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 the Treasury

###### Fiscal Service

# AGENCY:

Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Application and renewal fees imposed on surety companies and reinsuring companies; Increase in fees imposed.

# SUMMARY:

Effective December 31, 2009, The Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, is increasing the fees it imposes on and collects from surety companies and reinsuring companies.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The fees imposed and collected, as referred to in 31 CFR 223.22, cover the costs incurred by the Government for services performed relative to qualifying corporate sureties to write Federal business. These fees are determined in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25, as amended. The change in fees is the result of a thorough analysis of costs associated with the Surety Bond Branch.

*The new fee rate schedule is as follows:*

(1) Examination of a company's application for a Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety or as an acceptable reinsuring company on Federal bonds—$8,850.

(2) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual renewal of its Certificate of Authority—$5,200.

(3) Examination of a company's application for recognition as an Admitted Reinsurer (except on excess risks running to the United States)—$3,125.

(4) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual renewal of its authority as an Admitted Reinsurer—$2,220.

                    Questions concerning this notice should be directed to the Surety Bond Branch, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial Management Service, Department of the                           ( print page 1684)                        Treasury, 3700 East West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782, Telephone (202) 874-6850.                

Dated: December 22, 2009.

David Rebich,

Assistant Commissioner for Management (CFO), Financial Management Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-256 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TSHOMBE KELLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

A. HERRERA, Correctional Officer; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-17157 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01894-JAM-CKD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Tshombe Kelley appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force 

and failure to protect. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 

de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-17157 

Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on 

Kelley’s excessive force claim because Kelley failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether defendants maliciously and sadistically used force 

against him. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (the “core judicial 

inquiry” in resolving an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim is “whether 

force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm”). 

Because Kelley failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to 

whether defendants used excessive force against him, the district court properly 

granted summary judgment for defendants on Kelley’s claim that defendants failed 

to protect him from the use of excessive force. See Cunningham v. Gates, 229 

F.3d 1271, 1289 (9th Cir. 2000) (officers “have a duty to intercede when their 

fellow officers violate the constitutional rights of a suspect or other citizen”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Kelley’s contention that the district 

court improperly sealed confidential materials. 

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Ju stices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 24, 2012

s0917 

# Order

September 24, 2012

144649

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144649

COA: 307205

Allegan CC: 07

- 015434

- FH

JOSEPH ARTHUR KETOLA

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 26, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
**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 theQuarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted 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) ofthe 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/ Robert H. Barghaus                      |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert H. Barghaus                          |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
|   | December 7, 2007                            |

 

 

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.

 

----
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 72 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-18419) and Amendment No. 606 to the 1940 Act Registration
      Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 9, 2021, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 15, 2021, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity
      Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 10, 2021
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




Home
	  Training
     
    Search & Site Index Prohibited Personnel Practices  Mini-Briefing

    **Note:**If you need a more accessible version of the   video, please e-mail mspb@mspb.gov or phone 202-653-7200, and TDD/videophone users should call via relay.
    **Video formats (streaming below in .mp4 format)**
(.mov - quicktime/Apple/iPhone)
        
          PowerPoint Presentation in PDF Format
        
          (.mp4)Your browser does not support the video tag.


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov
Zoom for Government Privacy Act Statement

AUTHORITY: This collection is authorized by 5 U.S.C. §§ 1201 and 1204. 

PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): This information is being collected for the primary purposes of 

facilitating video and audio conferencing. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) uses the 

Zoom for Government (ZfG) platform to enhance internal collaboration, engage in training and 

outreach events, and conduct conferences and hearings in the course of the adjudication of 

appeals and other matters within MSPB’s authority. Through the use of ZfG, MSPB collects 

information about users including, but not limited to, user names, email addresses, and phone 

numbers (if provided); technical information about users’ devices, network, and internet 

connection; users’ approximate location; information about how users access ZfG (e.g., whether 

they are using a mobile application, web interface, or desktop client); settings and preferences 

chosen by the user; and other metadata. This information is generally collected to facilitate the 

administration of the ZfG session, including to transmit invitation links and to provide technical 

support. For more information on ZfG’s privacy policy, please visit: 

https://zoomgov.com/privacy.

