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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2246-063; Project No. 2246-058]

                    a.                     *Project Name and Number:*                     Yuba River Hydroelectric Project No. 2246                

                    b.                     *Date and Time of Meeting:*                     October 28, 2014; 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time                

                    c.                     *Place:*                     HDR offices, 2379 Gateway Oaks, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95833                

                    d.                     *FERC Contact:*                     Alan Mitchnick,                     *alan.mitchnick@ferc.gov*                     or (202) 502-6074                

                    e.                     *Purpose of Meeting:*                     To discuss the Foothills Water Network's January 30, 2014 request for a modification to Yuba County Water Agency's Technical Memo 1-2,                     *Channel Morphology Below Englebright,*                     and the National Marine Fisheries Service's January 30, 2014 request for a new study,                     *Evaluation of Effects of the Shot Rock in the Englebright Dam Reach and Associated Impacts to Anadromous Fish and Their Habitats.*

f. A stenographer will record the technical meeting, and meeting transcripts will be placed into the Commission's public record for the proceeding.

g. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate.

Dated: October 15, 2014.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-25008 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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 Delco Remy International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rajesh K.
Shah, Executive Vice President and 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 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 position and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|/s/    Rajesh K.
Shah                               
|----------------------------------------------------
|Rajesh K. Shah                                      
|Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer







May 15, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Delco Remy International, Inc. and will be retained by Delco Remy International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Daniel Curry, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Grove at Peoria Assisted Living LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-02208-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 The Court having considered the parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice 

(Doc. 24), and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice (Doc. 24). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this lawsuit with prejudice, each party to 

bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 18th day of October, 2016. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02208-ESW Document 25 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 13.1







PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERCERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of CalPetro
Tankers (Bahamas I) Limited (the“Company”) on Form 20-F for
the annual period ended December 31,2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the“SEC”) on or about the
date hereof (the“Report”), I,Tor Olav
Trøim,
the Principal 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)
            TheReport
      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 andresults of operations ofthe
      Company.





A signed original of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
SEC or its staff upon request.







Date:June 30,
2008









/s/ Tor Olav
Trøim
 Tor Olav Trøim


Principal Executive
Officer
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 10, 

2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00561-CV

IN RE TED LAWRENCE ROBERTSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

312th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2001-35725

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On June 18, 2012, relator Ted Lawrence Robertson filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. 

R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Robert 

Hinojosa, former judge of the 312th District Court of Harris County, to vacate a 

protective order entered at a default hearing on August 15, 2001. Relator was 

subsequently convicted of violation of the protective order and claims the protective 

order is void.
2

Robert Hinojosa is no longer the judge of the 312th District Court. A writ of 

mandamus will not issue against the new judge of a court for the action of a former judge. 

Rather Rule of Appellate procedure 7.2 requires abatement of a pending original 

proceeding so that the successor judge may consider the complained-of order of his or her 

predecessor. Tex. R. App. P. 7.2; See In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland, 280 

S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. 2008) (orig.proceeding). Here, since the record does not reflect 

the motion was presented to the current trial judge, there is nothing for him to reconsider.

Relator's application for writ of mandamus against a former district judge is 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b)(1) (West 2004) 

(providing that court of appeals may issue writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district 

or county court in the court of appeals district”).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher and Jamison.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paula Jones,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03881-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shrader & Associates, LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/24/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8530 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8530 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RANDY SWARTZ AND KAREN SWARTZ,

HIS WIFE

v.

ARS REALTY COMPANY, LLC; VINELY

HERNANDEZ AND AMAURY VALDEZ

PETITION OF: ARS REALTY COMPANY,

LLC :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 19 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of April, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED and t he Application for Stay is DISMISSED AS MOOT

.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Francisco Javier Rojo-Aranujo, 

Defendant. 

NO. CR-16-00013-01-TUC-JJT

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING 

DISPOSITION (PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. § 3143) 

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3143, a detention hearing was 

submitted on 12/14/2017. Defendant was present and was represented by counsel. The 

defendant has not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee if 

released. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

I find by a preponderance of the evidence that: 

☒ The defendant is not a citizen of the United States or lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence. 

☒ The defendant, at the time of the charged offense, was in the United States 

illegally. 

☒ The defendant has a prior criminal history. 

☒ The defendant has been ordered detained on the underlying 8 USC 1326(a)&(b)(1) 

charged in Case No: 17-1861MJ. 

The Court incorporates by reference the material findings of the Pretrial Services Agency 

which were reviewed by the Court at the time of the hearing in this matter, except as 

noted in the record. 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. There is a serious risk that the defendant will flee. 

2. No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance 

of the defendant as required. 

DIRECTIONS REGARDING DETENTION 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his/her designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court 

proceeding. 

APPEALS AND THIRD PARTY RELEASE 

 IT IS ORDERED that should an appeal of this detention order be filed with the 

District Court, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion for 

review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing set before 

the District Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

before the District Court to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and 

investigate the potential third party custodian. 

DATE: 12/14/2017
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

                           STOCK REPURCHASE AGREEMENT

         This Agreement is made May 29, 2002, by Jugal Taneja ("Taneja"), whose
mailing address is 7270 Sawgrass Point Drive, Pinellas Point, Florida 33282, SMW
Capital Group Limited Partnership, a Nevada limited partnership (the "Pledgor")
whose address is 6100 Neil Road, #500, Reno, Nevada and First Community Bank of
America, 6100 4th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 ("Lender").

