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-65,844]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on  April 24, 2009 in response to a petition on behalf of workers of Murphy Veneer, White City, Oregon.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn.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

Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of May 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13909 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, P. Bruce Camacho, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Union Security Insurance Company; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

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

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: August 9, 2006
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3440 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the incentives 

for biodiesel and renewable diesel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 27 (legislative day, MAY 26), 2010 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the incentives for biodiesel and renewable diesel. 

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 ‘‘Emergency Biodiesel 

5 Tax Incentive Extension Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCENTIVES FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIE7 SEL. 

8 (a) CREDITS FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIE9 SEL USED AS FUEL.—Subsection (g) of section 40A of 

10 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3440 IS

1 ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

2 2010’’. 

3 (b) EXCISE TAX CREDITS AND OUTLAY PAYMENTS

4 FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL FUEL MIX5 TURES.— 

6 (1) Paragraph (6) of section 6426(c) of the In7 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

9 2010’’. 

10 (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 6427(e)(6) of 

11 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 

12 striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘De13 cember 31, 2010’’. 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 

16 31, 2009. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

      I, William T. Jacobson, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of Atlas Mining Company, certify that:

      (1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Atlas Mining
Company.

      (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 financial statements, and other financial
information included in the 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 the report.

      (4) I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I 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 me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual 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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

<PAGE>

            c. presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date.

      (5) I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the registrant's Board of Directors:

            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

I have indicated in this annual report whether or not 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.


/s/ William T. Jacobson                            March 28, 2006
--------------------------------
William T. Jacobson
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
#### Avtar SINGH CHAHAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74301.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2006 *.

Filed Nov. 29, 2006.

*680Avtar Singh Chahal, Hicksville, NY, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Regina Byrd, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The honorable DAVID A. EZRA, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Avtar Singh Chahal (“Chahal”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. In a “streamlined” case, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision. *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ found that Chahal was not credible in describing his alleged persecution by Indian police, and on that basis found him ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Chahal argues that the IJ erroneously relied on minor inconsistencies in his testimony to make a negative credibility finding.

The IJ’s finding that Chahal was not credible is supported by substantial evidence. *See Gui v. INS,*280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). Chahal made two false statements during his asylum hearing: he denied ever having been arrested in the United States and stated that he resided in California at the time that he filed his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Given Chahal’s willingness to make false statements under oath regarding major events, the IJ had a substantial, legitimate basis for his disbelief of Chahal’s other testimony.

Because we uphold the IJ’s finding that Chahal was not credible, we do not reach Chahal’s argument that the IJ erred when he determined that, even if Chahal’s account were true, the events that Chahal described did not amount to persecution on account of a protected ground.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 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.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132147 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132147 

 COA: 270858 

Saginaw CC: 97-014075-FC 

ANDREW SCOTT TACKEBURY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 4, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

p1120 

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. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,118
<SECURITIES>                                     5,963
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,472
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         126,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,620
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,541
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,312)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,312)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,312)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit (21)
                                                                    Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Owned By                                   Jurisdiction of
Registrant                                 Incorporation        Percentage
----------                                 ---------------      ----------
<S>                                        <C>                   <C>
All American Medical & Surgical Supply     New York                 95%

DCA Medical Services, Inc. (1)             Florida                  99%

Dialysis Corporation of America            Florida                  67%

Dialysis Medical, Inc. (1)                 Florida                  80%

Dialysis Services of Florida, Inc.-
     Fort Walton Beach (2)                 Florida                79.2%

Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc.-
   Manahawkin(1)                           New Jersey               99%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.-
   Carlisle(1)                             Pennsylvania             99%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania -
      Lemoyne(1)                           Pennsylvania             99%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania -
      Wellsboro(1)                         Pennsylvania             99%

Renal Services of Pa., Inc.(1)             Pennsylvania             99%

Techdyne, Inc.                             Florida                62.5%

Techdyne Livingston Limited (3)            Scotland               62.5%

Techdyne (Scotland) Ltd.(3)                Scotland               62.5%

</TABLE>

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

(1)   Owned 100% by Dialysis Corporation of America.

(2)   Owned 80% by Dialysis Corporation of America.

