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 Health and Human Services

###### Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Part J (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (50 FR 25129-25130, dated June 17, 1985, as amended most recently at 80 FR 61424, dated October 13, 2015) is amended to reflect the Order of Succession for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Section J-C, Order of Succession:

Delete in its entirety the Section C-C, Order of Succession, and insert the following:

During the absence or disability of the Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), or in the event of a vacancy in that office, the first official listed below who is available shall act as Administrator, except during a planned period of absence, the Administrator may specify a different order of succession:

1. Principal Deputy Administrator, ATSDR

2. Assistant Administrator, ATSDR

3. Deputy Director for Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health

4. Director, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response

5. Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

 Sherri A. Berger,

Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2017-19024 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4160-18-P
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41947-41948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18722]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2343-000]


Bullock Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Bullock Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 18, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

[[Page 41948]]

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2a4a7b0a1ad8c8e8b8c87b19792928d9096a284879081cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e7a1a2b5a4a8898b8e8982b4929797889593a781829584c9808891">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 29, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18722 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Jay Patrick Mellen vs. George Pergantis.

December 14, 2007.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Superintendence of inferior courts. *Summary Process.*

*Jay Patrick Mellen,*pro se.

Jay Patrick Mellen appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief from an adverse ruling in a summary process action in the District Court Department. The single justice treated the petition as one brought pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, to which Mellen makes no objection. Mellen has filed a brief that contains much information and argument, but he does not appear to challenge the action of the single justice. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). With respect to the underlying judgment in the summary process action, Mellen was entitled to an appeal to the Appellate Division of the District Court. See G. L. c. 231, § 108. Accordingly, relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is not available. See *Driscoll*v. *T.R. White Co.,*441 Mass. 1009, 1010 (2004) (“This court’s extraordinary powers under G. L. c. 211, § 3, are reserved for circumstances where there is no adequate, alternative remedy”).

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 12.01

                                    
              Commercial Credit Company and SUBSIDIARIES
          Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                      ALL COMPANIES CONSOLIDATED
                       (In millions of dollars)

<TABLE><CAPTION>

                                                Year ended December 31,
                                       -----------------------------------------

                                       1995     1994     1993     1992     1991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                  <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>     <C>
Income from continuing operations
  before income taxes and minority
  interests.........................  $334.0   $363.9   $467.9   $428.8  $ 302.9
                                                                               
Elimination of undistributed                                
  equity earnings...................    (1.3)    (1.9)   (26.8)    (3.0)    (4.6)
                                                         
Pre-tax minority interest...........      -     (20.0)   (32.3)      -        -
                                                         
Add:                                                     
  Interest..........................   463.5    402.8    363.7    369.7    434.9
  Interest portion of rentals.......     9.6     10.9     11.2     11.7     11.5
                                      ------   ------   ------   ------   ------
                                                         
Income available for fixed charges..  $805.8   $755.7   $783.7   $807.2   $744.7
                                      ======   ======   ======   ======   ======
                                                         
Fixed charges:                                           
  Interest..........................  $463.5   $402.8   $363.7   $369.7   $434.9
  Interest portion of rentals.......     9.6     10.9     11.2     11.7     11.5
                                      ------   ------   ------   ------   ------
                                                        
Fixed charges.......................  $473.1   $413.7   $374.9   $381.4   $446.4
                                      ======   ======   ======   ======   ======
                                                        
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..   1.70x    1.83x    2.09x    2.12x    1.67x
                                       =====    =====    =====    =====    =====
</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134853 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ROMAN J. BARNWELL (Deceased), and 

MARY JANE BARNWELL (Spouse), 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134853 

 COA: 277195 

WCAC: 05-000325 

CITY OF PETOSKEY, and MICHIGAN

MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS’ 

COMPENSATION FUND, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Richard L. Clair

June 18, 2002

Case No. (Law) L99-2031

By Judge Joseph A. Leafe

The instant matter comes before this Court on Respondent Richard L. Clair’s motion for a determination of the reasonable expenses and costs incurred by him, to be paid by Petitioner, Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority, pursuant to Virginia Code § 25-46.34 (2001).

Respondent argues that his reasonable expenses include an award of attorney’s fees incurred as a result of the condemnation proceeding. This Court disagrees.

Virginia Code § 25-46.34(a) provides that:

> [i]f no hearing has begun... the petitioner may upon motion obtain, as a matter of right, an order dismissing the proceeding as to such property, which order shall also provide .. . that the petitioner shall pay such owner or owners their *reasonable expenses*which have been *actually incurredby*them in preparing for trial on the issue of just compensation, in such amounts as the court deems just and reasonable.

(Emphasis added.)

After a hearing commences, the reasonable expenses payable by the petitioner are specifically enumerated to include incurred attorney’s fees. Va. Code § 25-46.34(b) (2001). This specific mention in subsection (b) plainly *186evidences the General Assembly’s unambiguous intent to make attorney’s fees payable to petitioner only after trial commenced.

Furthermore, even if the General Assembly’s intent was ambiguous, Petitioner’s motion for the inclusion of attorney’s fees in his reimbursement of reasonable expenses would still fail. As of the date of the dismissal of the condemnation proceeding, Petitioner, as evidenced by the contingency fee agreement entered into between him and his counsel, had not incurred any attorney’s fees.

