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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.

The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:

The Commission will consider a recommendation regarding amendments to Rule 15c2-12 (“Rule”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), concerning the responsibilities of a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer acting as an underwriter in a primary offering of municipal securities and interpretive guidance intended to assist municipal securities issuers, brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers in meeting their obligations under the antifraud provisions of the Act.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: July 8, 2009.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-16587 Filed 7-9-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1****STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the periodic report of Stratex Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended March 31, 2006 as amended by Amendment No. 1 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, Thomas H. Waechter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of thedate hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,that to the best of my knowledge:(1) theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, 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 at the dates and for theperiods indicated.This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities andExchange Commission.        Date: June 20, 2006 /s/ Thomas H. Waechter   Thomas H. Waechter        Chief Executive Officer
906 A.2d 439

#### IN THE MATTER OF HENRY A. WALSH, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 20, 2006.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-159, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to *Rule*1:20-4(f)(default by respondent), that HENRY A. WALSH of LAKEWOOD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1993, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.3(lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(b)(failure to communicate with client), and *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that HENRY A. WALSH is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

*277ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the directors and shareholders of Wellman International Limited and
Subsidiaries

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Wellman
International Limited and Subsidiaries ("the company") as of 31 December 2005
and 2004 and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders'
equity and other comprehensive (loss)/income, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three year period ended 31 December 2005. These consolidated
financial statements are the responsibility of the company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial
statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Wellman
International Limited and Subsidiaries as of 31 December 2005 and 2004, and the
results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the
three year period ended 31 December 2005 in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of Wellman
International Limited's internal control over financial reporting as of 31
December 2005, based on criteria established in "Internal Control - Integrated
Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO) and our report dated 3 March 2006 expressed an unqualified
opinion on management's assessment of, and the effective operation of, internal
control over financial reporting.

KPMG                                                                3 March 2006
Chartered Accountants
Dublin, Ireland
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00371-CV

IN RE TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AND 

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. seek by 

mandamus to vacate the trial court’s order of October 27, 2009 wherein it ordered 

Toyota to “preserve any and all documents, records, data, electronically stored 

information, and evidence relevant to Pennie Fay Green’s case, her Motion For 

Sanctions, and her Motion For Contempt.”

Toyota argues in its Petition for Writ of Mandamus that the trial court abused its 

discretion in issuing the October 27, 2009 order, which it claims is an order in 

furtherance of sanctions, because the court’s plenary jurisdiction had long since expired. 

In Green’s response to the Petition, she primarily argues that the trial court may 

proceed to investigate and punish by contempt a violation of a discovery order in a 
In re Toyota Page 2

proceeding over which the trial court lost jurisdiction because its plenary power has 

expired. But in Green’s motions filed in the trial court proceeding, it is clear that she 

seeks discovery sanctions payable to her for the perceived violation of the discovery 

order in addition to simply informing the court of the possibility of contemptuous 

conduct on the part of Toyota. 

It is not possible to tell, at this juncture, if the order rendered by the trial court is 

for the trial court to proceed with its investigation of whether Toyota’s alleged failure to 

comply with a discovery order justifies a determination of, and punishment for, 

contempt or whether the trial court is proceeding to consider Green’s request for 

sanctions payable to Green. Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

without prejudice. By denial of the petition based on the record before us, we express 

no opinion on the trial court’s jurisdiction to render a sanction order against Toyota 

payable to Green. 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed January 20, 2010

[OT06]
ALD-006 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-3457

___________

IN RE: ROER DAVILA 

A/K/A LUIS FERNANDEZ RUIS-HERRERA,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 

United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Criminal No. 2:06-cr-00537-003)

District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

October 10, 2013

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 25, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Roer Davila petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to compel his former 

counsel to produce all documents related to his criminal case. For the reasons that 

follow, we will deny Davila’s mandamus petition. 
2

I.

