The Commission will meet on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 9 a.m. 
until 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Paterson Museum at 2 Market 
Street (intersection of Spruce Street) in Paterson, New Jersey.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Bolger, Project Director, 
Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park National Park Service, 
200 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106: 215-597-1649.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paterson Great Falls NHP Federal 
Advisory Commission was authorized by Congress and signed by the 
President on March 30, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11, Title VII, Subtitle A, 
Section 7001, Subsection e) ``to advise the Secretary in the 
development and implementation of the management plan.'' The agendas 
for these meetings will be published by press release.
    This meeting will be open to the public and time will be reserved 
for public comment. Oral comments will be summarized for the record. If 
individuals wish to have their comments recorded verbatim they must 
submit them in writing. Written comments and requests for agenda items 
may be submitted electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e0c070202310c0102090b1c2e001e1d40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="62000b0e0e3d000d0e050710220c12114c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>. Alternatively, 
comments and requests may be sent to: Bill Bolger, National Park 
Service, 200 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Before including 
your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal 
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your 
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be 
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your 
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public 
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: September 24, 2010.
William C. Bolger,
Project Director, Paterson Great Falls NHP and Designated Federal 
official for the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-25160 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-52-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### NCO GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph D. COOK; Kimberly D. Taylor; Twin Medical Transaction Services, Inc., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 00-16856.

D.C. No. CV-00-00896-PMP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 8, 2001.1

Decided Jan. 11, 2001.

Before BEEZER, O’SCANNLAIN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

This appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Our inquiry is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the prehminary injunction or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. *Does lr-5 v. Chandler,*83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1996).

The record before us shows that the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that NCO Group, Inc. failed to make a showing of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury. *Id.; see also Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc.,*686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir.1982) (stating legal standards governing issuance of prehminary injunction). Moreover, the court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous. *Chandler,*83 F.3d at 1152.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of a prehminary injunction.3

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

3

. We deny NCO's motion for an injunction pending appeal, and its motion to strike.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 2019

BELINDA HERNANDEZ, for A.I.A. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ANDREW SAUL , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. ( 4:19

- cv - 00106

- MSD

- DEM )

Submitted : February 11, 2021 Decided: February 22, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Belinda Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant U nited States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Belinda Hernandez appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magis trate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Hernandez that failure to file timely , specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). Hernandez has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

a dequately presented in the materials before this court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000921450
<NAME> THE QUANTUM GROUP INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          14,237
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  507,090
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    163,936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,128472
<PP&E>                                        1,403138
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,366,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,429,627
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,422
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,350,058
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,366,466
<SALES>                                         75,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,661
<CGS>                                           30,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               814,488
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (103,548)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (665,549)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (665,549)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
585 A.2d 382

#### NEW JERSEY STATE AFL-CIO v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS AND SOMERSET COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS AND BURLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS AND HUNTERDON COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS.

September 24, 1990.