The face of the contract entered into states that counsel was representing Petitioner for “a contingent fee of thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3%) of any recovery above $500,000.00.” Therefore, where there was no recovery above $500,000.00, Petitioner never actually incurred any attorney’s fees and, thus, there are no attorney’s fees to be included in his “reasonable expenses.”

Petitioner’s motion to have attorney’s fees included in his award of reasonable expenses is therefore denied. The Court awards Petitioner $7,434.76 in reasonable expenses incurred in preparation for the condemnation proceeding.
#### Ricky STEPHENS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry LOVETTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-12914

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2008.

Andrew John Rutens, Erin B. Fleming, Galloway, Smith, Wettermark & Everest, LLP, Mobile, AL, Gary L. Willford, Jr., Webb & Eley, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Henry H. Brewster, Jr., Stein & Brewster & Pilcher, LLC, Peter Scott Mackey, Burns, Cunningham, Mackey & Fillingim, P.C., Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Lovette appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment in Ricky Stephens’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force action against him. Lovette asserts the district court erred in concluding he was not entitled to qualified immunity. He specifically asserts the district court erred in concluding that his conduct violated clearly established law under the Fourth Amendment standard governing the treatment of arrestees. He contends the district court should have analyzed his qualified immunity argument under the Fourteenth Amendment, which governs the treatment of pretrial detainees. Alternatively, he argues that even if his case is analyzed under the more stringent Fourth Amendment standard, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

After a thorough analysis, the district court concluded Stephens’ excessive force claim should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, and concluded that Lovette was not entitled to qualified immunity. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and conclude the district court did not err in applying the Fourth Amendment' to Stephens’ excessive force claim and denying qualified immunity to Lovette. Thus, we affirm.1

AFFIRMED.

1

. Lovette summarily argues the district court erred in denying discretionary function im*241munity and peace officer immunity to him. We affirm the district court in the denial of discretionary function immunity and peace officer immunity for the reasons stated in its order of June 23, 2007.
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 34 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on any legisla3 tive day from Wednesday, March 23, 2016, through Fri4 day, April 8, 2016, on a motion offered pursuant to this 

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand adjourned until 3:30 p.m. on Monday, April 

7 11, 2016, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant 

8 to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 

9 first. 

10 SEC. 2. (a) The Speaker or his designee, after con11 sultation with the Minority Leader of the House, shall no12 tify the Members of the House to reassemble at such place 

13 and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public 

14 interest shall warrant it. 

15 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

16 when the House adjourns on a motion offered pursuant 

17 to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, 
2 

†SCON 34 ES 

1 the House shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the 

2 first section of this concurrent resolution. 

Passed the Senate March 17, 2016. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 34 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for an adjournment of the House of 

Representatives.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                            AUG-16-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          3,291 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,609 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                    21,730 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               56,305       
<PP&E>                                         33,551      
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 96,463      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          49,780    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<COMMON>                                            0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                     28,986       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   96,463         
<SALES>                                        33,518          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               33,518          
<CGS>                                          27,418          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,418          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                5,362       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                267       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (986)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                       28      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,014)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,014) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        
                                  


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Oxis International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Anthony J. Cataldo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








Dated:  March 30, 2010
By: /s/ Anthony J. CataldoAnthony J. CataldoChief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 11




                              EQUITRAC CORPORATION

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                   (in thousands, except earnings per share)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                        NOVEMBER 30,          NOVEMBER 30,
                                    --------------------  --------------------
                                     1996       1995       1996       1995
                                     ----       ----       ----       ----
 <S>                                <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
 Weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding               3,413      3,472      3,402      3,552
                                    
 Common share equivalents arising   
    from dilutive options              165         65        139         63
                                    ------     ------     ------     ------
                                                                     
                                     3,578      3,537      3,541      3,615
                                    ======     ======     ======     ======
                                                                     
 Earnings per share                 $ 0.18     $ 0.12     $ 0.53     $ 0.35
                                    ======     ======     ======     ======


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of The New Home Company Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H. Lawrence Webb, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Chairman of the Board, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Date: March 27, 2014/s/ H. Lawrence WebbH. Lawrence WebbChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive Officer)
#### In re Roger William WINCEK, Jr., Debtor. Roger William WINCEK, Jr., Appellant. v. Terry E. SMITH, as Trustee, et al., Appellees.

No. 96-944-Civ-T-23C.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

Oct. 30, 1996.

Roger William Wincek, Jr., Pal Harbor, FL, pro se.

Charles R. Wilson, U.S. Attys. Office, M. Dist. FL, Jacksonville, FL, Janet Reno, Atty. Gen., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for I.R.S.

Eric Barksdale, Law Office of Eric Barks-dale, Bradenton, FL, for Terry E. Smith, Chapter 13 trustee.

*239
      *ORDER*

MERRYDAY, District Judge.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, including Judge Paul M. Glenn’s excellent order of dismissal. Upon consideration, the decision of the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.1 I agree with Judge Glenn that this ease is properly limited to its facts. For example, the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, to the extent it retains vitality, might invite different considerations and even a different result under different circumstances.

. The district court dispensed with oral argument pursuant to section (3) of paragraph two of rule 8012.