alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 116 (Thursday, June 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14333]



[[Page 28957]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,246]


Weyerhaeuser NR Company, I-Level Lumber--Aberdeen Division; 
Aberdeen, WA; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application 
for Reconsideration

    By application dated May 19, 2009, the Carpenters Industrial 
Council/United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 
Union 3099 requested administrative reconsideration of the negative 
determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. 
The determination was issued on May 8, 2009. The Notice of 
Determination will soon be published in the Federal Register.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of softwood dimensional lumber, 
specifically Western Hemlock and Douglas Fir did not contribute 
importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of 
production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding imports of softwood dimensional lumber 
and alleged that the subject firm might have increased imports of 
softwood dimensional lumber in the relevant period. The petitioner also 
alleged that the subject firm might be eligible for TAA as secondary 
downstream producer of trade certified primary firm.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of June 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-14333 Filed 6-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6084

DARRELL L. GOSS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. BRIAN KENDELL; ALBERT L. MACK; TRAVIS GUESS; MR. ALLEN; C. HOLMES; SHONDA ROBINSON; LARRY TURNER , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 2:20

- cv - 00949

- MGL )

Submitted : June 15, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023

Before DIAZ , RICHARDSON , and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Darrell L. Goss , Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson , SENN LEGAL, LLC , Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6084 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Darrell L. Goss appeals the district court’s order adopting in part and rejecting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting summary judgment to Defendants, and dismissing his civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its order denying his motion broug ht under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders

. Goss v. Kendell, No. 2:20

- cv - 00949

- MGL (D.S.C Mar. 23, 2022 & Jan. 11, 2023).

We dispense with or al argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6084 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies,
Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Martin S Smiley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                 
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

/s/ Martin S.
SmileyMartin S .Smiley Chief Financial Officer

May 17, 2010

---
[Cite as Aggressive Mechanical, Inc. v. Ohio School Facilities Comm. , 2012-Ohio-6333.]



# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

AGGRESSIVE MECHANICAL, INC.

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO SCHOOL FACILITIES COMMISSION

Defendant

Case No. 2010-12745

Judge Joseph T. Clark Magistrate Holly True Shaver

JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶ 1} On September 18, 2012, the magistrate issued a decision recommending judgment for plaintiff. {¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of t he filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).” {¶ 3} Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i) provides: “The court may enter a judgment either during the fourteen days permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) for the filing of objections to a magistrate’s decision or after the fourteen days have expired. If the court enters a judgment during the fourteen days permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) for the filing of objections, the timely filing of objections to the magistrate’s decision shall operate as an automatic stay of execution of the judgment until the court disposes of those objections and vacates, modifies, or adheres to the judgment previously entered.”Case No. 2010-12745 - 2 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶ 4} The court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision. Therefore, the court adopts the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff.

_____________________________________ JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge

cc:

David A. Beals Jon C. Walden A ssistant Attorneys General 150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Douglas M. Beard Michael F. Copley 1015 Cole Road Galloway, Ohio 43119

002 Filed September 18, 2012 To S.C. Reporter January 28, 2013
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 30, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41608

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TIM C. WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(C-02-CR-105-1)

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

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Tim C. Williams appeals from his

conviction, sentence, and final order of criminal forfeiture

following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to launder money and

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five

kilograms of cocaine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i)

and (h); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. We must examine

the basis of our jurisdiction, and must do so on our own motion if

necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).
2

Under FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(3), the time period for filing a

notice of appeal is tolled by the filing of specified postjudgment

motions. Although not listed among the motions in Rule 4(b)(3)(A),

a motion for reconsideration tolls the 10-day period for filing a

notice of appeal. See United States v. Brewer, 60 F.3d 1142, 1143-

44 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449,

1465-67 (5th Cir. 1992). Williams’s November 5, 2002, “Opposed

Motion to Vacate Conviction and Sentence, and to Dismiss the

Indictment,” was filed within 10 days of the entry of Williams’s

final judgment of conviction and sentence and thus was a timelyfiled motion for reconsideration. As such, it suspended the time

for filing a notice of appeal. See Brewer, 60 F.3d at 1143-44;

FED. R. APP. P. 4(b). 

