alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-64,979]

                    On May 12, 2009, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice will soon be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of filtration media 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 alleged that the workers of the subject firm also produced non-filtration products, specifically nonwoven fabrics used in medical applications, hygiene applications and nonwoven rolled goods. The petitioner also alleged that the subject firm shifted production of non-filtration products abroad and that there was an increase in imports of non-filtration products.

The Department of Labor contacted a company official to verify this information. The company official stated that the subject firm ceased production of the non-filtration products at the end of 2006 and that none of the articles outlined by the petitioner were manufactured by workers of the subject firm since 2006.

When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively considers production and import impact during the relevant time period (one year prior to the date of the petition). Therefore, events occurring prior to January 22, 2008 are outside of the relevant period and are not relevant in this investigation. 

## Conclusion

After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Fiberweb, PLC, Simpsonville, South Carolina.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of June 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-14332 Filed 6-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### In the Matter of Michael Sacks et al., Appellants, v Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 22, 2013;

decided September 3, 2013

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*21 NY3d 857 (2013)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
#### UNITED STATES, for Use and Benefit of EATON et al. v. OLSON et al.

No. 25692-G.

District Court, N. D. California, S. D.

Aug. 2, 1946.

Lawrence Livingston, H. W. S. Leeker, and Thomas E. Davis, all of San Francisco, Cal., for defendants and counterclaimants.

Thomas K. McCarthy and Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, all of San Francisco, Cal., for cross-defendants, Ball & Simpson, Henry J. Keiser Company, and Permanente Cement Company.

GOODMAN, District Judge.

The motion is to dismiss the counterclaim in interpleader.

The counterclaiming defendants are the prime contractors and their sureties upon a payment bond executed by them, pursuant to the Miller Act, §§ 1, 2, 40 U.S.C.A. §§ 270a, 276b, in connection with the construction of certain public works for the United States. The plaintiffs are seeking recovery upon such payment bond for labor and materials supplied a subcontractor of the prime contractors. The counterclaim is to interplead other persons having similar claims against the subcontractor, and it is alleged in the counterclaim that the aggregate of all such claims exceeds the balance unpaid by the prime contractors under the subcontract.

Defendants’ right to interplead such other claimants is based entirely on Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. However, since it is apparent that they (defendants) will not be exposed to double or multiple liability upon the same obligation, Rule 22 gives them no such right of inter-pleader. The amount of the payment bond fixes the extent of their liability to persons having claims for labor and materials supplied the subcontractor, and that amount is admittedly well in excess of what is required to satisfy such claims in full. The claims are not therefore, adverse to each other; the claimants are not seeking to recover the same thing or amount.

 It is not important that the balance unpaid under the subcontract is less than the claims asserted against the counterclaiming defendants, since the liability of the latter under the payment bond is not limited to such unpaid balance. The counterclaimants have not here interpleaded the subcontractor as an adverse claimant to the unpaid balance under the subcontract. The case of F. H. McGraw & Co., Inc., v. Sherman Plastering Co., Inc., D.C., *51460 F.Supp. 504, cited by them, is therefore not in point. It is likewise of no significance that the counterclaimants will be subjected to several suits arising out of the same transaction. Rule 22 does not purport to give a defendant severally liable to different claimants the right to interplead all such claimants in an action by less than all —solely because the several liabilities have a common origin—where the interests of such claimants do not, by adverseness to each other, expose him to the danger of double or multiple liability for the same thing or amount. See opinion on motion for new trial in Buxton v. Acadian Production Corp. et al., D.C., 35 F.Supp. 543, 552.

The motion to dismiss the counterclaim in interpleader is granted.
#### In the Matter of Amil Dinsio, Appellant, v Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, Respondent.

