alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**SATURNA INVESTMENT TRUST  AMANA MUTUAL FUNDS TRUST**

**Proposed Resolution**

**Resolved**, that the proposed Fidelity Bond coverage under the  Investment Company Blanket Bond of ICI Mutual Insurance Company, to expire on  December 15, 2011, under which the Trust, Saturna Capital Corporation, Saturna  Brokerage Services, Inc. and Amana Mutual Funds Trust are joint insureds, be,  and hereby is, determined to be reasonable in amount in view of all the circumstances  and with consideration including, but not limited to, (i) the number of other  parties named as insureds, (ii) the nature of the business activities of such  other parties, (iii) the amount of the joint insured bond, (iv) the amount of  the premium for such bond, (v) the ratable allocation of the premium among all  parties named as insureds, (vi) the extent to which the share of the premium  allocated to the Trust is less than the premium the Trust would have had to  pay if it had provided and maintained a single insured bond, (vii) the value  of the anticipated aggregate assets of the Trust to which any covered persons  have access; (viii) peer fund coverages; and (ix) the nature of the securities  to be held in the portfolios of the Trust; and be it**Further Resolved**, that the proposed D&O/E&O Insurance  of ICI Mutual Insurance Company, to expire December 15, 2011, under which the  Trust, Saturna Capital Corporation, Saturna Brokerage Services, Inc. and Amana  Mutual Funds Trust are joint insureds, be, and hereby is, determined to be reasonable  and of benefit to the shareowners of the Trust; and be it**Further Resolved**, that pro-rata allocation of the premiums  for the Fidelity Bond and D&O/E&O Insurance provided by ICI Mutual Insurance  Company among each of the portfolios of the Trust is approved; and be it**Further Resolved**, that participation by the Trust in the joint  liability insurance policies is in the best interest of each of the portfolios  of the Trust; and be it**Further Resolved**, that the participation by the Trust in the  joint Fidelity Bond and D&O/E&O Insurance are fair and reasonable pro-rata  to each of the portfolios of the Trust; and be it**Further Resolved**, that the benefits of continuing a joint fidelity  bond from the ICI Mutual Insurance Company, including the opportunity to obtain  stable low-cost insurance coverage from ICI Mutual, justify maintaining reserve  premiums and making commitments for additional payments, including acceptance  of restrictions upon the withdrawal of reserve premiums.**Further Resolved**, that the Secretary of the Trust is appointed  as the officer responsible to file executed fidelity bonds annually as required  by Rule 17g-1(h) of the Investment Company Act, including a copy of the executed  joint insured bond and a resolution by the majority of the disinterested trustees  approving the amount, type, form and coverage of the bond and the portion of  the premium to be paid by each insured company.
#### Josh PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. Th. BROVIG of Farsund, Norway, Defendant.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 14, 1954.

Daniel A. Novok, New York City, for plaintiff.

Pyne, Lynch & Smith, New York City, for defendant.

DAWSON, District Judge.

Defendant moves under the “Rules of Civil Procedure 26 to 37 inclusive”, for an order directing that plaintiff (1) appear before this Court for the taking of his oral deposition, and (2) that plaintiff appear before a physician appointed by the Court for a physical examination, at a time and a place to be set by this Court.

*570Plaintiff, a resident of the State of Georgia, was injured in the State of Georgia, but commenced suit in this District. Defendant seeks to examine plaintiff both on deposition and by a physical examination in this District.

Plaintiff does not oppose the relief sought, but seeks to have the examination take place in the State of Georgia where the plaintiff resides.

Defendant has not noticed the taking of plaintiff’s deposition under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., as it should have, but has moved directly, as it might do under the procedure in the state courts, for an order.* This procedural deviation has produced an anomaly. The party seeking to take the deposition is, in effect, moving in advance for a determination of the place of the taking of the deposition, a curious juxtaposition of the parties.

Rule 30(b) allows the court to entertain an application for the relief requested after the deposition has been noticed. Defendant must first notice the taking of plaintiff’s deposition under Rule 26 before this Court will act. Then, if plaintiff seeks a change in the place of the deposition, he may so move under Rule 30(b). I believe that the Court would direct that the deposition be taken in New York, since plaintiff has chosen this District as his forum.

The second part of defendant’s motion is treated as a motion under Rule 35(a). Defendant may have plaintiff examined by a physician in this District. Plaintiff chose this District as his forum. See Anthony v. RKO Radio Pictures, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1948, 8 F.R.D. 422. Plaintiff offers no reason for his inability to come to New York other than the statement that he is financially and physically unable to do so. A Georgia forum would have offered a more convenient, speedier, and possibly less expensive forum. Plaintiff, however, chose to bring the action in this forum. Plaintiff cannot now complain that he should not be examined in this forum.

In order that the plaintiff may not be required to make an additional journey to New York, the medical examination of the plaintiff shall be held in abeyance until a determination shall have been made as to the time of plaintiff’s oral deposition, and then shall be set for the same, or a consecutive, day.

Settle order on five days’ notice, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 35(a). If the parties cannot agree on the physician to be selected, the Court will designate a physician.

*

 N.Y.C.P.A. § 295.
Exhibit 32.1

    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her
capacity as an officer of e.Digital Corporation (the "Company"), that, to his or
her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Dated: November 15, 2004

         /s/ ATUL ANANDPURA
         ------------------------------------------------------
         Atul Anandpura,
         Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: November 15, 2004

         /s/ RENEE WARDEN
         ------------------------------------------------------
         Renee Warden,
         Chief Accounting Officer,
         Treasurer and Corporate Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7530
EMRICH C. KENNY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PAUL BASS, Acting Warden; A. M. PARKER, Major; CRISSY CREATH, LPN; FELECIA FLEMING, LPN; JOHN DOE HYMAN, LPN, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-30-3) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emrich C. Kenny, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, app eals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Kenny v. Virginia , No. CA-97-30-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 21  NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC.  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

NTS, TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, A CALIFORNIA CORP.
(FORMERLY NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, A CALIFORNIA CORP.)