(3)   Owned 100% by Techdyne, Inc.
2

Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Revenue

Submissions Revenues Submissions Revenues Submissions Revenues Percentage

Portland 57 $3,811,461 55 $3,662,891 2 $148,569 4.1%

Sacramento 76 $9,680,300 73 $9,279,366 3 $400,934 4.3%

Phoenix 57 $3,275,522 59 $3,141,434 (2) $134,088 4.3%

St. Paul 100 $4,922,394 95 $4,795,897 5 $126,497 2.6%

Rapid City 42 $376,487 36 $368,601 6 $7,886 2.1%

Tulsa 75 $2,468,144 73 $2,466,359 2 $1,785 0.1%

OK City 73 $2,669,839 72 $2,479,814 1 $190,025 7.7%

Washington DC 42 $7,374,396 38 $7,525,208 4 ($150,812) (2.0%)

Totals 522 $34,578,542 501 $33,719,569 21 $858,973 2.5%

Portland Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Sacramento California, and Northern Nevada.

Phoenix Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Southern Nevada.

St. Paul Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin.

Rapid City North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

Tulsa Kansas, and Eastern Oklahoma.

OK City Western Oklahoma and Texas.

Washington DC Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and New York.

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audited financial statements received by the NIGC through November 19, 2020.

National Indian Gaming Commission

Tribal Gaming Revenues (in thousands) by Region

Fiscal Year 2019 and 2018

Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2018 Increase (decrease)

FY18-FY19 Gaming Revenues by Region
#### In the Matter of the Claim of David Wyche, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted February 11, 2013;

decided April 25, 2013

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 20*NY3d 967 (2012)].

Judge Rivera taking no part.
#### David Rodriguez et al., Appellants, v CMB Collision Inc. et al., Defendant.

[977 NYS2d 21]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered October 10, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against defendants CMB Collision Inc. and Joseph Falco sued herein as Falco Joseph (collectively respondents), and granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously modified, on the law, respondents’ motion denied, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Respondents were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiffs were injured when the car in which they were passengers was struck by a tow truck owned by respondent CMB Collision Inc. and driven by respondent Falco. The record shows that although the car in which plaintiffs were riding, which was being driven by defendant Rodriguez, was struck while Rodriguez was making an illegal U-turn across two lanes of traffic *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 [e]), eyewitness testimony estimated Falco’s speed at the time of the accident to be between 30 and 40 miles per hour, and Falco himself testified that he did not see defendant Rodriguez’s vehicle until the time of impact. Accordingly, “triable issues of fact remain as to whether the motor vehicle accident resulted in part from any failure of [Falco] to exercise due care (by driving at an excessive speed or by failing to observe [Rodriguez’s] vehicle) and, if so, in what proportion” *(Calcano v Rodriguez,*91 AD3d 468, 468 [1st Dept 2012]; *see Thoma v Ronai,*82 NY2d 736 [1993]; *Antaki v Mateo,*100 AD3d 579 [2d Dept 2012]).

Plaintiffs, however, were not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability as against respondents. Under the circumstances presented, a jury could reasonably conclude that the driving of defendant Rodriguez was the sole proximate cause *474of the accident. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Clark, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Leddick, Appellant.

Submitted June 18, 2012;

decided June 26, 2012

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6549

EDWARD W. JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

OFFICER HAMILTON; SERGEANT HAM,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Paul W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-

2661-JFM)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: November 4, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward W. Jefferson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order entering

judgment upon the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant on his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Appellant failed to provide a transcript

of the jury trial held on April 3 and 4, 1997. See Fed. R. App. P.

10(b)(2); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, Appellant has failed to state a substantial claim justifying

preparation of a transcript at government expense. 28 U.S.C. §

753(f) (1994). Consequently, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. Appellant's motion for appointment of

counsel is hereby denied. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32(f)

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











|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (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 condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.









|/s/ Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.Theodore H. Bunting, Jr. 
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.
(acting principal financial officer)
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	February 27, 2009
97-359.

#### State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group, Div. of Ashland, Inc. v. Adzic.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. On answer of respondent, motion for leave to intervene of Carl Wilkenfeld, James R. Jump and Mary V. Fellabaum, and on answer of intervening respondents. The motion for leave to intervene is granted. Answers treated as motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, ‘C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.