alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,791]


Commercial Vehicle Group/Trim Systems, Dublin, VA; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 14, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Commercial Vehicle 
Group/Trim Systems, Dublin, Virginia. The workers at the subject 
facility produce truck interiors.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 20th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15295 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
(oOS-lS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 01-13-00900-CR OFFENSE: 21.1 (Sex Abuse of Child)

Raymond Lee Cavitt v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Harris

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 174th District Court

DATE: 04/23/2015 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 1342490

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Raymond Lee Cavitt v. The State of

STYLE: Texas CCA# tbOSml£

APP£uaa/t>^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

Rtrrazgh JUDGE:

date: 06/zy/ir SIGNED: PC:

JUDGE: fJh (^6vL*4l^L- PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed January 8, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 10

- 00772

- CR NO. 14

- 10

- 00771

- CR

____________ THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.
MARK STEVEN BELL , Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1238939 and 1238940



### ABATEMENT ORDER

On December 13 , 20 12 , the parties filed a joint agreed motion to abate these appeals pending finalization of an agreement they anticipate will lead to dismissal of these appeals

. The motion is granted. Accordingly, we issue the following order.

The appeal s are abated, treated as clos ed case s , and removed from this c ourt’s active docket for a period of 60 days from the date of this order. The appeal s w ill be reinstated on this c ourt’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to2

dismiss the se appeals . The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal s filed by either party, or the c ourt may reinstate the app eal s on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
#### Ivan Coneo, Respondent, v Washington Heights Hellenic Orthodox Church, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[822 NYS2d 443]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about October 7, 2005, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the motion was denied for failure to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, it should have been denied as untimely, as it was made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue without any reason given for the delay (CPLR 3212 [a]; *see Brill v City of New York,*2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31455-31456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15575]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; RC2 Computational Analysis.
    Date: July 23, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Ken D. Nakamura, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, MSC 
9306, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-402-0838,<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b656a606a667e79604b666a626725656263256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="244a454f454951564f6449454d480a4a4d4c0a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 31456]]


    Dated: June 22 2009.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-15575 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         256,005
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               271,239
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 271,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,133
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   271,239
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                               2,830,485
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,830,485
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   429.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   429.87
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00243-CV

IN RE RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC. 

and Ryder Integrated Logistics of Texas, LLC

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 22, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 22, 2015, relators Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. and Ryder Integrated Logistics 

of Texas, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of respondent’s orders denying 

Ryder’s motion to compel the oral deposition of the plaintiff, and placing restrictions on Ryder’s 

independent mental examination of the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury lawsuit. The 

court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed on behalf of the 

real parties in interest and relators’ reply, and is of the opinion that respondent has not abused his 

discretion and relators are therefore not presently entitled to the relief sought. Based on the 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CI-03779, styled Denise Molina and George Duzane, Co-conservators 

of Rafael “Ralph” Molina and Rafael “Ralph” Molina v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc.; Ryder Integrated Logistics 

of Texas, LLC; and Ernesto Solis, Lucila Solis, Sonia Martin Solis, Elijah Angel Solis, and Roberto Solis Jr., Legal 

Heirs of the Estate of Roberto Solis Sr., pending in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the 

Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr. presiding.
04-15-00243-CV

- 2 -

mandamus record filed in this court, the respondent has specifically acknowledged relators’ ability 

to seek further relief from the trial court if the deposition and examination, as presently limited, 

prove to be inadequate for purposes of discovery. But see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843-

44 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus may be appropriate to review order denying discovery which 

effectively denies reasonable opportunity to develop merits of the case). Accordingly, the petition 

for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 15, 2016

Order 

Clerk

April 15, 2016

153213

CHAND PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, SC: 153213

v COA: 323268

Tax Tribunal: 00-439143

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  33-29612)  pertaining  to the 1987 Stock  Option  Plan of Kimmins
Corp. and in the related  Prospectus,  of our report dated March 16, 2001,  with
respect to the consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of Kimmins Corp.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.



                                      /S/ GIUNTA, FERLITA & WALSH, PA




Tampa, Florida
March 26, 2001



1340937
#### Henry Blount, Appellant, v Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., Defendant, and SJP Properties, Inc., Doing Business as SJP Properties Company, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 53]

*294Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant so completely controls SJP Residential, a related limited liability company formed in 2004 specifically to develop New York residential property, as to render SJP Residential a *“mere*department” of defendant *(see Delagi v Volkswagenwerk AG of Wolfsburg, Germany,*29 NY2d 426, 432 [1972]). The only evidence in the record as to whether there is common ownership of the two entities indicates that defendant is solely owned by one individual who is also one of two shareholders in SJP Residential *(see id.).*There is no evidence whatever as to whether defendant controlled the day-to-day financial operations or the marketing and operational activities of SJP Residential, or whether the entities shared common officers and directors or freely exchanged employees *(see id.; Public Adm'r of County of N.Y. v Royal Bank of Can.,*19 NY2d 127, 131-132 [1967]; *Taca Intl. Airlines, S.A. v Rolls-Royce of England,*15 NY2d 97, 101-102 [1965]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contention and find it unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