ACTON
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING CORPORATION, A MASSACHUSETTS CORP.

APPROVED
ENGINEERING TESTING LABORATORIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP.

ETCR INC.,
A CALIFORNIA CORP.

XXCAL, INC.,
A CALIFORNIA CORP.

XXCAL
LIMITED, A UK CORP.

NATIONAL
QUALITY ASSURANCE, INC., A MASSACHUSETTS CORP. (50% OWNED)
(FORMERLY NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURNACEUSA, INC., A MASSACHUSETTS CORP.)

---

QuickLinks
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 823 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

206 West Commercial Street in East Rochester, New York, as the 

‘‘Officer Daryl R. Pierson Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 19, 2015 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 206 West Commercial Street in East Rochester, New York, as the ‘‘Officer Daryl R. Pierson Post 

Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OFFICER DARYL R. PIERSON POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 206 West Commercial Street in 

6 East Rochester, New York, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Officer Daryl R. Pierson Post Office’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 823 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Officer Daryl R. Pier5 son Post Office’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 751 

To improve the establishment of any lower ground-level ozone standards, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2015 

Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mrs. 

CAPITO, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. COATS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. ENZI, 

Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. HATCH, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. 

MCCONNELL, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. SCOTT, 

Mr. VITTER, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To improve the establishment of any lower ground-level ozone 

standards, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Air, Strong 

5 Economies Act’’ or the ‘‘CASE Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GROUND-LEVEL OZONE STANDARDS. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law (includ8 ing regulations), in promulgating a national primary or 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 751 IS

1 secondary ambient air quality standard for ozone, the Ad2 ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency— 

3 (1) shall not make final a national primary or 

4 secondary ambient air quality standard for ozone 

5 that is lower than the standard established under 

6 section 50.15 of title 40, Code of Federal Regula7 tions (as in effect on January 1, 2015), until at 

8 least 85 percent of the counties that were nonattain9 ment areas under that standard as of January 30, 

10 2015, achieve full compliance with that standard; 

11 (2) shall only consider all or part of a county 

12 to be a nonattainment area under the standard on 

13 the basis of direct air quality monitoring; 

14 (3) shall take into consideration feasibility and 

15 cost; and 

16 (4) shall include in the regulatory impact anal17 ysis for the proposed and final rule at least 1 anal18 ysis that does not include any calculation of benefits 

19 resulting from reducing emissions of any pollutant 

20 other than ozone. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00198-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 48th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 048-318629-20

Before Walker, J.; Sudderth, CJ.; and Kerr, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

OLU ASEKUN AND THE LAW OFFICE OF OLU ASEKUN, P.C., Appellants

V.

OLUREMI OYEKOLA, AND ADEMOLE AKANDE, Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered appellants’ “Motion to Withdraw Appeal Filed on 

5/26/22 Without Prejudice.” We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellants must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: July 21, 2022
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

*Notice is hereby given*                     that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Peoples State Bank, Hamtramck, Michigan (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Peoples State Bank on February 11, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.                

Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,  Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

Dated: August 23, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-18155 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE U.S. CODE
  1.
    
    the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2009 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ Robert S. TaylorRobert S. TaylorExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and ChiefFinancial OfficerSuperior Energy Services, Inc.
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-30677

Summary Calendar

_____________________

THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

versus

LANECO CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM INCORPORATED,

Defendants,

LANECO CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee,

versus

CARL E. WOODWARD, Incorporated,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-3338)

_________________________________________________________________

February 19, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carl E. Woodward, Incorporated, appeals the judgment

dismissing its cross-claim seeking indemnity and defense costs from
Laneco Construction Systems, Inc. Woodward contends that the

district court erred by concluding that the defense and immunity

provision of the Subcontract Agreement between Woodward and Laneco

is ambiguous. 

Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, The

Continental Ins. Co. v. Laneco Construction Systems, Inc., No. 94-

3338 (E.D. La. Apr. 24, 1997), the judgment is

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

S & H TRANSPORT, INC.,

 Petitioner

 v.

CITY OF YORK,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 832 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Whether the City [of York] may include, in its tax assessment on

[Petitioner], gross receipts from freight-brokerage services provided to

entities engaged in public utility services that are exempt from the City’s

Business Privilege Tax because those entities are regulated by the

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission?

(2) Whether entities whose rates were once, but are no longer, regulated by

the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission still enjoy the exemption from

Municipal taxation articulated in 53 P.S. § 6924.301.1(f)(2)?

M.D. Appeal Dkt.

 17 MAP 2015
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-102-2017]

On June 29, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port of Stockton, grantee of FTZ 231, requesting expanded subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 231, on behalf of 5.11, Inc., in Manteca, California.

                    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (82 FR 31291, July 6, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to expand Subzone 231B was approved on August 17, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 231's 2,000-acre activation limit.                

Dated: August 24, 2017.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-18435 Filed 8-29-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the filing of Zunicom,Inc. and Subsidiary (the

"Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the periodend March 31, 2011

as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the

"Report"),I, William Tan, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company,

certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 18U.S.C. (SS) 1350,

as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof

section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesAct of 1934;

and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in

all material respects, the financial conditionand results

of operations of the Company,

 

 

 

 

 

 
     /s/ William Tan  -------------------------------------  William Tan  President and Chief Executive Officer  (principal executive officer)    Date: May 16, 2011
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Exhibit 32.1 - 1
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00009

- CV

IN RE AMORY YOUNG RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, DAUPHINOT, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 10 , 2011

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).