alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subsidiaries of Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
As of December 31, 2010
  Jurisdiction ofU.S. Subsidiaries
    
    IncorporationArmstrong Cork Finance LLC
    
    DelawareArmstrong NW LLC
    
    DelawareArmstrong Hardwood Flooring Company
    
    TennesseeArmstrong Realty Group, Inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaArmstrong Ventures, Inc.
    
    DelawareArmstrong Wood Products, Inc.
    
    DelawareArmstrong World Industries (Delaware) LLC
    
    DelawareAWI Licensing Company
    
    DelawareHomerWood Hardwood Flooring Company
    
    DelawarePatriot Flooring Supply, Inc.
    
    DelawareWorthington Armstrong Venture (50% owned
Delaware General Partnership)Armstrong Receivables Company Limited
    
    DelawareJurisdiction ofNon-U.S. Subsidiaries
    
    IncorporationArmstrong (U.K.) Investments
    
    United KingdomArmstrong Architectural Products S.L.
    
    SpainArmstrong Building Products B.V.
    
    NetherlandsArmstrong Building Products Company (Shanghai) Ltd.
    
    PRCArmstrong Building Products GmbH
    
    GermanyArmstrong DLW AG
    
    GermanyArmstrong DLW Licensing GmbH
    
    GermanyArmstrong Metal Ceilings Limited
    
    United KingdomArmstrong Metalldecken AG
    
    SwitzerlandArmstrong Metalldecken GmbH
    
    AustriaArmstrong Metalldecken Holdings AG
    
    SwitzerlandArmstrong World Industries (Australia) Pty. Ltd.
    
    AustraliaArmstrong World Industries AB
    
    SwedenArmstrong World Industries Canada Ltd.
    
    CanadaArmstrong World Industries Holding GmbH
    
    GermanyArmstrong World Industries Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13918]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,880]


Carpenter Company, Cookeville, TN; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 4, 2009, in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers at the Carpenter Company, Cookeville, 
Tennessee.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 12th day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13918 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### In the Matter of Raghubir K. Gupta, a Disbarred Attorney, Appellant. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, Respondent.

Submitted April 15, 2013;

decided May 7, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal granted. Motion for a stay of so much of the Appellate Division order as suspended appellant from the practice of law granted, without prejudice to an *930application by petitioner-respondent to the Appellate Division, on notice to appellant, for an interim suspension.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3168 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain non-Federal 

land in the State of Pennsylvania for inclusion in the Fort Necessity 

National Battlefield. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2010 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain 

non-Federal land in the State of Pennsylvania for inclusion in the Fort Necessity National Battlefield. 

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 ‘‘Fort Necessity Na5 tional Battlefield Land Acquisition Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3168 IS

1 (1) BATTLEFIELD.—The term ‘‘Battlefield’’ 

2 means the Fort Necessity National Battlefield in the 

3 State of Pennsylvania. 

4 (2) NON-FEDERAL LAND.— 

5 (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘non-Federal 

6 land’’ means the approximately 157 acres of 

7 land in Farmington, Pennsylvania, owned by 

8 Marie Rush. 

9 (B) INCLUSION.—The term ‘‘non-Federal 

10 land’’ includes the historic Braddock Road 

11 trace surrounding the land described in sub12 paragraph (A). 

13 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

14 the Secretary of the Interior. 

15 SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR FORT NECESSITY NA16 TIONAL BATTLEFIELD, PENNSYLVANIA. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may acquire, by 

18 donation or purchase, the non-Federal for inclusion in the 

19 Battlefield. 

20 (b) BOUNDARY REVISION.—On acquisition of the 

21 non-Federal land by the Secretary— 

22 (1) the non-Federal land shall be incorporated 

23 in, and administered as part of, the Battlefield; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3168 IS

1 (2) the boundary of the Battlefield shall be re2 vised to reflect the acquisition of the non-Federal 

3 land. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of John C. Nimmer, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[976 NYS2d 420]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1999. He maintains an office for the practice of law in Nebraska, where he was admitted to the bar in 1993.

By order dated June 14, 2013, the Nebraska Supreme Court publicly reprimanded respondent for, among other things, violating his oath of office as an attorney and a disciplinary rule prohibiting a lawyer from making misleading statements about the lawyer’s services *(Matter of Nimmer,*286 Neb 107, 834 NW2d 776 [2013]).

Petitioner now moves for an order imposing discipline pursuant to this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has filed papers in response, arguing only that any discipline in excess of a public reprimand would be unjust. Respondent has not previously been the subject of discipline in either Nebraska or this state.

*1138Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that, in the interest of justice and consistent with the discipline in Nebraska, respondent should be censured *(see generally Matter of Lawler,*40 AD3d 1205 [2007]).

Lahtinen, J.E, Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is hereby censured.
#### Clinton W. DELESPINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-20993.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

*485Clinton W. Delespine, Beeville, TX, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Clinton W. Delespine, Texas prisoner # 187450, has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his 1963 conviction and sentence for murder as successive.

To obtain a COA, Delespine must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court has denied relief on procedural grounds, the applicant must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

Delespine does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 application as successive and argues only the merits of his habeas claims. Therefore, he has abandoned the issue and has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s procedural ruling. *See Hughes v. Johnson,*191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999); *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. Accordingly, Delespine’s motion for a COA is DENIED. Delespine’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is also DENIED.