In 2010, the District Court convicted Davila of conspiracy to distribute five 

kilograms or more of cocaine and possession with the intent to distribute a controlled 

substance, and sentenced him to 360 months of imprisonment. In April 2013, following 

an unsuccessful direct appeal, Davila filed a motion to compel his sentencing and 

appellate counsel to deliver all documents related to his criminal case. Davila also filed a 

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which is pending in the District Court.1 Thereafter, 

the District Court denied the motion to compel as moot, finding that Davila’s counsel had 

already sent him the case file. 

Davila maintains that his former counsel has not yet delivered to him the 

documents related to his criminal case, and that, as a result, we should issue a writ of 

mandamus requiring the District Court to compel his former counsel to do so. Davila has 

also filed an appeal challenging the District Court’s denial of his motion to compel. 

II.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of 

circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Davila must 

demonstrate that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) 

[his] right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate 

 

1 We note that the District Court has appointed counsel to represent Davila in his § 2255 

action. 
3

under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (per 

curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Davila cannot make such a showing because he has other adequate means to 

compel his former counsel to produce the requested documents. In particular, he may 

seek review of the District Court’s order denying his motion to compel if his pending 

§ 2255 motion is denied. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 1998) 

(“A writ of mandamus should not be issued where relief may be obtained through an 

ordinary appeal.”). Thus, mandamus is not appropriate. 

Accordingly, because Davila cannot demonstrate extraordinary circumstances 

justifying a writ of mandamus, we will deny his petition.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DEANO S. ESPOSITA

,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 3552

SUNTRUST BANK, AMY C. ESPOSITA,

REGIO NS BANK D/B/A AMSOUTH BANK

AND MAGNOLIA PLANTATION

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

,

Appellee s

. /

Opinion filed February 2 , 201 8

Appeal from the Circuit Court for

Seminole County,

Susan Stacy

, Judge.

Deano S. Esposita, Lake Mary, pro se

.

Charles P. Guf ford, of McCalla Raymer

Leibert Pierce, LLC, Orlando

, for

Appellee

, Sun T rust Bank

.

No appearance for other Appellees.

ON CON F ESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to SunTrust Bank’s Con f ession of Error, we reverse the Summary Final

Judgment of Foreclos ure , as the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment

because the case had been removed to f ederal c ourt. We remand this matter to the trial2

court for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA

, ORFINGER

, and LAMBERT

, JJ., concur.
#### Sanborn *v.*Stark and others.

*(Circuit Court, D. Colorado.*

May *4, 1887.)*

1. Payment—Application. °

A creditor is at liberty to apply payments of a debtor upon any one of the debtor’s obligations, unless the debtor names the debt on which he is making payment.

2. Same—Secured and Unsecured Debts.

Where there are two debts, one secured and the other unsecured, the court will as a rule apply a payment upon the unsecured debt.

3. Partnership—Powers—Renewal of Note.

The renewal by one partner of a partnership note, after dissolution of the partnership, is binding upon the co-partner, if the latter recognized and consented to it.

On Motion for New Trial.

*M. B. Carpenter,*for plaintiff.

*J. W. Horner,*for defendants.

Brewer, J.

In this matter of Sanborn against Stark, motion for new trial on two grounds, first that one payment of six hundred and odd dollars was not credited on the note of $650, but on some other indebtedness of the other partner. There is nothing in that; the creditor is at liberty to apply payment upon any one of the obligations of his debtor, unless the debtor names the debt on which he is making the payment. Even if he had not made that application himself, where there are two debts, one secured and the other unsecured, the court ordinarily will apply a payment upon the unsecured debt; and the claim here is that this *19not« was the debt of defendant’s partner, upon which defendant was security.

