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-65,886]

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 a company official on behalf of workers of BG Labs, a subsidiary of Standex, Binghamton, New York.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.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. E9-13891 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 117 (Friday, June 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14428]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DoD-2008-HA-0143]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 20, 
2009.
    Title and OMB Number: Continued Health Care Benefit Program, DD 
Form 2837; OMB Control Number 0704-0364.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 2,500.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 2,500.
    Average Burden per Response: .25 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 625.
    Needs and Uses: The continuing information collection requirement 
is necessary for individuals to apply for enrollment in the Continued 
Health Care Benefit Program (CHCBP). The CHCBP is a program of 
temporary health care benefit coverage that is made available to 
eligible individuals who lose health care coverage under the Military 
Health System (MHS).
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. John Kraemer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Kraemer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: May 31, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-14428 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
----

Exhibit 32.1

MPHASE TECHNOLGIES, INC.

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhaseTechnologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Q forthe quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

1.     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2.     The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, I all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Ronald A. Durando

Ronald A. DurandoChief Executive Officer

February 13, 2008

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from unaudited consolidated
financial statements of Sybron International Corporation for the nine months
ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          16,091
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  157,733
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,765
<INVENTORY>                                    151,061
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               358,411
<PP&E>                                         186,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                 144,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,216,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          150,356
<BONDS>                                        668,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           477
<OTHER-SE>                                     336,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,216,757
<SALES>                                        571,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               571,676
<CGS>                                          283,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  159,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 97,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,891
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             58,815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    673
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    58,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18
        

</TABLE>
#### Clifford H. MUCK, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department to Labor, Respondent.

No. 06-1158.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2006.

Decided: June 19, 2006.

Clifford H. Muck, Petitioner Pro Se. Jeffrey Steven Goldberg, Christian P. Barber, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Clifford H. Muck seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board. *Muck v. Dir. Office of Workers’ Comp. Prog.,*No. 05-0462-BLA (BRB Nov. 30, 2005). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
97-26.

#### Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 95-845-TP-COI. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

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

Resnick, J., not participating.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11752 and #11753]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 3.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated 05/15/2009.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides.                    

*Incident Period:*                         05/03/2009 through 06/08/2009.                    

*Effective Date:*                         06/08/2009.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/14/2009.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/15/2010.                    

# 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 Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of West Virginia, dated 05/15/2009, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 05/03/2009 and continuing through 06/08/2009.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-14370 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### STANDARD ROLLING MILLS, Inc., v. NATIONAL MINERAL CO. et al.

No. 2164.

District, Court, E. D. New York.

Jan. 2, 1942.

*237David Groberg, of Brooklyn, N. Y., (Henry W. Pollock, of New York City, and David Groberg, of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Shestack & Shestack, of New York City (Adolph A. Rubinson, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a motion for summary judgment made by the plaintiff under Rule 56, Subdivisions (a) and (b) of the Rule of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

There seems to be no dispute as to the correctness of the claim of the plaintiff for $9,646.33, for goods, sold and delivered, as alleged in the complaint, but the defendant contends that there is no sum due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff for the reasons set forth in the counterclaim for $40,000, for damages alleged in its answer.

There are two outstanding questions presented in this case: (1) Was the agreement alleged in paragraph 3 of the counterclaim entered into by the defendant and the plaintiff either through any officer or officers thereof, or any agent or agents thereof? (2) Were Davis & Davis the agents of the plaintiff with authority to bind the plaintiff if such agreement was made by. them on its behalf ?

The motion being made by the plaintiff for summary judgment, it had the burden of showing by reference to specific, uncontrovertible facts that as a matter of law there is no issue as to any material fact.

This may be done by the pleadings, affidavits and depositions, if such depositions are admissible as provided by Rule 30.

The defendant alleged the making of such agreement in its answer, and in its bill of particulars, and finds some corroboration in the letters of March 17th, 1938, and November 25th, 1938, on the letterheads of the Standard Rolling Mills, Inc., the plaintiff in this action, the first being signed by Davis & Davis by Jock Howe by S; the second being signed by Standard Rolling Mills, Inc., J. H. Davis. In the latter letter Davis & Davis of Chicago are described as “our representatives”.

The plaintiff has offered by affidavit and depositions denials of the defendant’s contention.

The denials, however, in my opinion, tender an issue.