Petition for certification granted.
```

                                Exhibit 99.2

                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Frontier  Airlines,  Inc. (the
“Company”)  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2002 as filed
with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the
“Report”),  I.  Paul  H.  Tate,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted  pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 12(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Paul H. Tate
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**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 Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Robert H. Barghaus                     |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert H. Barghaus                         |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | June 5, 2008                          |

 

This certification is made solely for thepurpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standard containedtherein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
No. 13,623.

#### Mitten *v.*Kitt.

*Deposition.*— Publication *After Trial has Commenced.*— A party has the right to have a deposition taken by him published after the trial has commenced, although it has been regularly on file for forty-two days.

Same. — *Delay in Moving for Publication.*— As either party may move to publish a deposition, neither can complain of delay on the part of the other in making the motion.

Erom the Huntington Circuit Court.

*J. B. Kenner*and *J. I. Dille,*for appellant.

*J. C. Branyan, M. L. Spencer*and *W. A. Branyan,*for appellee.

Elliott, C. J.

A deposition taken by the appellant had been on file for forty-two days, when the appellant’s counsel moved to publish it. This motion was not made until after the trial had commenced, and much of the evidence had been heard. The envelope containing the deposition was prop*146■erly addressed and it was duly filed. It was, therefore, among the files of the case, and either party had the right, as ■of course, to move to publish it, but neither was under any legal obligation to make the motion. The motion made by the appellant was denied. This was error. The appellant was, as we have said, under no obligation to move for the publication of the deposition. He deprived the appellee of no right in delaying his motion. He did nothing wrong. Having done no wrong and invaded no right, there is no valid reason apparent on the face of the record for depriving him of the evidence of his witness by refusing permission to publish the deposition. A party guiltless of wrong can not be^ justly adjudged to forfeit a right. If the appellee had been misled, or had been deprived of a right, the case would be different. The appellee, by his own inaction, postponed the opening of the deposition, and whatever other rights he may have had — and what rights he had are not here the subject of investigation — he certainly had no right to demand that the deposition should forever remain on file with the seals unbroken. As he did not avail himself of his right to move for publication, he is not in a situation to successfully complain of delay.

Filed April 2, 1889.

Judgment reversed.
#### In re Charles WILLIAMS.

No. 2010-OB-1851.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 9, 2010.

In re Williams, Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying For From Order of Hearing Commissioner on Committee # 49 Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 07-DB-034.

Denied.
585 A.2d 382

#### NEW JERSEY STATE AFL-CIO v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS AND SOMERSET COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS AND BURLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS AND HUNTERDON COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS AND BOROUGH OF ROSELAND.

September 24, 1990.

Petition for certification granted.
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.                  

###### Library of Congress

###### Copyright Office

          - 37 CFR Part 201
          - [Docket No. RM 2010-3]

# AGENCY:

Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Copyright Office published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of October 4, 2010, a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning refunds under the cable statutory license. This document corrects the date for submitting reply comments.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ben Golant, Assistant General Counsel, and Tanya M. Sandros, Deputy General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366.

## Correction

                        In proposed rule RM 2010-3, make the following correction in the Dates section. On page 61117 in the 2nd column, correct the                         **DATES**                         caption to read:                    

# DATES:

Written comments must be received in the Office of the General Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than November 3, 2010. Reply comments must be received in the Office of the General Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than December 3, 2010.

Dated: October 6, 2010.

Tanya Sandros,

Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office.

[FR Doc. 2010-25652 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
#### Leonel MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 3D11-452.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 6, 2011.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 2, 2011.

Leonel Munoz, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and SUAREZ and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Leonel Munoz seeks habeas corpus relief based on appellate counsel’s ineffective assistance in failing to raise a fundamental error claim, pursuant to *State v. Montgomery,*39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010). Based on our prior decisions in *Cubelo v. State,*41 So.3d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), *Daniels v. State,*46 So.3d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), and *Guerra v. State,*44 So.3d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), we deny the motion. Where the jury was instructed on both manslaughter by act and manslaughter by culpable negligence, there was no fundamental error requiring a reversal of the petitioner’s conviction. *See Daniels,*46 So.3d at 630.

Habeas corpus denied.
EXHIBIT
32.2





HERITAGE
OAKS BANCORP




Quarterly
report on Form 10Q


for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The
undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the
“Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350,  that,
to my knowledge,  (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Quarterly Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit,
fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of
the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





Dated:  August
      9, 2010
                  /s/ Margaret A.
      TorresMargaret
      A. TorresExecutive
      Vice PresidentChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Heritage Oaks Bancorp, and will be retained
by Heritage Oaks Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,746,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,007,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   120,000
<INVENTORY>                                    395,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,731,000
<PP&E>                                         929,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 542,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,877,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,489,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,341,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,877,000
<SALES>                                      4,047,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,864,000
<CGS>                                        3,385,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,053,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,811,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   670,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,141,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,141,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        


</TABLE>
584 A.2d 210

#### THEODORE RUDBART, ET AL., v. NORTH JERSEY DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY COMMISSION. MADELINE OKIN, ETC. v. NORTH JERSEY DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY COMMISSION.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification granted. (See 238 *N.J.Super.*41, 568 A.2d 1213.)