The other point is equally unsound. The claim is that the note for $650, upon which judgment was rendered, was a renewal, and that as a renewal it was not binding on this particular defendant, Stark, because of the prior dissolution of the partnership, a fact which was known to the creditor at the time he took it. The truth of the matter is, the renewal was consented to by iliis defendant. It was given as a renewal of a part of a $2,000 note upon which confessedly both defendants wore liable. The renewal was some time about the twentieth of August. On the third of August this defendant writes to his partner: *“Friend San-born:*Yours of twenty-eight] i July just at hand. I wrote you some days ago I could not provide for payment of note due 18th, Exchange Bank; and I cannot. It must be renewed.” August 18th, Exchange Bank, $2,000, that was the note upon which both defendants were liable, and this defendant writes to his partner saying, “It must be renewed.” And on the twenty-seventh of August, after the renewal, he writes: “Yours twentieth August received. 1 am surprised you should renew those notes for so short a time, as you must he aware collections are coming in very slowly, and I cannot meet them.” Obviously both before and after he recognized and consented to the renewals.

The motion will he overruled.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF

ESTHER SALAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE

50 WALNUT ST.

ROOM 2037

NEWARK, NJ 07101

973-297-4887

April 5, 2012

LETTER ORDER

Re: United States v. Amin Roland

Criminal No. 11-630 (ES) 

Dear Counsel:

Please be advised that a telephone status conference has been scheduled for April 10, 2012

at 12:00 p.m. Counsel for Defendant shall initiate the call. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Esther Salas 

Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 23 Filed 04/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 428
EXHIBIT 32.1


                             RESOLVE STAFFING, INC.
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 Resolve Staffing,  Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Ronald  Heineman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Resolve  Staffing,  Inc.  and will be retained by Resolve  Staffing,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.

Date:  April 14, 2005


/s/ Ronald Heineman
-----------------------
Ronald Heineman
Chief Executive Officer
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. ER06-615-000; ER07-1257-000; ER08-1113-000; ER08-1178-000; ER09-241-000; ER09-1048-000; ER09-1281-000]

                    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that on the following dates members of its staff will participate in teleconferences and meetings to be conducted by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The agenda and other documents for the teleconferences and meetings are available on the CAISO's Web site,                     *http://www.caiso.com.*

June 30, 2009—Market Surveillance Committee.

July 1, 2009—Settlements and Market Clearing User Group. Congestion Revenue Rights.

July 2, 2009—Market Issues.

July 7, 2009—Systems Interface User Group.

July 8, 2009—Congestion Revenue Rights. Settlements and Market Clearing User Group.

July 9, 2009—Market Issues. Convergence Bidding Meeting.

July 14, 2009—Systems Interface User Group.

July 15, 2009—Settlements and Market Clearing User Group. Congestion Revenue Rights.

July 16, 2009—Market Issues. Transmission Maintenance Coordination Committee Meeting.

Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconferences and meetings are open to all market participants, and Commission staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconferences and meetings may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.

                    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at                     *saeed.farrokhpay@ferc.gov*; (916) 294-0322 or Maury Kruth at                     *maury.kruth@ferc.gov*, (916) 294-0275.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-16155 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23

- 0383 SAMANTHA VULLES, SHERI ESTENSON, et. al,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. THIES & TALLE MANAGEMENT, INC., THIES & TALLE ENTERPRISES, INC., ALAMANOR INVES TORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND JOHN DOES 1

-4

Defendants and Appellees. AMENDED ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Alice J. Hinshaw,**  whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the me diation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), A notice advises that this appeal is from a money judgment of less than $5,000. **Purs uant**  **to Rule**  **7(4)(f), M.R.App.P.,**  **the appointed**  **mediator shall**  **serve Pro**  **Bono and the**  **mediator’s incidental expenses shall b**  **e shared equally by the parties.** and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment. A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED this August 24, 2023.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Christopher W. Froines, Ben Kappelman , Alice J. Hinshaw 08/24/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0383
Exhibit 32



Certification of

Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Andrew G. Raguskus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Sonic Innovations, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sonic Innovations, Inc.



Dated: March 30, 2005



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ ANDREW G. RAGUSKUS                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



I, Stephen L. Wilson, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sonic Innovations, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sonic Innovations, Inc.



Dated: March 30, 2005



|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ STEPHEN L. WILSON                                                                        
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)