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 Defense

###### Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The notice of an open meeting scheduled for November 3, 2017 published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45583) has a new meeting location. It will now be held at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Vicksburg District Office Building, main Multi-purpose Conference Room, 4155 East Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39183.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at                         *Mark.Pointon@usace.army.mil.*                         Alternatively, contact Mr. Kenneth E. Lichtman, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GW, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-8083; and by email at                         *Kenneth.E.Lichtman@usace.army.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

None.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-23153 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
#### Gerald MEYER and Phyllis Meyer, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Joe Madden Ford, Inc. and Firststar Naper Bank, Defendants.

No. 90 C 2442.

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

April 30, 1990.

Norman Lehrer, Lehrer, Flaherty & Canavan, Wheaton, Ill., for Gerald Meyer.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LINDBERG, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, Gerald and Phyllis Meyer, filed this action in the Illinois Circuit Court for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, on March 21, 1990. On April 26, 1990, defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford), with the consent of defendants Joe Madden Ford, Inc. and Firststar Naper Bank, filed a Notice for Removal of the action to this court. In its Notice for Removal, Ford alleges:

> 6. This action is removable from State Court to the District Court of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(b), because the plaintiffs’ action is founded on one or more claims of right arising under the laws of the United States, specifically the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

This court notes *sua sponte*that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and remands *888this action to the Circuit Court for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, DuPage County-

An action brought in a State court may be removed to the appropriate United States District Court only if it is an action “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under the MagnusonMoss Warranty Act, a consumer may bring a suit:

> (A) in any court of competent jurisdiction in any State or the District of Columbia; or

> (B) in an appropriate district court of the United States, subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection.

15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1). Paragraph (3) of subsection (d) provides in part:

> (3) No claim shall be cognizable in a' suit brought under paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection—

> (B) if the amount in controversy is less than the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit____

15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3). In the case at bar, exclusive of interest and costs, the most realistic view is that the amount in controversy is $19,561.05. Even if the resulting duplication of damages were ignored and the amounts prayed for in the complaint’s four counts were simply added together, the total exclusive of interest and costs would only amount to $49,561.05. Plaintiffs’ claims are accordingly not cognizable in a suit brought in this court, and so the action is not removable.

Therefore, because it appears that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, this case will be remanded to the state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

ORDERED: The case is remanded to the Illinois Circuit Court for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, DuPage County.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A1 36 5 . BRENTREZ MCPHERSON v . TAMMY HOW ARD.

Pri s o n er Bren trez M cPh ers o n fi l ed a p et it i on fo r w r i t of m an d am u s ag ai n s t Tam m y Ho ward , t he Do u g l as Co u nt y Su p eri o r Co u rt Cl erk , as s ert i n g t h at th e warran t

u p o n wh i ch h e was a r r e s ted i n 2 0 1 2 was i l l eg al

. On Decem b er 1 0, 2 01 9 , t h e t ri al

co u rt d i s m i s sed McPh ers o n ’ s p et i t i o n fo r wri t o f m an d am u s

. He fi l ed a di rect ap p eal

o n J an uary 1 0 , 2 0 2 0

. W e l ack ju ri s d ict i o n

.

Fi rs t , w h i l e ju d g m en t s an d ord ers g ran t in g o r refu s i n g t o g ran t m an d am u s are g en eral l y d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e, s ee OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a) (7 ), u n d er t h e Pri s o n Li t i g at i o n Refo rm Act , an y ap p eal i n a ci v i l cas e i n i t i at e d b y a p ri s on er m u st co m e by d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n

. See OCGA § 4 2 -1 2-8 ; Jo nes v. T o w n s en d , 2 6 7 Ga. 4 8 9, 4 9 0 (4 8 0 SE2 d 2 4 ) (1 9 9 7 )

. B ecau s e M cPh ers on i s i n carcerat ed , h e was req u i red to f i le an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d is cret i o n ary ap p eal to s eek rev i ew o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o r d e r

.