                                    Recitals

A. Vertical Health Solutions, Inc. (the "Borrower"), has asked Lender to make a
loan to it in the amount of $250,000.00 (the "Loan"), to be secured by a pledge
of the following stock by Pledgor (the "Collateral"): 183,278 shares of common
stock of DrugMax, Inc., Certificate Numbers 10235, 10236, 10237, 10238, 10239,
10248, 10249, 10250, 10251, and 10260.

B. Lender has agreed to make the loan on the condition, among other things, that
Taneja agree to purchase the Collateral as set forth below.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Loan and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties agree as follow:

1. REPURCHASE REQUIREMENT. Taneja, irrevocably and unconditionally agrees that
in the event Borrower defaults in any Obligation to Lender, Taneja shall, upon
fifteen (15) days prior notice to Taneja from Lender, purchase the Collateral
from Lender in the amount of Borrower's outstanding Obligations to Lender. The
term "Obligation" shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Stock Pledge
Agreement of even date herewith. Upon payment in full of the Obligation, Lender
shall deliver the Collateral to Taneja.

2. CONSENT OF PELDGOR. Pledgor hereby consents to the sale of the collateral to
Taneja, and agrees to indemnify and hold Lender harmless form any and all claims
or losses arising out of the sale to Taneja.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands and seals on the
date set forth above.

                                   /s/ JUGAL TANEJA
                                   ----------------
                                   JUGAL TANEJA





<PAGE>

                                   SMW CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
                                   a Nevada limited partnership
                                   By: Summerford Capital, Inc.,
                                       a Nevada corporation, its General Partner

                                   By: /s/ STEPHEN M. WATTERS
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       STEPHEN M. WATTERS, PRESIDENT

                                    FIRST COMMUNITY BANK OF AMERICA

                                    By: /s/ SCOTT C. BOYLE
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        SCOTT C. BOYLE, PRESIDENT
#### John M. Curry et al *v.*J. F. Taylor et al.

Bond, Common Law — Liability for Collecting Taxes Under.

Though under a common law bond, a deputy and his sureties would not be responsible for refusing to collect the taxes of his predecessor, but where he actually makes such collections, he and the sureties are responsible therefor.

APPEAL FROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 17, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

The bond executed by the deputy to his principal as sheriff is *559not a statutory, but a common law bond, hence, the covenant by the deputy to collect and pay over old taxes is not to be governed by the principles announced in *Middleton vs. Caldwell, 4*Bush, *392.*But the deputy having actually collected the old taxes of his principal’s predecessor is responsible therefor, and his having done so is a valuable consideration to fix the responsibility of his securities. Whilst neither he nor they might have been responsible for refusing to collect the taxes or right to do so, yet having actually made the collections, so far as he received them, he and his securities are responsible.

*Ireland, for appellant.*

Perrin, *for appellee.*

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed for further proceedings consistent herewith.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule Contains Summary Financial Information extracted from the
Company's December 31, 1997 Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,674
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,252
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,325
<INVENTORY>                                     19,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,491
<PP&E>                                         168,077
<DEPRECIATION>                                  92,446
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,713
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,600
<SALES>                                        100,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,888
<CGS>                                           81,756
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,412
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,327
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,085
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,085
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69


</TABLE>
- 1 -

Stipulation for Extension of Time

CV-15-01674-PHX-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Marc J. Randazza, AZ Bar No. 27861

Ronald D. Green, pro hac vice

RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC

4035 S. El Capitan Way

Las Vegas, NV 89147

Tel: (702) 420-2001

Fax: (305) 437-7662

ecf@randazza.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

AMA Multimedia, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AMA MULTIMEDIA LLC, 

a Nevada limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARCIN WANAT, a Foreign Citizen; 

MACIEJ MADON, a Foreign Citizen; MW 

MEDIA, a Foreign Corporation; John Does 

1-25; and Roe Corporations 26-50, 

Defendants.

Case No. CV-15-01674-PHX-ROS

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE 

TO MOTION FOR AWARD OF 

NON-TAXABLE COSTS

(First Request)

Plaintiff AMA Multimedia, LLC (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant Marcin Wanat 

(“Defendant”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to extend the 

date by which Plaintiff may file its response to Defendant’s Motion for Award of NonTaxable Costs (Dkt. No. 122) by one week. Plaintiff’s Response is currently due on 

January 9, 2018, and the Parties hereto stipulate to extend this date until January 16, 

2018. In support hereof, the Parties say:

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 123 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

Stipulation for Extension of Time

CV-15-01674-PHX-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1. On December 26, 2017, Defendant Marcin Wanat filed his Motion for 

Award of Non-Taxable Costs (Dkt. No. 122) (“Defendant’s Motion”). 

2. Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2, any response to such a motion is due 14 days after 

filing of the motion, which would require Plaintiff to file its response on or before 

January 9, 2018. 

3. Due to pre-existing holiday travel plans, and a need to further research the 

facts and law at issue in Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff requires additional time in which 

to sufficiently prepare and file its response to Defendant’s Motion. 

4. The Parties stipulate that Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion shall 

be due on January 16, 2018. Defendant’s Reply shall be due on January 23, 2018. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated January 5, 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jakub P. Medrala

Jakub P. Medrala, pro hac vice

THE MEDRALA LAW FIRM, PLLC

1091 S. Cimarron Road, Suite #A-1

Las Vegas, Nevada 89145

Tel: (702) 475-8884

Fax: (702) 938-8625

jmedrala@medralaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Marcin Wanat

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ronald D. Green

Marc J. Randazza, AZ Bar No. 27861

Ronald D. Green, pro hac vice

RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC

4035 S. El Capitan Way

Las Vegas, NV 89147

Tel: (702) 420-2001

Fax: (305) 437-7662

ecf@randazza.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff AMA 

Multimedia, LLC

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 123 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 2