ROUTINE USE(S): The information collected may be shared outside of MSPB as generally 

permitted under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This includes 

sharing the information as necessary and authorized by routine uses published in MSPB/GOVT –

1 Appeals and Case Records, 77 Fed. Reg. 65206 (Oct. 25, 2012), and upon written request, by 

agreement, or as required by law. Some information may be available to the public under the 

provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Additionally, the 

information may be shared as outlined in ZfG’s privacy policy, available at 

https://zoomgov.com/privacy.

DISCLOSURE: The disclosure of information for this collection is voluntary; however, failure 

to provide the information requested may delay or prevent your access to MSPB web 

conferencing capabilities and could result in delay of your appeal or matter, if applicable.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF M. S. V., JR.,

MINOR CHILD

,

Appellant

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00088

- CV

Appeal from the

38 8 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 201 2 DCM10 912 )

O R D E R

Appellant, pro se has filed a subsequent motion to "correct" the clerk's record. We interpret

this to be a request to supplement the clerk's record to include certain items specified in the motion.

Therefore, we ORDER the District Clerk to, within fifteen days, (1) prepare a supplemental

clerk's record containing the items requested by Appellant or (2) provide a written explanation as

to why Appellant's request cannot be completed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of December , 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION
OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, C.E. RICK STRATTAN, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CTD HOLDINGS, INC.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  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 quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  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 quarterly report is being prepared;
b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):
a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and
6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 14, 2003

______/s/____________________________________
C.E. RICK STRATTAN
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 201

_____________________________ S TONEY G LENN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Kevin J. Carroll , Judge

. December 14, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , L EWIS , and W ETHERELL , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Robert A. Morris, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appe llee.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 February 13, 2019

p0212

Order 

Clerk

February 13, 2019

159037 & (17)

HEATHER SAMMUT, Personal Representative

of the Estate of JOSEPH SAMMUT,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159037

COA: 345254

Macomb CC: 2016-001969-NH

SANJAY BATRA, MD, SANJAY

BATRA, MD, PC, JAMES R. MARTIN, MD,

and JAMES R. MARTIN, MD, PC, 

Defendants-Appellants,

and

ST. JOHN MACOMB-OAKLAND HOSPITAL,

MACOMB CENTER, a/k/a ST. JOHN 

PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM, 

VAMSHIDAR GUDUGUNTLA, MD,

KISHAN JASTI, MD, EASTSIDE

CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, PC, GINA

COLONTINO, DO, ADVANCED 

CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES, PLC,

MARK BOIK, RRT, CHERYL ANN KLASSA,

RNP, MAHMOUD AL-HADIDI, MD and 

MAHMOUD AL-HADIDI, MD, PC,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should now be reviewed by this Court.
Opinion issued December 20, 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 2
- 00 975
- C R

——————————— IN RE JASON RAY BOUCHARD , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator , Jason Ray Bouchard , has filed in this Court a pro se petition for writ
of mandamus , challenging the trial court’s order resetting his case for trial so that a competency analysis can be performed

. 1

1 The underlying case is State of Texas v. Jason Ray Bouchard , No. 1245909, in the 178th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable David Mendoza presiding.2

Relator is represented by counsel in the trial court. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W.2d 806 , 806 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); Rudd v. State , 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Accordingly, w e deny the petition for writ of man damus.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley , and Sharp

. Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP . 47.2(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,452,820
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,323,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,646,191
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,130,219
<PP&E>                                       4,174,664<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,304,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,529,460
<BONDS>                                     17,567,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,287
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,834,041)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,304,883
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,489,122
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,852,151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               719,786
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,392,920
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,475,735)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,475,735)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)
<FN>
<F1>PP&E DOES NOT APPLY -- FIGURE REPRESENTS OTHER ASSETS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>