“ Co m p l i an ce wi t h t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal s p ro ced u re i s ju ri s d i ct i on al .” S mo a k v. D e p t

. o f H u ma n Res

. , 2 21 G a. Ap p

. 2 5 7 , 2 5 7 (4 7 1 SE2 d 6 0 ) (1 9 9 6 ). Hi s fai l u re to fo l l o w t h e p ro p er ap p el l at e p ro ced u re d ep ri v es u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h i s ap p eal

.

Ad d it i on al l y , ev en i f M cPh ers o n h ad a ri g ht o f d i rect ap p eal , t hi s ap p eal i s

u n t i m el y . A n o t i ce o f ap p eal m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 day s aft er t h e en t ry o f t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s o rd er. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e pro p er an d t i m el y fi l i n g o f a n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s an ab s o l u t e req u irem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d ict i o n u p o n t h i s Co urt

. Co u ch v. Un i t ed March 06, 2020Pa

p er wo r ker s In t l. Un i o n , 2 2 4 G a

. A

pp. 7 2 1 , 7 2 1 (4 8 2 SE2 d 7 0 4 ) (1 9 9 7 ). M cPh ers o n

u n t i m el y fi l ed h i s n ot i ce o f ap p eal 3 1 d ay s aft er t he t ri al co u rt en t ered i t s o rd er.

Fo r t h es e reas on s , t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/06/2020
---

Exhibit 8

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 annual report of Augusta Resource
Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Gil Clausen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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
this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|March 25, 2010 | */s/ Gil Clausen*      
|-------------- | -----------------------
|               |                        
|               | Gil Clausen            
|               | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Augusta Resource Corporation and will be retained by
Augusta Resource Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JUAN M. VILLANUEVA,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 353 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 17th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
**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 Quarterly Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Alan J. Gotcher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that to the best of 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/  Alan
                J. GotcherAlan
                J. Gotcher, Chief Executive Officer
              August
                9, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3466 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3466

     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                            Assistance Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2009

   Mr. Cao introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                            Assistance Act.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN MAJOR DISASTERS.

    Section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Special Rule for Certain Major Disasters.--
            ``(1) Consolidation of funds.--Notwithstanding subsection 
        (a)(1), if the President determines that there is extensive and 
        widespread damage and destruction resulting from a major 
        disaster, the President may allow a State or local government 
        or a private nonprofit facility, as the case may be, to 
        consolidate contributions received as a lump sum payment to 
        repair, restore, reconstruct, or replace more than one public 
        facility. A State or local government and a private nonprofit 
        facility may choose whether or not to repair, restore, 
        reconstruct, or replace one or more of such facilities after 
        assessing the need for such facilities after such major 
        disaster.
            ``(2) Federal share.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1)(A), 
        the Federal share for a public facility shall be an amount 
        equal to 100 percent of the Federal estimate of the cost of 
        repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing the 
        facilities and of management expenses.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49219-49220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23066]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4342-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Idaho; 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 the State of Idaho (FEMA-4342-DR), dated October 7, 2017, and 
related determinations.

DATES: The change occurred on October 10, 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, Sharon Loper, 
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for 
this emergency.
    This action terminates the appointment of Timothy B. Manner as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used

[[Page 49220]]

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. 2017-23066 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Vanguard Insurance Company, Respondent, v Edward J. Leary et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[666 NYS2d 514]

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff Vanguard Insurance Company has no duty to defend and indemnify Edward J. Leary in various underlying personal injury actions, the appeals are from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated December 2, 1996, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant Edward J. Leary’s cross motion for the same relief, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated January 28, 1997, which declared that the plaintiff had no *558duty to defend or indemnify the defendant Edward J. Leary in the underlying actions.

Ordered that the appeals by Edward J. Leary and Brenda Dowdell are dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.8); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeals by Charlene Wiggins, Monica Wiggins, and Laurie Moon from the order are dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeals of Charlene Wiggins, Monica Wiggins, and Laurie Moon from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with entry of a judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241). The issues raised on the appeals from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeals from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a]).

