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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [NAFTA-2669-2669A]

                    In accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), on March 9, 1999, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration, applicable to all workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Company, located in Clare, Michigan. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15172).                

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. Information provided by the State shows that worker separations occurred at the Lamont Group's sister plant, the Owosso Division, Owosso, Michigan. The workers provided support services to the Clare, Michigan plant, and were engaged in employment related to the production of automotive soft trim.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, adversely affected by increased imports from Mexico. Therefore, the Department is amending the certification to cover workers at the subject firm in Owosso, Michigan, engaged in employment related to the production of automotive trim.

The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-2669 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, Clare, Michigan, and workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, Owosso Division, Owosso, Michigan, engaged in employment related to the production of automotive trim, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 2, 1997 through March 9, 2001, are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of January 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-3295  Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,625
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,858
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     17,382
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,967
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,967
<LOANS>                                        120,357
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,204
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,908
<DEPOSITS>                                     135,360
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,186
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           304
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 150,908
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,319
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,410
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,729
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,162
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,162
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,567
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      129
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (9)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,510
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,446
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,446
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.58
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,145
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,342
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  7,241
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,037
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      218
<RECOVERIES>                                        89
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,204
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,204
        

</TABLE>
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

May 8, 2012

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, May 17, 2012

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

 CONSIDERED:

The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. The American Coal Co., Docket 

Nos. LAKE 2007-139, et al. (Issues include whether certain 

safeguard notices are defective because they fail to identify specific 

hazards and specify what the operator must do to comply with 

them.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          211,288
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (212,288)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               211,288
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (211,288)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (211,288)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (211,288)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.001)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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 Lithium Technology Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, John J. McGovern, Chief Financial 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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

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

 

Dated: May 11, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

DIVALL INSURED INCOME PROPERTIES 2

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DiVall Insured Income Properties 2 Limited Partnership (the Company) certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2007
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                                        |  |                    |  |                                                               
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  | THE PROVO GROUP, INC., General Partner
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: August 8, 2007 |  |  |  | By                                     |  | /s/ Bruce A. Provo
|                      |  |  |  |                                        |  |                    |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the
knowledge

standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
#### Drendolyn SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike STANTON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-55401.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 9, 2014.

L. Marcel Stewart, Law Office of L. Marcel Stewart, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Timothy T, Coates, Lillie Hsu, Greines Martin Stein *&*Richland, LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, Peter James Ferguson, Ferguson, Praet & Sherman, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, and KIM McLANE WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

In accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion of November 4, 2013, as well as the resulting judgment, the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.02

CERTIFICATIONS

I, John F. ONeill, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Environmental Power 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: April 30, 2007   
|                       
|/S/    JOHN F. ONEILL 
|John F. ONeill        
|Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.2**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

Shareholders and Board ofDirectors 

Sizeler Property Investors, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-107043 and No. 333-103380) on Form S-3, and (No. 333-85212, No. 333-99541, and No. 333-16073) on Form S-8 of SizelerProperty Investors, Inc. of our report dated February 24, 2005, except for the matters discussed in Note B related to the sale of Bryn Mawr Apartments, which is as of March 13, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet ofSizeler Property Investors, Inc. as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2004, which reportappears in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Sizeler Property Investors, Inc. 

KPMG LLP 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

March 16, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5


<LEGEND>
This  schedule contains  summary financial  information extracted  from the
Consolidated  Balance  Sheets for POWERCOLD CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES at
September 30, 2000  and  the  Consolidated  Statements  of  Operations  for
POWERCOLD CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES for the period ended September 30, 2000
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         279,875
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  150,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     58,756
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               551,570
<PP&E>                                          23,558
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,756,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          832,444
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,730
<OTHER-SE>                                     914,625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,745,678
<SALES>                                        200,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               200,591
<CGS>                                          477,133
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (308,604)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (308,604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (308,604)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)








</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1777 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1777

           To suspend until January 1, 1995, the duty on 1,8-
                         Dichloroanthraquinone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 1993

Mr. Coble (for himself and Mr. Taylor of North Carolina) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend until January 1, 1995, the duty on 1,8-
                         Dichloroanthraquinone.