This is the seventh COA motion in which Delespine has failed to challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing his habeas application. Further, this court previously warned Delespine that further frivolous applications would invite the imposition of sanctions. *See Delespine v. Cockrell,*No. 01-20846 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2001) (unpublished). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Delespine pay a monetary sanction of $200 to the Clerk of this Court. Delespine is BARRED from filing in this court or in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction any pleading that challenges the aforementioned conviction and sentence until the sanction is paid in full. Delespine is CAUTIONED that any future frivolous or repetitive filing in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional sanctions. Delespine should review all pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.

MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
Order entered August 29, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 11

- 01495

- CR

JONATHAN BRUCE REED, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial C ourt Cause No. F81

- 01988

- K



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for en banc

reconsideration. We GRANT the motion. Appellant’s time to file a motion for en banc

reconsideration is extended to October 18, 20 13.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13920]

[[Page 28282]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,885]

Morgan AM & T, Coudersport, PA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 5, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by the International Union of Electronic and Communication 
Workers of America, Local 88612 on behalf of workers at Morgan AM & T, 
Coudersport, Pennsylvania.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of May 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13920 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
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

          - [Docket No. CP04-36-005]

On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at 9 a.m. (EDT), staff of the Office of Energy Projects will convene an engineering design and technical conference regarding the proposed Weavers Cove Energy Offshore Berth Project (cryogenic conference). The conference will be held at the Venus de Milo in Swansea, Massachusetts. The Venus de Milo is located at 75 GAR Highway, Swansea, MA 02777. For venue details call (508) 678-3901.

                    In view of the nature of Critical Energy Infrastructure Information to be explored, the cryogenic conference will not be open to the public. No recording devices will be allowed at the conference. Attendance at this conference will be limited to existing parties to the proceeding (anyone who has specifically requested to intervene as a party) and to representatives of interested Federal, State, and local agencies. Any person planning to attend the June 16th cryogenic conference must register by close of business on Thursday, June 11, 2009. Registrations may be submitted either online at                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​whats-new/​registration/​cryo-conf-form.asp*                     or by faxing a copy of the form (found at the referenced online link) to 202-208-0353. All attendees must sign a non-disclosure statement prior to entering the conference. For additional information regarding the cryogenic conference, please contact Heather Ferree at 202-502-6414.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-13792 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
(October 12, 2006)

#### In the Matter of Michael D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 768]

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about September 13, 2005 and on or about October 26, 2005, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Application by appellant’s assigned counsel to withdraw is granted *(see Matter of Louise Wise Servs. [Whyte],*131 AD2d 306 [1987]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Ranell M. Jacobson, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company;2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:August 12, 2005             /s/ Ranell M. Jacobson     Ranell M. Jacobson      Treasurer
#### Rudolph COLE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. TEAMSTER LOCAL 70, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 05-16023.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 20, 2006.

Rudolph Cole, Hayward, CA, pro se.

Duane B. Beeson, Esq., Lisa W. Pau, Esq., Beeson Tayer *&*Bodine, PC, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rudolph Cole appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Teamster Local 70 (“Union”), in Cole’s Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) action alleging that the Union violated its duty of fair representation in processing the grievance protesting his termination from United Parcel Service (“UPS”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union,*24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Cole’s claims regarding the Union’s failure to file the additional grievances Cole presented to the Union in March and April 2003, and the Union’s failure to inform Cole of the cancellation of a July 2003 hearing in Seattle, were barred by the statute of limitations. *See DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,*462 U.S. 151, 172, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983) (the statute of limitations in duty of fair representation cases is six months); *Galindo v. Stoody,*793 F.2d 1502, 1509 (9th Cir.1986) (the statute begins to accrue when a claimant discovered or should have discovered the acts constituting the alleged breach).

The district court properly concluded that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation to Cole at his termination grievance hearing with respect to its handling of evidentiary matters or failure to provide Cole with audio tapes because Cole failed to present evidence that *740the Union acted in bad faith or with a discriminatory intent. *See Peterson v. Kennedy,*771 F.2d 1244, 1254 (9th Cir. 1985).

The district court properly concluded that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation in failing to secure certain UPS investigation reports, because the evidence shows the Union attempted to secure reports upon Cole’s request, but Cole only vaguely identified the reports he wanted to submit to the termination grievance hearing. *See Stevens v. Moore Business Forms, Inc.,*18 F.3d 1443, 1447 (9th Cir.1994) (there is no breach of the duty of fair representation as long as the union does not act in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner toward a member).

Cole’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13353]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    This is notice that on January 28, 2009, Stepan Company, Natural 
Products Department, 100 W. Hunter Avenue, Maywood, New Jersey 07607, 
made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) for registration as an importer of Coca Leaves (9040), a basic 
class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for the 
manufacture of a bulk controlled substance for distribution to its 
customer.
    No comments, objections, or requests for any hearings will be 
accepted on any application for registration or re-registration to 
import coca leaves. As explained in the Correction to Notice of 
Application pertaining to Rhodes Technologies, 72 FR 3417 (2007), 
comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic 
raw material are not appropriate.
    Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, 
registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled 
substances listed in schedule I or II, which fall under the authority 
of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B)) may, in 
the circumstances set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), file comments or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the 
same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application 
pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 
1316.47.
    Any such comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152; and must be filed no later 
than July 9, 2009.
    This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and 
independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), 
(e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the Federal 
Register on September 23, 1975 (40 FR 43745), all applicants for 
registration to import a basic class of any controlled substances in 
schedule I or II are, and will continue to be, required to demonstrate 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for such 
registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a); 21 U.S.C. 823(a); and 21 CFR 
1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.

    Dated: June 3, 2009.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-13353 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P