The Supreme Court properly granted judgment to the plaintiff and declared that the plaintiff was not required to defend or indemnify its insured, the defendant Edward J. Leary *(see, Allstate Ins. Co. v Mugavero,*79 NY2d 153; *D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*76 NY2d 65; *New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Kilmurray,*181 AD2d 40, 41-42; *see also, Tartaglia v Home Ins. Co.,*240 AD2d 396; *Tranchina v Government Empls. Ins. Co.,*235 AD2d 471). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.
Order entered June 16 , 2022

In The



### Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00542

- CV

IN RE CHRISTOPHER PITTS AND CHRISTINA PITTS

, Relators

O riginal Proceeding from the County C ourt at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 20

- 02155

- A

O RDER

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator s ’ petition for

writ of mandamus. We also DENY relator s ’ motio n to expedite as moot.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
#### Jose Alfredo ALVAREZ, et ux., petitioners, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A.

No. 13-9321.

May 19, 2014.

Case below, 733 F.3d 136.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
#### In the Matter of Lourdes O. and Another, Infants. William O., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.

[859 NYS2d 78]

Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject children upon a finding that he violated the terms of a suspended judgment, and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that respondent violated the conditions of the suspended judgment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see Matter of Shawna DD.,*289 AD2d 892, 894 [2001]), including his failure to work diligently to obtain suitable housing for himself and his children, and to attend individual therapy and his children’s mental health appointments *(see Matter of Aparicio Rodrigo B.,*29 AD3d 351 [2006]). Lapses by the agency due to a transfer of the case from one agency to another did not relieve respondent of his responsibility to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment *(see Matter of Jessica J.,*44 AD3d 1132, 1133-1134 [2007]).

*204The circumstances presented do not warrant an extension of the suspended judgment for an additional year where respondent failed to demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” required to extend a suspended judgment (Family Ct Act § 633 [b]), and where the record establishes that further efforts to reunite the family would not be in the best interests of the children *(see Matter of Rigoberto M.,*18 AD3d 405 [2005]). Concur— Lippman, PJ., Mazzarelli, Williams, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ.
H. R. 3357 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

An Act 

To restore sums to the Highway Trust Fund and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FUNDING OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND. 

Subsection (f) of section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 (relating to determination of trust fund balances after 

September 30, 1998) is amended— 

(1) by striking paragraph (2); and 

(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(2) INCREASE IN FUND BALANCE.—Out of money in the 

Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there is hereby appropriated (without fiscal year limitation) to the Highway Trust 

Fund $7,000,000,000.’’. 

SEC. 2. ADVANCES TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND AND OTHER 

FUNDS. 

The item relating to ‘‘Department of Labor—Employment and 

Training Administration—Advances to the Unemployment Trust 

Fund and Other Funds’’ in title I of division F of the Omnibus 

Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–8; 123 Stat. 754) is 

amended by striking ‘‘to remain available through September 30, 

2010’’ and all that follows (before the heading for the following 

item) and inserting ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’. 

SEC. 3. FHA MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMMITMENT AUTHORITY. 

The item relating to ‘‘Federal Housing Administration—Mutual 

Mortgage Insurance Program Account’’ in title II of division I of 

the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–8; 123 

Stat. 966) is amended by striking ‘‘$315,000,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$400,000,000,000’’. 

SEC. 4. GNMA MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES GUARANTEE COMMITMENT AUTHORITY. 

The item relating to ‘‘Government National Mortgage Association—Guarantees of Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan Guarantee 
H. R. 3357—2 

Program Account’’ in title II of division I of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–8; 123 Stat. 967) is amended 

by striking ‘‘$300,000,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$400,000,000,000’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 13, 2019

p1210

Order 

Clerk

December 13, 2019

160467-8 & (137)(138)

In re RC, Minor. SC: 160467-8

COA: 345959; 346102

Wayne CC Family Division:

17-000465-AM

17-000510-AO

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration of the motion for 

peremptory reversal is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the October 17, 

2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are 

not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion 

for peremptory reversal is DENIED.