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

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gold Holdings Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Demitro Marianovich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

(2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





|Registrant          | Gold Holdings Corporation                                                         
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |                                                                                   
|                    | By:  /s/ Demitro Marianovich                                                      
|                    |                                                                                   
|                    | Demitro Marianovich                                                               
|                    | Chief Executive Officer (Principle Executive Officer, Principle Financial Officer)
|                    |                                                                                   
|Date:  May 13, 2010 |
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 866 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 74
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 866

                          [Report No. 116-409]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2339) to amend the 
   Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the sale and 
         marketing of tobacco products, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2020

   Ms. Shalala, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2339) to amend the 
   Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the sale and 
         marketing of tobacco products, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2339) to amend the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the sale and 
marketing of tobacco products, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-51, 
modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The 
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 
any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening 
motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate equally divided among and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce and the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
                                                  House Calendar No. 74

116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 866

                          [Report No. 116-409]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2339) to amend the 
   Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the sale and 
         marketing of tobacco products, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 26, 2020

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
## ORDER OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL

Order Pronounced June 25, 2009

08-0956 IN RE PETROLEUM WHOLESA LE, L.P., AND PWI GP, LLC "OPERATION SPOTLIGHT" LITIGATION.
On December 9, 2008, the Panel stayed proceedings in cases pending in Ellis, Galveston, and Harris Counties. On February 10, 2009, the Panel granted the request for assignment of a pretrial judge to these thre e cases. In May, the Panel was advised that
the cases in Ellis and Galveston Counties ha ve been nonsuited, leaving only the Harris County case pending, and the parties presented arguments on the effect of these changes
in circumstances. The Panel's stay order and its order gran ting the motion to appoi nt a pretrial judge are set aside and withdrawn. An opinion will be issued at a later date.

__________________ ________________

Blake Hawthorne, Multidistrict Litigation Panel Clerk

A LL C ONCUR
#### BRACH v. MACFADDEN PUBLICATIONS, Inc., et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Sept. 16, 1940.

Krause, Hirsch & Levin, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Hays, St. John, Abramson & Schulman, of New York City, for defendant MacFadden Publications, Inc.

Edwin Foster Blair, of New York City, for defendant Bernarr MacFadden.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The plaintiff moves for leave to take the depositions of parties and witnesses, an order for the issuance of subpoenas and the production and copying of documents. *446Rule 26(a), Rule 45, Rule 45(d) and Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The defendants object to the procedure adopted by the plaintiff. Ordinarily I would be inclined to overlook technical objections to procedure. However, in the instant case, I feel that the points raised by the defendants are well taken. The new federal rules provide a clear and unambiguous method of taking depositions, compelling the attendance of parties and witnesses and the production and copying of documents. The plaintiff contends that by this omnibus motion, he will save the time and the effort of the court. After careful consideration, I think that what the plaintiff is attempting to do would result in confusion rather than assistance.

Issue has been joined in this case and Rule 26(a) explicitly states that a deposition shall be taken without leave. The rule further states that the deposition shall be taken only in accordance with these rules. It seems as if the plaintiff is proceeding in a roundabout way. Judge Hulbert has clearly outlined the procedure to be followed (Lyons v. Bronx Towing Line, Inc., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 52; Nekrasoff v. United States Rubber Co., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 953), and I agree with him.

Orderly procedure under the rules and the cases forces me to the conclusion that this motion be denied. Proceed accordingly
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sharron Gaddy, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 842]

The court properly determined that defendant was ineligible for resentencing *(see*Correction Law § 851 [2], [2-b]; *People v Barber,*46 AD3d 359 [2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-1192V

Filed: June 16, 2015

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHARLES K. RICE, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza or Flu Vaccine; Shoulder

* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Patrick Austin, Esq., Virginia Beach, VA, for petitioner.

Michael Milmoe, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On December 11, 2014, Charles K. Rice filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

[the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury 

caused by the influenza vaccine he received on November 8, 2012. Petition, ¶¶ 12. 

Petitioner also alleges that his injuries lasted more than six months and that he 

continues to suffer the residual effects of his injury. Id., ¶ 11. The case was assigned 

to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 15, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes

“that this case is appropriate for compensation” Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 

Specifically, respondent “has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with 

SIRVA, and that it was caused in fact by the flu vaccine he received on November 8, 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to 

post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2006).
2

2012.” Id. at 3. Furthermore, respondent agrees that no other cause for petitioner’s 

SIRVA exists, and “petitioner met the statutory requirements for entitlement to 

compensation.” Id. at 3-4. 

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation.

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master
J5-M3!