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

SECTION 1. 1,8-DICHLOROANTHRAQUINONE.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new subheading:

  

             ``           9902.31.12   1,8-Dichloroanthra-quinone                         No change        No change        On or before 12/            
                                        (provided for in subheading                                                          31/94              ''.     
                                        2914.70.20)....................  Free                                                                           

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to articles 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### LOWDEN et al. v. EXCISE BOARD OF PITTSBURG COUNTY.

No. 25479.

Jan. 8, 1935.

W. R. Bleakmore, W. L. Farmer, John Barry, and Robert E. Lee, for plaintiffs in error.

Frank Watson, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This petition in error with transcript attached was filed April 12, 1934, to review a decision of the Court of Tax Review.

On the 2nd day of October, 1934, there was filed on behalf of all of the parties to the proceedings a stipulation in which it is agreed that pending this action an opinion of this court in the case of Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Excise Board of Washington County, 168 Okla. 619, 35 P. (2d) 274, determined all of the issues involved in this proceeding.

The stipulation sets out in what respects it is agreed that the judgment be reversed and in what respects affirmed as follows:

> “As to assignment of error No. 2, involving item 3 of the protest, involving the crippled children fund of Pittsburg county, the judgment of the trial court Should be affirmed following- the decision of said court in the case of Chicago, Rock Island *&*Pacific Railway Co. v. Excise Board of Stephens County (168 Okla. 519, 34 P. (2d) 274).

> “As to assignment of error No. 3, involving item 5 of the protest, involving the farm and home demonstrator fund of Pitts-burg county, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Excise Board of Stephens County (168 Okla. 519, 34 P. (2d) 274.

> “As to assignments of error numbered 4 to 20, inclusive, involving the general fund of the respective school districts mentioned in said assignment of error, it is stipulated and agreed that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the trial court *182directed to render judgment sustaining said items of protest, and each of them, the questions of law involved in these assignments of error having been fully settled and determined by this court in cause No. 25208, entitled School District No. 33, Choctaw County, Oklahoma, v. A. W. Trice et al., opinion filed February 16, 1934, and petition for rehearing having been later denied and said opinion having become final.” (168 Okla. 344, 32 P. (2d) 906).

The proceedings are therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to the Court of Tax Review to enter judgment in accordance with said stipulation.
#### Sheila DENNIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, FL, John Doe, Police Supervisor, Mizjiah, badge # 369, Walden, badge # 345, Tenent Healthcare Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Dr. Rodriquez Pedro, et al., Defendants.

No. 09-13843

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2010.

Sheila Dennis, Hialeah, FL, pro se.

Vennie Lynn Whitfield, North Miami, FL, Shelley H. Leinicke, Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O’Hara, McCoy, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Craig Edward Leen, Miami-Dade County Attorneys Office, Anne R. Schultz, Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sheila Dennis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment. Dennis filed the Rule 60(b)(6) motion to challenge the district court’s earlier order dismissing her § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim.

I.

Dennis contends that the district court erred in denying her Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment. “We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion.” *Crapp v. City of Miami Beach,*242 F.3d 1017, 1019 (11th Cir.2001). “Rule 60(b)(6), the catchall provision of the Rule, authorizes relief for ‘any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.’ ” *Cano v. Baker,*435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir.2006) (quoting Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6)). “[Rjelief under this clause is an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” *Crapp,*242 F.3d at 1020 (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted); *see also Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp.,*722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir.1984) (“The party seeking relief has the burden of showing that absent such relief, an ‘extreme’ and ‘unexpected’ hardship will result.” (quoting *United States v. Swift & Co.,*286 U.S. 106, 119, 52 S.Ct. 460, 464, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932))).

No “exceptional circumstances” are present in this case that lead us to conclude that the district court abused its discretion under Rule 60(b)(6). Dennis argues that the district court erred in denying her Rule 60(b)(6) motion because her complaint had merit. That argument falls outside the scope of our review. *See Cavaliere v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*996 F.2d 1111, 1115 (11th Cir.1993) (explaining that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used as a substitute for a proper and timely appeal of the district court’s judgment); *Glass v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.,*714 F.2d 1107, 1109 (11th Cir.1983) (stating that an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion “does not bring up the underlying judgment for review”). Because Dennis has failed to show exceptional circumstances, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.