The depositions contain much that is hearsay, which cannot be considered.

Proof of agency may be shown in part at least by other than oral testimony.

I cannot say on all that has been presented to me, that there is no issue of fact which defendant is entitled to have tried in this case.

Motion denied.
```

                                    EXHIBIT 21

                      BALDOR ELECTRIC COMPANY AND AFFILIATES

                          AFFILIATES OF THE REGISTRANT

NAME OF AFFILIATE                                         LOCATION

Baldor of Arkansas, Inc.                                  Arkansas
Baldor of Nevada, Inc.                                    Nevada
BEC Business Trust                                        Massachusetts
Baldor of Texas, L.P.                                     Texas
Baldor International, Inc.                                U.S.Virgin Islands
Southwestern Die Casting Company, Inc.                    Arkansas
Baldor UK Holdings, Inc.                                  Delaware
Baldor Optimised Control Limited                          United Kingdom
Baldor Optimized Control (NZ) Ltd.                        New Zealand
Baldor Holdings, Inc.                                     Delaware
Baldor de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                            Mexico
Baldor ASR  AG                                            Switzerland
Baldor ASR GmbH fur Antriebstechnik                       Germany
Baldor ASR U.K. Limited                                   United Kingdom
Baldor Italia S.r.l.                                      Italy
Australian Baldor Pty Limited                             Australia
Baldor Electric (Far East) PTE, Ltd.                      Singapore
Baldor Electric (Thailand) Ltd.                           Thailand
Baldor Industrial Automation PTE. Ltd.                    Singapore
Northern Magnetics, Inc.                                  California
Baldor Japan Corporation                                  Japan
Baldor (Taiwan) Ltd.                                      Taiwan
Pow'R Gard Generator Corp.                                Wisconsin
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3409 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3409

 To make certain adjustments to the price analysis of propane prepared 
                     by the Secretary of Commerce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2010

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make certain adjustments to the price analysis of propane prepared 
                     by the Secretary of Commerce.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    Section 9(a) of the Propane Education and Research Act of 1996 (15 
U.S.C. 6408(a)) is amended by striking ``price of consumer grade 
propane to a composite'' and inserting ``average price of consumer 
grade propane to all end users to an equally weighted composite''.

SEC. 2. UPDATED PRICE ANALYSIS.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Commerce shall prepare and make available to the public a 
propane price analysis reflecting the amendment made by section 1.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32(a)

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

I,
Mayo A. Shattuck III, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of Constellation Energy Group, Inc., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

(i)    The
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)   The
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Constellation Energy
Group, Inc.

|/s/MAYO A. SHATTUCK III                                                           |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Mayo A. Shattuck III
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |  | 

Date:
March 9, 2004

142

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

 

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 on Form 10-QSB ("Quarterly Report")of Itronics, Inc. (the "Registrant") for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of theundersigned, in their capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.

 

 

Date: August 13, 2007                          /S/JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                               JohnW. Whitney

                                               President

                                               (PrincipalExecutive and 

                                               FinancialOfficer)

41
#### Vail WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith ALLEN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1508.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted July 14, 2006.*

Decided July 18, 2006.

Vail White, Chicago, IL, pro se.

Martin K. Denis, Barlow, Kobata & Denis, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.

*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

Vail White brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621*et seq.,*alleging that Keith Allen, the manager and owner of several McDonald’s restaurants where White was employed, discriminated against him on the basis of sex and age and feed him in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for Allen because White presented no evidence of age discrimination or retaliation and failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a charge of sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

On appeal White does not identify any error made by the district court, nor does he develop an argument with citations to legal authority or the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); *Anderson v. Hardman,*241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001). The argument section of his brief consists of two sentences requesting simply that the district court’s judgment be over*686turned. Mthough we construe the filings of pro se litigants liberally, White still must offer “more than a generalized assertion of error.” *Anderson,*241 F.3d at 545.

Accordingly this appeal is DISMISSED.
,J. 

Douglas Cherry 

Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 1 

/ et-A ti-t4.; , J. 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Kimberly A. Wanker, District Judge 

The Law Firm of Nathan L. Gent, PLLC 

Nye County District Attorney 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County Clerk 

Christopher James Willing 

'We deny as moot respondent's motion to dismiss appeal filed on 

August 22, 2014. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 194Th 41),E11/9.