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-65,120; TA-W-65,120A 

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on March 27, 2009, applicable to workers of Santee Print Works, Sumter, South Carolina. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 7, 2009 (74 FR 15756).                 

At the request of the State agency and company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of finished fabric. 

New findings show that the New York, New York location of Santee Print Works also experienced an employment decline during the relevant period. Workers at the New York, New York facility provide sales and accounting functions directly supporting and sufficiently under the control of the Sumter, South Carolina production facility of the subject firm. 

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to cover workers at the New York, New York location of Santee Print Works. 

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Santee Print Works who were adversely affected by increased imports of finished fabric. 

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-65,120 is hereby issued as follows: 

All workers of Santee Print Works, Sumter, South Carolina (TA-W-65,120), and Santee Print Works, New York, New York (TA-W-65,120A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 3, 2008, through March 27, 2011, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington DC, this 26th day of June 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-16628 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 31.1



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Charles Driscoll, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viscorp, Inc.



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



---

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: November 15, 2006



| | /s/ Charles Driscoll                                  
| | ------------------------------------------------------
| | Charles Driscoll
President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
31.1




SARBANES-OXLEY
SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION




I, Ro    
 I, Robert Baker, certify that:




1.
      I have reviewed this 10-QSB for the
      period ended October 31, 2008 of Snowdon Resources
      Corporation;






2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;






3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;






4. The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:






a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;




b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




c.
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an  
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and




5.
      The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
      to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's
      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):




a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and




b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.








Date:
      December 15, 2008


“Robert
      Baker”


Robert
      Baker, President, Principal Executive Officer
  and


Principal Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 519 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 519

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2003

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the 
          San Gabriel River Watershed, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``San Gabriel River Watershed Study 
Act''.

SEC. 2. STUDY OF SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHED.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this 
Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct a special resource 
study of the following areas:
            (1) The San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and 
        including the city of Santa Fe Springs.
            (2) The San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of the 
        San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains 
        Conservancy (as defined in section 32603(c)(1)(C) of the State 
        of California Public Resource Code).
    (b) Study Conduct and Completion.--Section 8(c) of Public Law 91-
383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of 
the study conducted under this section.
    (c) Consultation with Federal, State, and Local Governments.--In 
conducting the study under this section, the Secretary shall consult 
with the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains 
Conservancy and other appropriate Federal, State, and local 
governmental entities.
    (d) Considerations.--In conducting the study under this section, 
the Secretary shall consider regional flood control and drainage needs 
and publicly owned infrastructure such as wastewater treatment 
facilities.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    Not later than 3 years after funds are made available for this Act, 
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
Representatives a report on the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations of the study.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EX-10.24



 Exhibit 10.24 
 ALLISON TRANSMISSION HOLDINGS, INC. 
 AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

 This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to that certain Stock Option Agreement (the “Agreement”) by and
between Allison Transmission Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) and the individual to whom this Amendment is delivered (the “Optionee”) is effective as of December 21, 2012. All Capitalized terms used in this Amendment but not
defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, the Company previously granted the
Optionee a stock option under the Company’s Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) to purchase shares of the Company’s Common Stock (“Common Stock”) pursuant to the Agreement (the “Option”). 

WHEREAS, the Option is subject to expiration provisions as set forth in the Agreement; 

WHEREAS, the Administrator has deemed it advisable and in the best interests of the Company to adjust such expiration terms of the Option
as set forth herein; 
 WHEREAS, the Committee has the right to amend the Option without the consent of the Optionee under
Section 3.5 of the Agreement, provided that the amendment does not materially alter or impair any rights or obligations under the Option; 
 WHEREAS, the Administrator has determined that this Amendment does not materially alter or impair any rights or obligations under the Option and desires to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 

1. The Amendment. Section 2.6(a) of the Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

(a) The Option may not be exercised to any extent by anyone after the first to occur of the following events: 

(i) The Final Expiration Date; 
 (ii) Except for such longer period of time as the Administrator may otherwise approve, in the event of a Termination of Service for any reason other than Cause, death, Disability or Retirement ninety
(90) days following the date of the Optionee’s Termination of Service; 
 (iii) Except as the
Administrator may otherwise approve, the date of the Optionee’s Termination of Service for Cause; or 
 (iv)
Except for such longer period of time as the Administrator may otherwise approve, twelve (12) months following the Optionee’s Termination of Service by reason of the Optionee’s death or Disability; or 

(v) Except for such longer period of time as the Administrator may otherwise approve, thirty-six (36) months
following the Optionee’s Retirement, where “Retirement” means, for purposes of this Agreement, Optionee’s voluntary Termination of Service after attaining age 65. 

2. Full Force and Effect. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue
in full force and effect according to its terms. 
 3. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Delaware without reference to principles of conflicts of law. 

*    *    *
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000578

10-NOV-2015

08:09 AM
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: PROGRESSIVE CHOICE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

 Petitioner,

 v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO,

 Respondent,

CHRISTINA ELIZABETH PALMER

GERACI,

 Real Party in Interest.

No. 12-73128

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00466-BENNLS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

MAR 04 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2

Submitted February 7, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Progressive Choice Insurance Co. (“Progressive”) petitions for

mandamus to vacate the district court’s order requiring Progressive to produce

emails it claims are protected by attorney-client privilege. The magistrate judge

held that Progressive waived its attorney-client privilege under California law

based on its prior disclosures. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s

order. 

This court considers five factors in granting mandamus: 

(1) whether the petitioner has no other adequate means, such as a direct 

appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be 

damaged or prejudiced in any way not correctable on appeal; (3) whether 

the district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether 

the district court’s order is an oft repeated error or manifests a persistent 

disregard of the federal rules; and (5) whether the district court’s order 

raises new and important problems or issues of first impression.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bauman v.

U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977)). “[T]he absence of the

third factor, clear error, is dispositive.” Id. (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry.
3

v. U.S. Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005)) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

The district did not clearly err in determining that Progressive waived its

privilege under California law. Because the district court’s interpretation finds

support under current California case law, mandamus is inappropriate. Progressive

cannot establish the necessary third factor, and so we deny the petition.

Progressive’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marvin Kellyman, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), imposed February 23, 2005, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Prudenti, EJ., Schmidt, Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
## 1996 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
11-20-1996 

# An t ol v . E x p o s t o
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ock e t 95-3714

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1996 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" An t o l v . E xpos t o " (1996). 1996 D e cisio n s . P ape r 31. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996/31

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No. 95-3714

____________ GARY L. ANTOL, et al., Appellants v. DOMINIC ESPOSTO, et al., Appellees

____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C OURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVAN IA (D. C. No. 95-cv-00951)

____________ Argued August 6, 1996 Before: MANSMANN, SCIRICA, and WEIS, Circuit Judges Filed November 20, 1996

____________ ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION

It is hereby ordered that the following f ootnote 4 will replace the existing footnote 4 appearing on page 18 of the slip opinion in this case. BY THE COURT: /s/Joseph F. Weis

___________________________ Joseph F. Weis United States Circuit Judge
Date: January 10, 1997
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 58   Filed 05/18/11   Page 1 of 1 PageID: 279
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Jermart MIFFIN, a/k/a Ant, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7857.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 19, 2012.

*224Anthony Jermart Miffin, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Jermart Miffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miffin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense -with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*