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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4318-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4318-DR), dated June 15, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued July 19, 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.

      ( print page 39889)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 15, 2017.

Fulton County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance). Searcy County for Public Assistance.

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. 2017-17775 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2023_3_20_13_11" style="width: 618px;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 4. Likelihood of full telework last week by schooling type and sex</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th rowspan="1" scope="col">Schooling type</th>
<th scope="col">Women</th>
<th scope="col">Men</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Only in-person schooling</p>
</th>
<td>17.9</td>
<td>13.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Only remote schooling</p>
</th>
<td>37.8</td>
<td>25.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Hybrid schooling</p>
</th>
<td>27.2</td>
<td>19.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2023_3_20_13_11_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="3">
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
#### HOEFFLER v. GRAY.

Civ. No. 27594.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Dec. 20, 1950.

Willis T. .Barber, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Don C. Miller, Dist. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Jud£e.

This is a declaratory judgment action by the widow of a World War veteran against Carl R. Gray, Jr., Administrator of Vet*205erans’ Affairs, in which plaintiff seeks a decree of this court finding that she, as a veteran’s widow, is entitled to benefits made and provided in Title 38 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq. Defendant moves to dismiss.

Service was made by serving the U. S. Attorney for this District and mailing a copy of the summons to the Attorney General in Washington.

It seems quite clear that service of process may not be had upon the defendant from any district court other than the one of the district of his official residence. Klein v. Hines, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 649; Love v. Royall, 8 Cir., 179 F.2d 5. Since defendant’s official residence is Washington, this court is unable to obtain jurisdiction over him.

Even if jurisdiction could be acquired, proper service was not made. Rule 4(d) (5), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., requires that service upon an officer of the United States be made by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to such officer. This was not done in this action and for this reason also the court lacks jurisdiction.

The other two grounds of the motion appear to be well taken but inasmuch as the court lacks jurisdiction on the above grounds, it is not thought necessary to discuss them.

Motion to dismiss granted.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 12

- 00432

- CR

Christopher DELACRUZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 6

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 304638

Honorable Wayne A. Christian , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca S immons , Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 17, 2012

DISMISSED

Pro se appellant Christopher Del acruz has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The

motion is granted and this appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
# defs_m2023
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 11814 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:13

- cv - 01544

- AT

SUZANNE STEELE, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus

SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (April 7, 2017) Before WILSON , JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11814 Date Filed: 04/07/2017 Page: 1 of 32 Suzanne Steele wa s an employee of Sears Roebuck and Co. for several years. She was t erminated in 2009 and filed this lawsuit in 2013 . Steele raised a number of claims in her complaint , including a claim that Sears terminat ed her based on her age in violation of the Age Discrimi nation in Employment Act (ADEA) . The district court granted summary judgment to Sears on all of Steel e ’s claims, except for her ADEA claim. The court held a two

- day bench trial on the
ADEA claim, after which the court issued a final judgment in S ears’s favor. Steele, now proceeding pro se, appeals the final judgment

. 1 She argu es that the district court erred in (1) finding that S ears terminate d her for a reason other than
age and (2) excluding the testimony of her proposed expert.
A fter careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find that the district court committed no reversible error. First, taking into account all the evidence , the district court did not clearly err in finding that Sears terminate d Steele fo r a reason other than age . 2 See Crystal Entm’ t & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado , 643 F.3d 1313, 1319 (11th Cir. 2011) (“After a bench trial , we review the
district court’ s . . . factual findings for clear error

. ” (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Second, we cannot conclude that t he district court abuse d its discretion

1 Even construing Steele’s pro se brief liberally, see Tannenbaum v. United States , 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998 ) (per curiam), the brief does not contest the findings upon which the district court’s summary judgment decision was based. Steele has therefore abandoned any challenge to the decision. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. , 739 F.3d 678, 681

– 83 (11 th Cir. 2014). 2 To the extent that Steele challenges any of the district court’s other factual findings, we conclude that suc h findings were not clearly erroneous.

Case: 16-11814 Date Filed: 04/07/2017 Page: 2 of 33 in excluding the testimony of Steele’s proposed expert. See General Elec. Co. v.
Joiner , 522 U.S. 136, 141 , 118 S. Ct. 512, 515 (1997) (holding that the abuse

- of

discretion standard is the a ppropriate standard for reviewing a district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony). The proposed testimon y was not relevant given that it concerned damages for emotional distress

— damages that are not available under the ADEA. See Munoz v. Oceanside Resorts, Inc. , 223 F.3d 1340, 1348 (11th Cir. 2000)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-11814 Date Filed: 04/07/2017 Page: 3 of 3
Exhibit 31.4


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Matthew Korenberg, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated; and


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.





Date: November 1, 2017





/s/ Matthew KorenbergMatthew KorenbergVice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerDuly Authorized Officer and Principal Financial Officer
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 19 , 2020

Decided May 19 , 2020

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM

, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER

, Circuit Judge

AMY C. BARRETT

, Circuit Judge

No. 19

- 2100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v

.

JAMES A. NICKELS

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern Distri ct of Wisconsin

.

