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

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4321-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Nebraska; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for State of Nebraska (FEMA-4321-DR), dated June 26, 2017, and related 
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 6, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. 
Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of David G. Samaniego as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-17741 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
#### LEAVITT v. GUARDIAN LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA.

No. 6901.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

June 2, 1951.

Jack G. Beamer (of Stubbs, McKenzie, Williams & Merrick), Kansas City, Mo. for plaintiff.

Henry I. Eager (of Blackmar, Newkirk, Eager, Swanson & Midgley), Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

This action is a suit for double indemnity or accidental death benefits under policies of life insurance issued by the defendant upon the life of the husband of the plaintiff. The complaint states that on a certain date while the policies were in full force and effect, “the insured, * * * sustained a gun shot wound in his head from which 'he died * ***

The defendant contends, “that such statement is wholly insufficient to show that in fact and in law the insured’s death was effected directly by external, violent and accidental means * * * ” and has duly filed its motion for an order requiring plaintiff to make her petition more definite.

1. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., states that, “ * * * a claim for relief, * * * shall contain * * * (2) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”. This provision has been given a very liberal construction by the court, as illustrated in the case of Guth v. Texas Co., *7*Cir., 155 F.2d 563, where the court said, loe. cit. 565: “The plaintiff’s complaint must be held sufficient if upon any view of the allegations he had stated facts sufficient to entitle him to relief.”

2. The substantive law of Missouri is illustrated in the case of Edwards v. Business Men’s Assurance Co., 350 Mo. 666, at page 677, 168 S.W.2d 82, at page 88, wherein the court stated: “Upon the mere proof of the fact that the insured died from the effects of a gunshot wound, to wit, a death by violence, without more appearing, the law presumes the death was an accident or by accidental means, * * *.”

In view of the foregoing it is the opinion of the court that the plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient to satisfy the demands of the rules of procedure now in effect.
Exhibit 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Timothy L. Felter, certify that:

(1)   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Ipswich
      Bancorp;

(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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)   The company'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)) for the company 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
            company, 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 company's disclosure controls and
            procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 company's internal
            control over financial reporting that occurred during the company's
            most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
            reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal
            control over financial reporting; and

(5)   The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company'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 company'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 company's
            internal control over financial reporting.


/s/ Timothy L. Felter
--------------------------
Timothy L. Felter
Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2007
**Exhibit 21****ARBITRON INC.****SUBSIDIARIES**     **State or**  **Other Jurisdiction****Subsidiaries and Their Affiliates:** **of Incorporation**   Arbitron Holdings Inc. DelawareArbitron International, LLC (1) DelawareCSW Research Limited (2) United KingdomEuro Fieldwork Limited (3) United KingdomCeridian Infotech (India) Private Limited IndiaAudience Research Bureau S.A. de C.V. Mexico (1) Arbitron International, LLC is a subsidiary of Arbitron Inc. and Arbitron Holdings, Inc. (2) CSW Research Limited is a subsidiary of Arbitron Holdings, Inc. (3) Euro Fieldwork Limited is a subsidiary of CSW Research Limited.
No. 1018.

#### Walling, Wage *&*Hour Administrator, *v.*Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.

May 13, 1946.

*Solicitor General McGrath*for petitioner.

*Ben F. Saye*and *Gurney E. Newlin*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.
No. 983.

#### Agwilines, Inc. *v.*The San Veronico et al.

April 29, 1946.

*Chauncey I. Clark*for petitioner.

*Edwin S. Murphy*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1



















CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C. § 1350,




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














In connection with the Quarterly Report of IntegraMed America, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jay Higham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:









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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company.










By:
Jay HighamJay Higham

Chief Executive Officer



May 7, 2010
Dismissed and Opinion Filed August 26, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00403-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.K., H.K., AND K.K., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 469th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 469-50118-2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith

Opinion by Justice Molberg

We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal from a default divorce decree 

as it appeared to be moot. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 

86 (Tex. 1999) (noting appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot 

controversies). Specifically, no justiciable controversy appeared to exist as the 

clerk’s record reflected the trial court had granted a new trial and vacated the decree. 

See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (case 

becomes moot if controversy ceases to exist); R.M.O. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family and 

Protective Servs., No. 08-14-00067-CV, 2014 WL 2180167 (Tex. App.—El Paso 

May 23, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (granting of new trial mooted appeal). Although 
–2–

we directed appellant to file a letter brief addressing our concern and cautioned him 

that failure to do so by August 16, 2021 could result in dismissal of the appeal 

without further notice, appellant has not responded. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). 

Accordingly, because the record before us reflects the appeal is moot, it is dismissed. 

See id. 42.3(a).

210403f.p05

/Ken Molberg//

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF S.K., H.K., 

AND K.K., CHILDREN 

No. 05-21-00403-CV 

On Appeal from the 469th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 469-50118-

2021.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Molberg, Justices Goldstein and 

Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 26th day of August, 2021.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         4,182
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,267
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,575
<PP&E>                                         12,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 39,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,874
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    166
<COMMON>                                       54
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   39,990
<SALES>                                        14,810
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,810
<CGS>                                          12,378
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                521
<INCOME-TAX>                                   81
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            440
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   440
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .10



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Erasmo ALANIZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-41069

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesus Erasmo Alaniz-Garcia raises *661arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### FORT WAYNE CORRUGATED PAPER CO. v. ANCHOR HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION et al.

No. 385.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 13, 1941.

