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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-64,913] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 15, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Phillips Plastics Corporation, Custom Division, Phillips, Wisconsin.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of April 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11846 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT
31.1





SECTION
302 CERTIFICATION





I, David
S. Pere, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of OCTuS, Inc.;





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





3. Based
on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report.





4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and
have:





(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such  disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision,  to ensure that material information relating to the
small business  issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by  others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which  this report is being prepared;





(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's  disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our  conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and  procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and





(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business  issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small  business
issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)  that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal control over
financial  reporting; and





5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the  design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which  are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business
issuer's  ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information;  and





(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or  other
employees who have a significant role in the small business  issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.




Date:  April 14,
2008




/s/
      David S. PereDavid
      S. Pere
                Chief
      Executive Officer and

                  Principal
      Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Battles, Appellant.

Submitted September 7, 2010;

decided September 16, 2010

Motion to vacate this Court’s August 16, 2010 preclusion order granted.
#### Edward Mulqueen, Respondent, v Christopher Live et al., Appellants.

[975 NYS2d 665]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered January 14, 2013, which denied defendants’ motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Bronx County. He designated venue in Bronx County, based on the actual principal place of business of the corporate defendant, Down East Seafood. While designation of venue in the county in which a corporate defendant’s principal place of business is located is proper *(see Margolis v United Parcel Serv., Inc.,*57 AD3d 371 [1st Dept 2008]), it has been held that, for venue purposes, the corporation’s designation of a county as the location of its principal office in its certificate of incorporation is controlling *(see Krochta v On Time Delivery Serv., Inc.,*62 AD3d 579 [1st Dept 2009]; *Conway v Gateway Assoc.,*166 AD2d 388 [1st Dept 1990]).

Here, in support of their motion to change venue, defendants failed to submit a copy of Down East’s certificate of incorporation, and submitted a print-out of information on file with the New York State Department of State, which supports plaintiffs allegation that its principal executive offices are located in Bronx County. Defendants could not “remedy a fundamental deficiency in the moving papers by submitting evidentiary material with the reply” *(TrizecHahn, Inc. v Timbil Chiller Maintenance Corp.,*92 AD3d 409, 410 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Doyaga v Camelot Taxi Inc.,*102 AD3d 594, 595 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Freedman and Feinman, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                               99,920
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        12,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    112,559
<PP&E>                                               21,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (1,198)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      159,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               551,731
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                          7,862,710
<OTHER-SE>                                       (8,254,667)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        159,774
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     30,000
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    281,714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    8,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (326,897)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (326,897)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      (70,520)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (397,417)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0.00



</TABLE>
#### Efosa Idemudia, Appellant, v Susan Fields, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 245]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered July 2, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, in this action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*590The affirmed reports of defendant’s expert established prima facie that plaintiffs injuries were not permanent or significant. Defendant’s orthopedist found that plaintiff had full range of motion in his lumbar spine and right wrist. The orthopedist further found that, even if plaintiff tore a ligament in his wrist as a result of the accident, it had healed completely, and there was no objective clinical evidence of this injury.

In opposition, plaintiffs expert, who averred that she personally examined plaintiff approximately two years after the accident, found range of motion limitations in plaintiffs lumbar spine and right wrist, but offered no explanation for earlier examinations by her colleagues that found normal range of motion. The failure to explain the inconsistencies between the earlier findings of full range of motion and her present findings of deficits entitles defendant to summary judgment *(see Dorrian v Cantalicio,*101 AD3d 578 [1st Dept 2012]; *Jno-Baptiste v Buckley,*82 AD3d 578 [1st Dept 2011]).

The record further demonstrates that there is no viable claim under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), inasmuch as plaintiff testified that he missed only two days of work following the accident *(see Arenas v Guarnan,*98 AD3d 461 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur—Andrias, J.E, Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Gische, JJ.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 827 

To prohibit products that contain dry ultra-filtered milk products, milk protein 

concentrate, or casein from being labeled as domestic natural cheese, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2005 

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To prohibit products that contain dry ultra-filtered milk 

products, milk protein concentrate, or casein from being 

labeled as domestic natural cheese, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Quality Cheese Act 

5 of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATURAL CHEESE STANDARD. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 
2 

•S 827 IS

1 (1)(A) any change in domestic natural cheese 

2 standards to allow dry ultra-filtered milk products, 

3 milk protein concentrate, or casein to be labeled as 

4 domestic natural cheese would result in increased 

5 costs to the dairy price support program; and 

6 (B) that change would be unfair to taxpayers, 

7 who would be forced to pay more program costs; 

8 (2) any change in domestic natural cheese 

9 standards to allow dry ultra-filtered milk products, 

10 milk protein concentrate, or casein to be labeled as 

11 domestic natural cheese would result in lower reve12 nues for dairy farmers; 

13 (3) any change in domestic natural cheese 

14 standards to allow dry ultra-filtered milk products, 

15 milk protein concentrate, or casein to be labeled as 

16 domestic natural cheese would cause dairy products 

17 containing dry ultra-filtered milk, milk protein con18 centrate, or casein to become vulnerable to contami19 nation and would compromise the sanitation, 

20 hydrosanitary, and phytosanitary standards of the 

21 United States dairy industry; and 

22 (4) changing the labeling standard for domestic 

23 natural cheese would be misleading to the consumer. 

