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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

                    By Notice dated June 19, 2008, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 27, 2008, (73 FR 36573), Norac Inc., 405 S. Motor Avenue, P.O. Box 577, Azusa, California 91702-3232, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (2010), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I.                

The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance in bulk for sale to its customers.

One objection was received; however, the objector is not registered with DEA as a bulk manufacturer of Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (GHB). DEA has determined that the objection received is without merit and does not warrant denial of the application. DEA has also determined that the Food & Drug Administration does not preclude the sale of GHB to other manufacturers for the development of generic GHB products.

DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Norac Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Norac Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation included the inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.

      ( print page 31315)    
Dated: June 23, 2009.

Joseph T. Rannazzisi,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. E9-15446 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Finding a job takes time. But just how much time 

depends, in part, on the occupation in which 

you’re seeking employment.

Each month, the Current Population Survey asks 

unemployed people how long they have been looking for 

work. In 2006, as the chart shows, unemployed people in 

farming, fishing, and forestry occupations had been looking for work for the fewest median number of weeks, 

compared with people in other occupational groups. 

Why the difference? 

One reason might be that workers in some occupations are more likely to wait for a specific type of job 

before accepting employment, especially if their former jobs paid well. Another reason is that finding work 

Length of unemployment by occupation, 2006

quickly is difficult in some specialized occupations. 

And employment in other occupations, including those 

in construction, is cyclical; jobs begin and end more 

quickly, so people experience shorter, but more frequent, 

periods of unemployment. 

The numbers in the chart are medians, which means 

that half of the people surveyed had been looking for 

work longer than the time shown, and half for shorter. In 

every occupational group, some workers had been unemployed for more than 6 months. 

The workers were still unemployed when they were 

surveyed, so the total length of their unemployment is 

unknown. To learn more, call (202) 691-6378 or visit 

online at www.bls.gov/cps.

� � �

��

������������������������������

���������������������������

��������

�����������������

����������������������������������

������������������������

����������

���������������������������������

�������������������������

���������������������

������������������������������������� ����

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

����

������������������ �������������

��������

52 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Winter 2006-07
EX-32   ·   Section 1350 Certifications




GENEMEN INC.




Pursuant to Section  18U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002 (subsection  (a) and (b) of  section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18, United  States  Code),  each of the  undersigned  officers  of Genemen Inc.,  a Nevada  corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:





The Quarterly  Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  February 28, 2010  (the  "Form  10-Q")  of  the  Company   fully   complies   with  the requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934  and  information  contained  in the  Form  10-Q  fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  April 14, 2010





/s/ Qiaozhen Chen


Qiaozhen Chen


Principal Executive Officer


and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.1

DEKANIA CORP.

2929 Arch Street

Suite 1703

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104



November 14, 2008

Cohen Brothers, LLC

2929 Arch Street, 17thFloor

Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19104

Gentlemen:

This letter
will confirm our agreement, that Cohen Brothers, LLC (Cohen Brothers) shall loan Dekania Corp. (the Company) funds to cover its costs and to provide the Company with working capital to enable it to fund its expenses,
including the expenses associated with the pursuit of a business combination and expenses with respect to its potential dissolution and liquidation, up to a maximum of $500,000 (the Loan). The Company is permitted to draw on the Loan, at
any time up until the consummation of a business combination or the Companys liquidation and dissolution, by providing written notice to Cohen Brothers. The Loan shall not bear interest.

The Loan shall terminate and be repaid in full upon the consummation of a business combination. If the Company does not complete a business combination
within the time period permitted in its Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, which may be amended from time to time, and is required to liquidate and dissolve, Cohen Brothers shall waive the repayment in full of all amounts due
under the Loan.







Very truly yours,  DEKANIA CORP.By:

/s/ David NathanielName:  David NathanielTitle:    Chief Investment Officer and Secretary


Agreed to and Accepted by:



|                    |  |                                  
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|COHEN BROTHERS, LLC
|                    | 
|By:                 |  | /s/ Chris Ricciardi              
|                    |  |                                  
|                    |  | Name:  Chris Ricciardi           
|                    |  | Title:    Chief Executive Officer
Case 2:11-cv-00054-WJM-MF Document 2 Filed 01/18/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 12
#### KENDALL CO. v. EARNSHAW KNITTING CO.

No. 311.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

May 1, 1940.

H. F. Lyman, H. L. Kirkpatrick, and Fish, Richardson & Neave, all of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

George P. Dike, Cedric W. Porter, George P. Towle, Jr., and Dike, Calver & Gray, all of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

McLELLAN, District Judge.

The defendant’s motion for a summary judgment which is based in part upon an averment that a patent is invalid for want of invention in view of the prior art is denied because, after hearing counsel, I cannot say with assurance that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” within the meaning of those words as appearing in rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. This denial of the defendant’s motion is, of course, without prejudice to either of the parties and no costs are to be awarded in connection therewith.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Agile RF, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. W15P7T-04-C-P424 ) 

W15P7T-06-C-P421 ) 

H94003-06-C-0606 ) 

H94003-06-C-0611 ) 

Wl5P7T-06-C-T211 ) 

W911QX-06-C-0137 ) 

N68335-08-C-0058 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 59406, 59407 

Lisa M. Marchese, Esq. 