Patterson, Crawford, Arensberg & Dunn, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Elder W. Marshall, John C. Bane, Jr., and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

This is a suit involving, among other things, a claim for damages for the alleged failure of defendants to make purchases of shipping containers alleged to have been required by certain contracts between the parties. The original complaint stated this damage to be $250,000. By supplemental complaint filed on November 9, 1940, plaintiff fixed this claim at $450,000.

Defendants have now moved for a bill of particulars specifying the items which are intended to be comprised in the damage claim of $450,000. This motion is predicated on Rule 12(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, which permit a party to move “for a bill of particulars of any matter which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable him properly to prepare his responsive pleading or to prepare for trial.”

We are of the opinion that the complaint is sufficiently definite, and will deny the motion.

Defendants’ counsel have cited our opinion in Murphy v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 999, as supporting their motion. In this case we permitted an itemization of damages where there was a lump claim for damages for destruction of trees and growing trees, for injury to health, for inconvenience, depreciation in the value of real estate, a depreciation of *273the rental value of this real estate, and including also an exemplary damage-claim. That is not the situation of this case where we have merely a damage claim for failure to purchase shipping containers alleged to have been required of defendants by contract between the parties.

Certainly this information is not necessary to enable the defendants to prepare a responsive answer, or to prepare for trial. If defendants desire information as to the facts plaintiff hopes to prove, they may be obtained by interrogatories under Rule 33.

An order may be submitted denying defendants’ motion for bill of particulars.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 49 

To include a question to ascertain United States citizenship and immigration 

status in each questionnaire used for a decennial census of population, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To include a question to ascertain United States citizenship 

and immigration status in each questionnaire used for 

a decennial census of population, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ASCERTAINING CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRA4 TION STATUS IN DECENNIAL CENSUS OF POP5 ULATION. 

6 Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub9 section (h); and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 49 IS

1 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(g) Notwithstanding section 5 of this title, the Sec4 retary shall include in each questionnaire used for the con5 duct of a decennial census of population under subsection 

6 (a) a question to ascertain United States citizenship and 

7 immigration status.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 21**

 

**List of Principal Subsidiaries of Inamed Corp.**

 
| **Subsidiary**                           | ** ** | **Country**     | ** ** | **State**  |
|------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------|------------|------------|
|                                     |       |            |       |       |
| AEI, Inc.                                |       | US              |       | Delaware   |
| Collagen KK                              |       | Japan           |       |       |
| Collagen Aesthetics Australia  Pty. Ltd. |       | Australia       |       |       |
| Collagen Aesthetics GmbH                 |       | Germany         |       |       |
| Collagen Aesthetics Iberia  SA           |       | Spain           |       |       |
| Inamed Aesthetics GmbH                   |       | Germany         |       |       |
| Inamed Aesthetics Limited                |       | UK              |       |       |
| Inamed Aesthetics SA                     |       | Spain           |       |       |
| Inamed Canada Inc.                       |       | Canada          |       |       |
| Inamed International Corp.               |       | US              |       | Delaware   |
| Inamed Medical Products  Corp.           |       | US              |       | California |
| Inamed SRL                               |       | Italy           |       |       |
| McGhan Limited                           |       | Ireland         |       |       |
| McGhan Medical BV                        |       | The Netherlands |       |       |
| McGhan Medical SARL                      |       | France          |       |       |
| Inamed Costa Rica SA                     |       | Costa Rica      |       |       |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions)
 Six FiscalMonths EndedJune 30,
    
    
    Year Ended December 31,2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001EARNINGS, AS DEFINEDEarnings (loss) from operations before income
taxes and before adjustments for minority
interests in consolidated subsidiaries and after
eliminating
undistributed earnings of equity method investees
    
    $
    92.8
    
    
    $
    61.5
    
    
    $
    18.5
    
    
    $
    (1.2
    )
    
    $
    (27.6
    )
    
    $
    58.1Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    (0.2
    )
    
    
    (33.8
    )
    
    
    (9.2
    )
    
    
    (0.9
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Fixed charges
    
    
    24.2
    
    
    
    76.7
    
    
    
    49.4
    
    
    
    53.6
    
    
    
    47.5
    
    
    
    51.5TOTAL EARNINGS, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    116.8
    
    
    $
    104.4
    
    
    $
    58.7
    
    
    $
    51.5
    
    
    $
    19.9
    
    
    $
    109.6FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINEDInterest expense
    
    $
    20.9
    
    
    $
    36.5
    
    
    $
    35.0
    
    
    $
    45.3
    
    
    $
    41.3
    
    
    $
    43.2Amortization of capitalized expenses related to debt
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    3.4
    
    
    
    2.7
    
    
    
    4.5
    
    
    
    3.7
    
    
    
    4.4Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    0.2
    
    
    
    33.8
    
    
    
    9.2
    
    
    
    0.9
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Interest component of rent expense
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    3.0
    
    
    
    2.5
    
    
    
    2.9
    
    
    
    2.5
    
    
    
    3.9TOTAL FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    24.2
    
    
    $
    76.7
    
    
    $
    49.4
    
    
    $
    53.6
    
    
    $
    47.5
    
    
    $
    51.5RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    
    
    4.8
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.1
  69
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of IntegraMed America, Inc. (the
     "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
     the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
     I, Gerardo Canet, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
     to 18 U.S.C. /s/ 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
     Sarbanes--Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     1.  The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                                 /s/Gerardo Canet
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Gerardo Canet
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    May 13, 2005