24 (b) PROHIBITION.—Section 401 of the Federal Food, 

25 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341) is amended— 
3 

•S 827 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Whenever’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) 

2 Whenever’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(b) The Commissioner may not use any Federal 

5 funds to amend section 133.3 of title 21, Code of Federal 

6 Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or 

7 ruling), to include dry ultra-filtered milk, milk protein con8 centrate, or casein in the definition of the term ‘milk’ or 

9 ‘nonfat milk’, as specified in the standards of identity for 

10 cheese and cheese products published at part 133 of title 

11 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any corresponding 

12 similar regulation or ruling).’’. 

Æ
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50889

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-01-CR-36-12-S

- - - - - - - - - -

September 20, 2002

Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Javier Sanchez appeals his guilty plea conviction for aiding

and abetting possession with intent to distribute marihuana. He

argues that the district court violated FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 by

failing to fully inform him regarding the effect of supervised

release. 

As part of his plea agreement, Sanchez waived his right to

appeal “any aspect of the conviction and sentence” with the
2

exception of certain ineffective assistance and prosecutorial

misconduct claims. Sanchez has not challenged the validity of this

waiver, and the record reveals that he knowingly and voluntarily

agreed to this provision. See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d

290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Because this appeal is in contravention

of the waiver of appeal provision, it is dismissed. See United

States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHNNY BAKER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

S. LAKE; et al., 

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 19-16132 

D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01642-SKO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 4, 2020***

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Johnny Baker appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and its 

order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

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

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

FILED

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-16132 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a section 2241 petition, see Lane 

v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 60 (2019), 

and for abuse of discretion the denial of a reconsideration motion, see Sch. Dist. 

No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 

We affirm.

Baker challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was 

sanctioned with the disallowance of good conduct time. He contends that the 

disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) was not impartial and that there was 

insufficient evidence to support the DHO’s findings. Baker does not present any 

evidence of partiality, but rather contends that an impartial decision maker would 

have found he was not guilty of possessing narcotics. However, the evidence 

considered by the DHO, including the drug test results, supported the DHO’s 

finding. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (unfavorable or 

adverse rulings alone are insufficient to show bias “unless they display a deepseated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible”); 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (due process is satisfied if “some 

evidence” supports disciplinary decision).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned, Wayne P. Garten, President and Chief Executive Officer and John W. Swatek, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  of Hanover Direct, Inc. (the "Company"),  each hereby certify that to his knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period specified. 

 

Signed at the City of Weehawken, in the State of New Jersey, this 13th day of November, 2006. 

 

 

| /s/ Wayne P. Garten

Wayne P. Garten

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ John W. Swatek

John W. Swatek

Senior VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Outen *v.*The North & South Street Railroad Co.

The plaintiff showing by his own evidence, that although he had requested the driver of the street-car to stop at a designated place and had received a rude and profane answer, yet upon failure of the driver to stop plaintiff had jumped from the car while it was in motion, and without again requesting the driver to stop or noti- • fying him of his purpose then to alight; and it not appearing that the driver, when he struck the team, kn'ew that the plaintiff was attempting to alight, or that there was any such emergency as would justify the plaintiff in alighting from the moving car, the court committed no error in granting a nonsuit.

July 30, 1894.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Action for damages. Before Judge Turnbull. City court of Floyd county. September term, 1893.

*663Hal Wright, by brief, for plaintiff'.

Outen sued the street railroad company, and was non-suited. His testimony was, in brief: He boarded defendant’s horse-car and paid his fare into the box. Driver told him he would put him off wherever he desired. Before he arrived at his destination he told the driver he desired to alight at the telegraph post about fifty yards ahead. On approaching that point he again told the driver he wanted to get off there. Driver replied, “ I will stop; but if I don’t, by Gf — , jump off.” He was standing at this time on the front platform with the driver; three other persons also were on the front platform, and the car was crowded inside. His elbow or right arm was pressing up against the driver. The driver did not stop at the designated point, but about fifty feet beyond slacked up to a slow gait, his horses walking, and the ear moving about as fast as a man would in a “peart” walk. Plaintiff' (who was about seventy years old) went upon the steps to get off, placed his hand upon the iron railing of the car, his left foot on lower step, raised his right foot and stepped out straight from the car “ a little in this direction ” (indicating to the rear of car). Just while in this effort, the driver hit the horses and the car gave a sudden jerk, which threw plaintiff on the road, inflicting injuries. The car did not stop, but moved rapidly on.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12266]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11707 and <greek-i>11708]


North Dakota Disaster Number ND-00016

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 4.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-1829-DR), dated 04/
10/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 03/13/2009 and continuing.

DATES: Effective Date: 05/18/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/10/2009.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/11/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of North Dakota, dated 04/10/2009 is hereby 
amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical 
damages as a result of this disaster to 08/10/2009.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Roger B. Garland,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-12266 Filed 5-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P