As the district court has not ruled on Williams’s motion for

reconsideration, this case must be REMANDED for the limited

purposes of allowing that court to rule on that motion. The

district court is directed to rule on Williams’s motion for

reconsideration as expeditiously as practicable, consistent with a

just and fair disposition of the matter. See Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d

256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994). We retain jurisdiction over the

appeal except for the purposes of the limited remand. Williams’s

“Unopposed Motion to Supplement the Record with Government’s Motion

and District Court’s Order Unsealing Sentencing Transcripts” is

HELD IN ABEYANCE pending district court’s ruling in this limited

remand. 
3

LIMITED REMAND.
#### Gary R. Siegel, as Trustee for Equity Resources Trust, et al., Appellants, v The Chubb Corporation et al., Defendants, and Pacific Indemnity Company, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 441]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, *566J.), entered April 12, 2006, which granted defendant Pacific Indemnity’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it and awarding $120,000 on Pacific’s counterclaim, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Kramer was forced to vacate his condominium when environmental testing demonstrated high levels of toxins in the air, caused by mold. Kramer sought extra living expenses under his all-risk policy written by Pacific, and received a $120,000 advance without prejudice to recovery. Pacific later disclaimed coverage under the mold exclusion, and counterclaimed for return of the advance.

Pacific met its burden of demonstrating that the mold exclusion of the policy applied *(see Hritz v Saco,*18 AD3d 377 [2005]). The policy excludes “any loss caused by . . . mold.” The term “caused by” is defined as “any loss that is contributed to, made worse by, or in any way results from that peril.” Plaintiffs’ assertion that the loss was caused not by mold but by toxins in the air" is unavailing, as mold is the “efficient proximate cause” of the insured’s loss *(id.*at 379; *see generally Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*505 F2d 989, 1006-1007 [2d Cir 1974]). Moreover, there is no evidence that the mold was caused by any leak, which plaintiffs argue would be a covered occurrence.

We have examined plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
FOURTH AMENDMENT
                                          TO THE
                                 EASTERN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES
                                     EMPLOYEES' SAVINGS PLAN


        WHEREAS, Eastern Utilities Associates (the "Employer") previously
adopted the Eastern Utilities Associates Employees' Savings Plan (the "Plan")
effective January 1, 1982;

        WHEREAS, the Employer amended and restated the Plan effective January
1, 1989;

        WHEREAS, the Employer has resolved to amend the definition of earnings
under the Plan; and

        WHEREAS, the Employer has reserved the right to amend the Plan from
time to time under Section 13.2 of the Plan;

        NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with and pursuant to the foregoing, the
Plan is amended, effective July 1, 1997, as follows:


1.      The first paragraph of Section 1.12 is hereby amended by deleting the
        same in its entirety and by substituting therefore the following:

        "Earnings" shall mean, subject to Section 4.1, the regular straight
time wages, overtime, bonuses and special pay (including commissions) paid by
the Employer to an Employee during the Plan Year, exclusive of the Employer's
cost for any public or private employee benefit plan (including the Plan),
except that Earnings shall include any Pre-Tax Participant Contribution(s) made
hereunder and any salary deferrals made by the Employee to a plan maintained by
a Participating Employer which meets the requirements of Code Section 125
during the Plan Year."


2.      The following sentence is hereby added at the end of the first
        paragraph of Section 3.1:

        The Committee shall establish such rules and regulations as it deems
necessary and appropriate for the administration of elections to make Pre-Tax
Participant Contributions."


3.      The following sentence is hereby added to the first paragraph of
        Section 4.1 of the Plan as follows:

        "Solely for purposes of this Section 4.1, Earnings with respect to
which a Participant makes Pre-Tax Contribution(s) shall only consist of a
Participant's regular straight time wages, overtime and special pay not paid as
a commission."


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EASTERN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES has caused this
instrument to be executed and delivered on its behalf by the undersigned on
this 16 day of June, 1997.



ATTEST:                                         EASTERN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES


/s/Clifford J. Hebert, Jr.                      By: /s/ Donald G. Pardus
    Secretary

                                                Its: Chairman


(Corporate Seal)
#### Sam Futersak, Appellant, v Sheldon Perl, Also Known as Shloime Perl, et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 7, 2012;

decided June 27, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*18 NY3d 943 (2012)].
Growth in Gaming R

(in Billions)

$9.8 $11.0

$12.8

$14.7

$16.8

$19.5

$22.6

$0.0$5.0

$10.0$15.0$20.0$25.0$30.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Andrew Hayward Jackson, Jr. v. Fort Bend County, Fort Bend 

County Drainage District, Fort Bend County Emergency 

Service District No. 7, Fort Bend County Fresh Water Supply 

District No. 01, Fort Bend County General Fund, and Fort 

Bend County Independent School District

Appellate case number: 01-22-00880-CV

Trial court case number: 21-DCV-282688

Trial court: 240th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant, Andrew Hayward Jackson, Jr., incarcerated and proceeding pro se, filed 

a notice of appeal from the trial court’s October 25, 2022 final judgment. On January 24, 

2023, this Court issued an order granting appellant’s request to proceed without payment 

of costs on appeal. 