Traeger Machetanz, Esq. 

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 

Seattle, WA 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Robert L. Due caster, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Chantilly, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 28 July 2015 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59406, 59407, Appeals of Agile RF, 

Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
ACCEPTED

13-15-00092-CR

THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

7/23/2015 2:59:04 PM

CECILE FOY GSANGER

CLERK

 FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 7/23/2015 2:59:04 PM CECILE FOY GSANGER Clerk
Dismissed and Opinion Filed July 22, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00030-CV 

EMMA DUNN AND BEUNCA DUNN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF FRIEND OF 

T.D., D.K. AND C.D., MINOR CHILDREN, AND ERNEST RIGGENS, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS NEXT OF FRIEND OF J.R., A MINOR CHILD, Appellants 

V. 

MIKE TRUCKING INC., DBA, NORTH TEXAS TRUCKING, INC., Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-00603-A 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated January 14, 2015, we informed 

appellants’ attorney that the Dallas County Clerk had notified the Court that the clerk’s record 

had not been filed because appellants had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the 

clerk’s record. We directed appellants to file written verification that they had paid for or made 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or that they had been found entitled to proceed without 

payment of costs. We cautioned appellants that if they did not file the required documentation 

within ten days, we might dismiss the appeal without further notice. By postcard dated February 

9, 2015, we notified appellants’ attorney the Court had received but did not file appellants’ brief 

because the brief was tendered to the Court before the clerk’s record was filed. We directed 
 –2– 

appellants’ attorney to make arrangements to have the clerk’s record filed with the Court. To 

date, the clerk’s record has not been filed, and appellants have not corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of the clerk’s record. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b),(c). 

150030F.P05 

 

/CarolynWright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

EMMA DUNN AND BEUNCA DUNN, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF 

FRIEND OF T.D., D.K. AND C.D., MINOR 

CHILDREN, AND ERNEST RIGGENS, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF 

FRIEND OF J.R., A MINOR CHILD, 

Appellants 

No. 05-15-00030-CV V. 

MIKE TRUCKING INC., DBA, NORTH 

TEXAS TRUCKING, INC., Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 1, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-00603-A. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee MIKE TRUCKING INC., DBA, NORTH TEXAS 

TRUCKING, INC. recover its costs of this appeal from appellant EMMA DUNN AND 

BEUNCA DUNN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF FRIEND OF T.D., D.K. AND C.D., 

MINOR CHILDREN, AND ERNEST RIGGENS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF 

FRIEND OF J.R., A MINOR CHILD. 

Judgment entered July 22, 2015.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1030 

To allow individuals to choose to opt out of the Medicare part A benefit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 4, 2019 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. PAUL, and Mr. LEE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To allow individuals to choose to opt out of the Medicare 

part A benefit. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Retirement Freedom 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO CHOOSE TO OPT OUT 

7 OF THE MEDICARE PART A BENEFIT. 

8 Any individual who is otherwise entitled to benefits 

9 under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act may 

10 elect (in such form and manner as may be specified by 

11 the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to opt out 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1030 IS

1 of such entitlement. Notwithstanding any other provision 

2 of law, in the case of an individual who makes such an 

3 election, such individual— 

4 (1) may (in such form and manner as may be 

5 specified by the Secretary) subsequently choose to 

6 end such election and opt back into such entitlement 

7 (in accordance with a process determined by the 

8 Secretary) without being subject to any penalty; 

9 (2) shall not be required to opt out of benefits 

10 under title II of such Act as a condition for making 

11 such election; and 

12 (3) shall not be required to repay any amount 

13 paid under such part A for items and services fur14 nished prior to making such election. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 30 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 186
.. 

~\ 

L 

•• 

JULY 20~ 2015 

ABEL ACOS$A~ CLERK 

R.O. BOX 12308. CAPITGL STATION ~USTIN~ .TEXAS ~8711 

RE: WRIT OF MANDAMUS #WR-83,506-01 

Tt. Ct. No. 1097497-A 

DEAR CLERK: 

LEEROY CESAR CARBAELO 

TDCJ-CID #1462910 

PACK UNIT 

2400 WALLACE PAC/§~ 

NAVASOTA, TEXAS~ 

·--· RECEIV~~~t;!ec+ 2 '[\ (ode 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ',-

JUL 23 2015 

Abel Acosta, Clerk 

TWO WEEKS AGO, I RECEIVED A WHITE CARD SERVING AS AN OFFICIAL 

NOTICE THAT ON 6/2'5/2015 .~ MY ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR .WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS WAS RECEIVED AND PRESENTED ·TO THE'COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS. THIS WHITE CARD HAD.THE WRONG ZIP CODE WHERE MY ADDRESS 

WAS TYPED IN. FORTUNATELY, THE WHITE CARD DID.GET TO ME SOMEHOW. 