Submitted June 24, 2013;

decided August 29, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Ellison Heights Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellant, v Ellison Heights LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[976 NYS2d 904]

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (William E Eolito, J.), entered December 3, 2012. The order and judgment denied the motion of plaintiff for leave to amend its amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Ellison Hgts. Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v Ellison Hgts. LLC*(112 AD3d 1302 [2013]). Fresent— Smith, J.E, Centra, Fahey, Garni and Whalen, JJ.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 5 0 2 9 6

R A Y M O N D D E S C H , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l a n t
v
. R I C H A R D W H E A T L E Y , S R

. , I n d i v i d u a l l y a n d A s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f 7 7 0 1 W u r z b a c h T o w e r C o u n c i l o f C o - O w n e r s , I n c o r p o r a t e d ; K E N N E T H S H A N N O N , I n d i v i d u a l l y , a n d
a s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f 7 7 0 1 W u r z b a c h T o w e r C o u n c i l o f C o - O w n e r s , I n c o r p o r a t e d ; 7 7 0 1 W U R Z B A C H T O W E R ; D E L O R E S A N N M O S E L E Y , D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l l e e s

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o 5 : 0 8

- C V

- 9 2 2

B e f o r e G A R W O O D , G A R Z A a n d D E N N I S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e j u d g m e n t o f

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d , e s s e n t i a l l y f

o r t h e r e a s o n s

s t a t e d i n t h e J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 0 M e m o r a n d u m a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 7, 201 1 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion s hould not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-50296 Document: 00511438247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2011N o
. 1 0

- 5 0 2 9 6

U n i t e d S t a t e s M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e , a c c e p t e d , p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 6 3 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) , b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n i t s M a r c h 1 8 , 2 0 1 0 j u d g m e n t

. A F F I R M E D

2 Case: 10-50296 Document: 00511438247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2011
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GENSPERA, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee

JOHN T. ISAACS., PH.D., SAMUEL R. DENMEADE, 

M.D.,

Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees

v.

ANNASTASIAH MUDIWA MHAKA,

Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant

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

ANNASTASIAH MUDIWA MHAKA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GENSPERA, INC., JOHN T. ISAACS., PH.D., 

SAMUEL R. DENMEADE, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1059, 2015-1060

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Maryland in Nos. 1:12-cv-00772-MJG, 1:12-cv03302-MJG, Senior Judge Marvin J. Garbis.
 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOHN NILSSON, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for appellees. Also represented by JAMES 

ALEXANDER KAISER.

SPENCER HOSIE, Hosie Rice LLP, San Francisco, CA, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by DIANE RICE,

DARRELL RAE ATKINSON; PHILIP M. ANDREWS, Kramon and 

Graham, PA, Baltimore, MD. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and 

WALLACH, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

July 16, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
**Exhibit            32.2**

**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 of LILM, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for            the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange            Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,**George I. Norman,            III**,            Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,            as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/S/**George I. Norman, III**

**George I. Norman,            III**

Principal Accounting            Officer

October 17,            2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by            Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the            signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written            statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and            furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The            foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to            section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,            chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form            10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
BPI 2013 Q2 10-Q - EX-10.3






EXHIBIT 10.3


Task Order 
Xerox Business Services, LLC (f/k/a Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.) and University of the Rockies, LLC


This Task Order (“Task Order”) is entered into May 1, 2013 (“Effective Date”) pursuant to the General Services Agreement, and any amendments thereto (“Agreement”) by and between Xerox Business Services, LLC, f/k/a Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., (“Xerox”) and University of the Rockies, LLC (“Customer”).  Except as may otherwise be provided in this Task Order, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. Should there be a conflict between the Agreement and this Task Order, the terms of the Agreement shall control unless this Task Order specifically identifies the provisions in the Agreement that it supersedes. 
	
	
	I.  The Service






Effective May 1, 2013, Xerox will provide the following services under this Task Order for Customer's Denver Instructional Center (“Services”):


o    100% quality review of  ISIR Review processing (ISIR review includes verification/c-codes/conflicting information/PJ)
o    100% quality review of packaging/certification/revisions
o    Disbursement Eligibility Review
o    100% quality review of Title IV Refund processing




	
	
	II.  Fees




Xerox will bill Customer monthly for the Services.
Xerox will charge Customer $[***] per month for the Services (not to exceed [***] students)
Customer will pay Xerox within thirty (30) days of receipt of monthly invoice and in accordance with the invoicing terms contained in the Agreement.


	
	
	III.  Term and Termination






The term of this Task Order will begin on the Effective Date and will continue until terminated as provided in the Agreement.  
	
	
	IV. Signatures






The term of this Task Order will begin on the Effective Date and will continue until terminated as provided in the Agreement. 






















[***] Confidential portions of this document have been redacted and filed separately with the Commission.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Task Order by the signatures of their respective authorized representatives.