Also on January 24, 2023, appellant filed a “Motion for This Court to Serve Parties.” 

In his motion, appellant requests that the Clerk of this Court “serve all other parties” on 

appeal with documents filed by appellant, because he is “too poor to serve parties or 

coordinate service.” Service of documents is governed by Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.5 and requires that “[a]t or before the time of a document’s filing, the filing 

party must serve a copy on all parties to the proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(a). 

Rule 9.5 further provides the manners of service available to parties. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.5(b). Rule 9.5 stats that any document filed electronically under Rule 9.2 “must 

be served electronically through the electronic filing manager if the email address of the 

party or attorney to be served is on file with the electronic filing manager. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.5(b)(1). Rule 9.5 also requires that a “document presented for filing must contain 

a proof of service in the form of either an acknowledgement of service by the person served 

or a certificate of service.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(d). 

While the Court has ordered that appellant be permitted to proceed without payment 

of costs on appeal, Rule 9.5 does not provide any exceptions to the requirement for service 

of documents on parties based on indigence. Accordingly, appellant’s “Motion for This 
Court to Serve Parties” is denied. All documents filed by appellant must comply with the 

service requirements set out in Rule 9.5. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ______/s/ April Farris_______

  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 31, 2023______
Exhibit No. 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 annual report of  Ambassador  Food Services  Corporation
(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 29, 2003,  filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert A. Laudicina, Chief
Executive Officer,  President and Treasuer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

2.    The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects,  the consolidated  financial condition of the Company as of the
      dates  presented  and  consolidated  results of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.

Date:

                                                       /s/  Robert A. Laudicina
                                                       ------------------------
                                                        Chief Executive Officer,
                                                         President and Treasurer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
                                           Ambassador Food Services Corporation



This  certification  has been furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002.  A  signed  original  of this  written  statement
required  by  Section  906  has  been  provided  to  Ambassador  Food  Services
Corporation  and will be retained by Ambassador  Food Services  Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                            60,704
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  61,134
<PP&E>                            13,556
<DEPRECIATION>                    13,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    61,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             13,762
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                           1,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                     (105,389)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      61,134
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,812
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   4,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (9,144)     
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                     (9,144)           
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0   
        


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.

# DATES:

October 13-14, 2009.

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

# ADDRESSES:

The Fairmount Olympic Hotel, 411 University Street, Seattle, Washington 98101.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

Dated: June 11, 2009.

John K. Rabiej, 

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. E9-14135 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
Exhibit 12.1
 PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(dollars in thousands)
 Twelve Months Ended December 31,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Earnings:Income from continuing
operations
    
    $
    213,557
    
    
    $
    298,744
    
    
    $
    316,265
    
    
    $
    227,288
    
    
    $
    242,887Income taxes
    
    
    65,407
    
    
    
    150,910
    
    
    
    155,855
    
    
    
    129,533
    
    
    
    133,771Fixed charges
    
    
    241,976
    
    
    
    235,705
    
    
    
    225,119
    
    
    
    214,430
    
    
    
    214,803Total earnings
    
    $
    520,940
    
    
    
    $685,359
    
    
    $
    697,239
    
    
    $
    571,251
    
    
    $
    591,461Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    216,290
    
    
    $
    208,521
    
    
    $
    196,826
    
    
    $
    185,087
    
    
    $
    183,527Estimated interest portion
of annual rents
    
    
    25,686
    
    
    
    27,184
    
    
    
    28,293
    
    
    
    29,343
    
    
    
    31,276Total fixed charges
    
    $
    241,976
    
    
    $
    235,705
    
    
    $
    225,119
    
    
    $
    214,430
    
    
    $
    214,803Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
Charges (rounded down)
    
    
    2.15
    
    
    
    2.90
    
    
    
    3.09
    
    
    
    2.66
    
    
    
    2.75