I~M CONCERNEDFNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE.MAILED ME· IDHE COURTillS 

ORDER OR RESPONSE TO MEFAND SOMEONE THERE HAS AGAIN ADDRESSED 

IT TO ME USING THE WRONG ZIP CODE AND SUCH ORDER OR RESPONSE WAS 

RETURNED TO YOU. 

I H~EE NOT RECEIVED AN ORDER OR RESPONSE CONCERNING MY WRIT 

OF MANDAMUS FILED IN THIS COURT. PLEASE INFORM ME CONCERNING ANY 

RESPONSE OR ORDER THAT THE COURT ISSUES CONCERNING· MY FILINGS IN . 

THIS COURT.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00236-CR

PAUL ANTWANN HARLAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 4 of Dallas County

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court No. F13-56882-K

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the court reporter’s record in this case indicates that volume seven of that 

record contains “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.9 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license 

number, passport number, [and] social security number,” as well as “a bank account number, credit 

card number, or other financial account number.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9(a)(1), (2). Volume seven 

of the court reporter’s record contains a social security number and credit card numbers. Rule 

9.9(b) states, “Unless the inclusion of sensitive data is specifically required by a statute, court rule, 

or administrative regulation, an electronic or paper document containing sensitive data may not be 

filed with a court unless the sensitive data is redacted.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9(b).

Therefore, because volume seven of the court reporter’s record fails to protect sensitive 

data, we order the Clerk of this Court, or her appointee, pursuant to the inherent power of this 

Court, to seal the electronically filed seventh volume of the court reporter’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: July 15, 2015
#### GALLAGHER & BURTON, Inc., v. SCHENLEY DISTRIBUTORS, Inc., et al.

No. 792.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 10, 1940.

*440Leon Edelson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, and Wa. E. Mikell, Jr., all of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

The plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the trademark involved is one element of its cause of action. The defendants’ invasion of that right by an infringing use is the other. This motion seeks to obtain a more definite statement of the origin and history of the right which the plaintiff claims.

As to the period from 1933 to the present time, .the complaint is sufficiently explicit. The averments are that in that year the plaintiff was incorporated and from the date of its incorporation used the trademark in connection with its business and the sale of its goods continuously and in a manner to invest it with the exclusive right which it claims.

 However, it is not possible to tell from the complaint whether the plaintiff is basing his right entirely on user since its incorporation in 1933, or whether it claims the right by succession to the corporation dissolved in 1926. This is not merely a question of dates, but involves the nature of the plaintiff’s right. I do not see how the defendants can well prepare their responsive pleadings without knowing definitely by what right the plaintiff claims. This Court has, in a great many cases, denied applications for bills of particulars on the ground that the information asked for was easily obtainable through discovery procedure. An exception to the general rule, however, is where the information is necessary to enable the defendant to determine what its course of defense will be and to prepare a responsive pleading. This, I think, is such a case. If the plaintiff claims no rights whatever other than such as were acquired by user since 1933, it will be a simple matter to say so. If it claims, by succession to some other corporation or persons, a right originating before it came into existence, then the defendants are entitled to know whether the plaintiff claims that it acquired such right by operation of law without any instrument of transfer, or whether there is some chain of title by way of assignments or similar contracts, and if so exactly what they are.

The motion for bill of particulars, paragraph 2, subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) is granted. The part of the motion contained in paragraph 1 and its sub-paragraphs is denied. That information is not essential to determining the nature of the cause of action and can be obtained by discovery.
# table193_q19.3_naics
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

November 1 6 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk Novem ber 1 6 , 2020

16 22 18 ( 3 )

STACY ERWIN OAKES,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 162218

30TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT and

INGHAM COUNTY CLERK,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of plaintiff to waive the filing fees is

GRANTED as to this case only

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         156,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,085,389
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,250,605
<PP&E>                                         897,899
<DEPRECIATION>                                 704,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,464,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,302,755
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       757,597
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,826,437)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,464,509
<SALES>                                      8,897,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,897,455
<CGS>                                        6,638,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,638,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,577,751
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             467,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (786,011)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (786,011)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  84,237
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (701,774)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 22 (a)

 

SUBSIDIARIES

 

OF

 

MINUTEMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 

 

 

Multi-Clean Division ofMinuteman International, Inc.

600 Cardigan Road

Shoreview, Minnesota  55126

 

Minuteman Canada, Inc.

2210 Drew Road

Mississauga

Ontario L5S 1B1 Canada

 

Minuteman International ForeignSales Corporation

c/o Ernst & Young Services,Ltd.

P.O. Box 261 Bay Street

Bridgetown, Barbados

 

Minuteman European B.V.

Haverstraat 31

2153 GB Nieuw-Vennep

The Netherlands

 

Minuteman PowerBoss, Inc.

175 Anderson Street

Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315