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


	
				
	Xerox Business Services, LLC
	 
	University of the Rockies, LLC
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:/s/ Nancy D. Paris        
	 
	By: /s/ Christopher A. Jackson       
	 

	Printed: Nancy D. Paris    
	 
	Printed: Christopher A. Jackson   
	 

	Title: Sr. Vice President
	 
	Title: VP, Finance    
	 

	Date:   4/30/13
	 
	Date:   4/28/13
	 








Xerox Business Services, LLC
Confidential:  Information within this document is not  to be released or distributed to any parties outside Xerox or University of the Rockies, LLC and any of their affiliates, without the express written approval of Xerox management.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9                          
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000                   
                                     
<S>                             <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          97,618
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,938
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                41,368
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    713,810
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         406,888
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           411,103
<LOANS>                                      3,785,312
<ALLOWANCE>                                     38,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,291,171
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,831,474
<SHORT-TERM>                                   247,219
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             70,379
<LONG-TERM>                                    644,453
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              415
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     497,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               5,291,171
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 67,851
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,679
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                15,169
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                90,699
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              38,593
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,467
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           39,232
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     (320)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  46
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 33,328
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,238
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      13,847
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,847
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.14
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,407
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,360
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   857
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 12,680
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                38,569
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      126
<RECOVERIES>                                       396
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               38,519
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            38,519
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
                                     
                                     

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                   Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

                            APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
              Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended
                                December 31, 1999


The undersigned  directors of APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, a Virginia  corporation
(the "Company"),  do hereby constitute and appoint E. LINN DRAPER,  JR., ARMANDO
A.  PENA and  HENRY W.  FAYNE,  and each of them,  their  attorneys-in-fact  and
agents,  to execute for them,  and in their  names,  and in any and all of their
capacities,  the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K,  pursuant to Section
13 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  for the fiscal year ended December
31, 1999, and any and all  amendments  thereto,  and to file the same,  with all
exhibits  thereto  and  other  documents  in  connection  therewith,   with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission,  granting unto said  attorneys-in-fact  and
agents,  and each of them,  full power and authority to do and perform every act
and thing required or necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes
as the undersigned might or could do in person,  hereby ratifying and confirming
all that said  attorneys-in-fact  and agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

      IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned  have signed these presents this 2nd
day of March, 2000.



      /s/ E. Linn Draper, Jr.            /s/ Armando A. Pena
E. Linn Draper, Jr.                       Armando A. Pena


      /s/ Henry W. Fayne                       /s/ J. H. Vipperman
Henry W. Fayne                            J. H. Vipperman


      /s/ Wm. J. Lhota
Wm. J. Lhota
CAUSE NO. 1049518 

ASSET LIQUIDATION GROUP ' IN THE COUNTY COURT

'

VS. ' AT LAW NUMBER 3 OF 

'

DANTE WADSWORTH ' HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiff, Asset Liquidation Group, desires to appeal from the Take-Nothing Judgment

which was signed by this Court on May 4, 2015. 

Plaintiff, Asset Liquidation Group, appeals to the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 

Houston, Texas.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jody D. Jenkins 

JODY JENKINS

SBN: 24029634 

Jenkins, Wagnon & Young, P.C.

P.O. Box 420 

Lubbock, Texas 79408-0420 

(806) 687-9172 

FAX (806) 771-8755 

jjenkins@jwylaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has 

been served upon the following via the Court’s Electronic Filing System on this 7th day of July, 

2015. 

John Mastriani 

The Mastriani Law Firm

P.O. Box 460174 

Houston, Texas 77056 

service@mastrianilaw.com 

 /s/ Jody D. Jenkins 

Jody D. Jenkins 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00614-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/16/2015 4:12:45 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/16/2015 4:12:45 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**



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 of Opes Exploration Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ken Ralfs, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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) 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/ Ken RalfsKen Ralfs 
Chief Financial Officer 
September 14, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-018-CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 	APPELLANT

PUBLIC SAFETY

	V.

ERIC SIMMONS	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF HOOD COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

We have considered “Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  It is the court's opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). 

PER CURIAM	

PANEL D:	WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAY and LIVINGSTON, JJ.

DeELIVERED: aPRApril 17, 2003
#### Bradford Applegate, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Decided September 12, 2013

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.