No. 1 8

- CR

- 116

William C. Griesbach

, Judge

.

O R D E R

James Nickels bilked dozens of investors out of millions of dollars by making misreprese ntations about the profitability of his business and perpetuating those misrepresentations by paying interest to investors using money from other investors

. He pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a)
and one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343

. His plea agreement included a broad appeal waiver. The district court sentenced him to 84 months ’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay $3, 227, 1 38

in restitution . Nickels filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Nickels has not responded to counsel’s motion. See C IR

. R. 51(b). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the case and addr esses the potential issues that an appeal of this NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 19

- 2100 Page 2

kind might involve

. Because her analysis appears thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that counsel discusses. United States v. Bey , 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014).

In her brief, c ounsel states that s he consulted with Nickels and confirmed that he does not wish to withdraw his guilty plea, so counsel properly omits discussion of any arguments related to the plea’s validity. See United States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); U nited States v. Knox , 287 F.3d 667, 670

– 71 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel considers whether Nickel s could challenge his sentence but correctly
concludes that his appeal waiver would foreclose any challenge. In his plea agreement,
Nickels waived the right “to appeal his sentence ,” including the terms and length of any supervised release

, and any fine, forfeiture order, or restitution order. A n appeal waiver

“ stands or falls with the underlying guil ty plea

, ” and Nickels does not wish to challenge his plea, so his waiver would have to be enforced. See United States v. Zitt , 714 F.3d 511, 515 (7th Cir. 2013)

. Moreover, c ounsel rightly rejects any argument that an exception to the appeal waiver could apply. See United States v. Campbell , 813 F.3d 1016, 1018 (7th Cir. 2016). As counsel points out, Nickel’s 84

- month sentence fell within the statutory maximums of 10 years (the money laundering count) and 20 years (the wire fraud count)

, and the court did not consider any constitutionally impermissible factors at sentencing.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
EXHIBIT 10.20
 
 
Option to Purchase Lease between KY USA Energy, Inc. and Hilltopper Energy, LLC dated as of August 4, 2008 (the “Option”) and Addendum to the Option dated as of March 3, 2009
**Exhibits**

 

**Exhibit 4.30**

 

Richard Eyre Esq 

The Copper Beech 

Walking Bottom

Peaslake 

Surrey 

GU5 9RR 

 

9 April 2004 

 

Dear Richard 

 

I write to confirm the agreement which we have reached regarding the change to the date upon which you will take up your appointment as a non executive director of the Companypursuant to the Letter of Appointment dated 30 March 2004 (“Letter”). 

 

We haveagreed that your appointment which was due to have commenced on 8 April 2004 will now take effect from 4 May 2004 (the “Commencement Date”). 

 

Accordingly it is agreed that paragraph 1.2 of the Letter be amended by substituting for the date of 8 April 2004 where it appears in that paragraph the words “theCommencement Date”. Save as aforesaid the Letter will remain in full force and effect. 

 

I will be grateful if you would confirm your acceptance of the terms set out in this letter by signing and returning the attached copy letter. 

 

Yours sincerely, 

 

Chairman 

Baltimore Technologies Plc 

 

I have read this letter and accept the terms detailed above. 

 

Signature: 

 

Date:

 

Name:
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CEO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended March 31,
2005 of Cinemark USA, Inc. (the Issuer). I, Lee Roy Mitchell, the Chief Executive Officer of Issuer certify that to the best of my
knowledge:  (i)
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. Dated: May 16, 2005 /s/Lee Roy MitchellLee Roy MitchellChief Executive Officer
 Subscribed and sworn to
before me this 16th day of May 2005. /s/ Carol WaldmanName: Carol WaldmanTitle: Notary Public
 My commission expires: 06/07/08 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANACIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED FEBRUARY
28, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           5,136
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,890
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,045
<INVENTORY>                                     77,395
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,785
<PP&E>                                         196,332
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 361,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,661
<OTHER-SE>                                     218,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   361,069
<SALES>                                        142,359
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,359
<CGS>                                           66,661
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,053
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,604
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,449
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,449
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00604-CV

Cary WILKE,

Appellant

v.

Vickie PHILLIPS a/k/a Vickie Phillips-Wilke,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 8347

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is 

REVERSED. We REMAND this cause to the trial court for further proceedings. It is ORDERED 

that appellant recover his costs of this appeal from appellee.

SIGNED November 13, 2013.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7609

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT GORDON AMEGASHIE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CR-91-203-A, CA-95-1766-AM)

Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Gordon Amegashie, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Amegashie, Nos. CR-91-203-A; CA95-1766-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 1997). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00524-CR

Angela URRABAZO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR3361

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED, and appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

SIGNED June 3, 2015.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,965
<SECURITIES>                                    34,132
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,171
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,381
<PP&E>                                           5,077
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,937
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,452
<SALES>                                          8,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,803
<CGS>                                            4,015
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    358
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION OF THOMAS J. WEBB
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CMS Energy 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 internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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):
   Dated: February 25, 2009
    
    By
    
    /s/ Thomas J. WebbThomas J. WebbExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer