alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 23
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

§ 23.139 Must notice be given of a change in an adopted Indian child's status? ( a ) If an Indian child has been adopted, the court must notify, by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, the child's biological parent or prior Indian custodian and the Indian child's Tribe whenever: ( 1 ) A final decree of adoption of the Indian child has been vacated or set aside; or
( 2 ) The adoptive parent has voluntarily consented to the termination of his or her parental rights to the child.
( b ) The notice must state the current name, and any former name, of the Indian child, inform the recipient of the right to petition for return of custody of the child, and provide sufficient information to allow the recipient to participate in any scheduled hearings.
( c ) A parent or Indian custodian may waive his or her right to such notice by executing a written waiver of notice and filing the waiver with the court. ( 1 ) Prior to accepting the waiver, the court must explain the consequences of the waiver and explain how the waiver may be revoked.
( 2 ) The court must certify that the terms and consequences of the waiver and how the waiver may be revoked were explained in detail in English (or the language of the parent or Indian custodian, if English is not the primary language), and were fully understood by the parent or Indian custodian.
( 3 ) Where confidentiality is requested or indicated, execution of the waiver need not be made in a session of court open to the public but still must be made before a court of competent jurisdiction in compliance with this section.
( 4 ) The biological parent or Indian custodian may revoke the waiver at any time by filing with the court a written notice of revocation.
( 5 ) A revocation of the right to receive notice does not affect any child-custody proceeding that was completed before the filing of the notice of revocation.
# C_2013083EN.01000601.xml

| 22.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/6

---

Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2013/144/CFSP (1), and in Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Egypt apply

1

2013/C 83/02

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons who appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (2) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (3) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Egypt.

2

3

The Council of the European Union has determined that the persons that appear in the above mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 270/2011.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above mentioned lists should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C — Horizontal Issues Unit |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C — Horizontal Issues Unit

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 82, 22.3.2013, p. 54.

1

(2)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 63.

2

(3)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 4.

3

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 8065** 

ANTHONY JUNIOR BARNHILL , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. ( 5:12

- hc

- 02130

- F )

Submitted : February 21 , 2013 Decided: February 26, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Anthony Junior Barnhill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Junior Barnhill seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely hi s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the con stitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispos itive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnhill has not made the requisite show ing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 126

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 417) to amend the Federal

Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns

for elections for Federal office.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 23, 1999

Mr. CAMPBELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 417) to

amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution,

2 the House immediately shall consider the bill (H.R. 417)

3 to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

4 reform the financing of Federal elections. The first read5 ing of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order

6 against the bill and against its consideration are waived.

7 The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The

8 bill shall be debatable for two hours equally divided and
2

•HRES 126 IH

1 controlled by Mr. Campbell and a member opposed to the

2 bill. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

3 on the bill to final passage without intervening motion ex4 cept one motion to recommit.

5 SEC. 2. It shall not be in order for the House to con6 sider a resolution which waives or supersedes any provi7 sion of this resolution.

Æ
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**Respondent**

**v.**

**BET SHAVEI-TZION A/K/A BET SHAVEI TZION, INTERNATIONAL AND/OR BET**  **SHAVEI-TZIO, LTD., INTERNATIONAL,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 475 MAL 2016** 

**P etition for Allowance of Appeal from**  **the Order of the Superior Court**

ORDER

P ER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 31st day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal**

**is** DENIED

**.**
#### § 2.818 To whom must I submit my Appeal of a Decision on my Objection to the Statement of Performance?

You must submit your Appeal, as provided in § 2.214, to the reviewing official, at: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Trust Funds Administration, Attn: Director, BTFA, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
§ 169.116 Must a right-of-way specify who receives monetary compensation payments? ( a ) A right-of-way grant must specify whether the grantee will make payments directly to the Indian landowners (direct pay) or to us on their behalf.
( b ) The grantee may make payments directly to the tribe if the tribe so chooses. The grantee may make payments directly to the Indian landowners if: ( 1 ) The Indian landowners' trust accounts are unencumbered accounts;
( 2 ) There are 10 or fewer beneficial owners; and
( 3 ) One hundred percent of the beneficial owners (including those on whose behalf we have consented) agree to receive payment directly from the grantee at the start of the right-of-way.
( c ) If the right-of-way document provides that the grantee will directly pay the Indian landowners, then: ( 1 ) The right-of-way document must include provisions for proof of payment upon our request.
( 2 ) When we consent on behalf of an Indian landowner, the grantee must make payment to us on behalf of that landowner.
( 3 ) The grantee must send direct payments to the parties and addresses specified in the right-of-way, unless the grantee receives notice of a change of ownership or address.
( 4 ) Unless the right-of-way document provides otherwise, payments may not be made payable directly to anyone other than the Indian landowners.
( 5 ) Direct payments must continue through the duration of the right-of-way, except that: ( i ) The grantee must make all Indian landowners' payments to us if 100 percent of the Indian landowners agree to suspend direct pay and provide us with documentation of their agreement; and
( ii ) The grantee must make an individual Indian landowner's payment to us if that individual Indian landowner dies, is declared non compos mentis, owes a debt resulting in an encumbered account, or his or her whereabouts become unknown.
### §121. Regulations

The President may prescribe regulations to carry out his functions, powers, and duties under this title.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 6.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 121 | [No source]. | [No source]. |

The revised section is inserted to make express the President's general authority to issue regulations, which has been expressly reflected in many laws and left to inference in the remainder.
EXHIBIT 32.1 – 906 Certification








GENMED HOLDING CORP.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Genmed Holding Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Erwin R. Bouwens, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.








By: /s/ Erwin R. Bouwens


Erwin R. Bouwens


Chief Executive Officer


and Chairman of the Board





May 24, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Genmed Holding Corp., and will be retained by Genmed Holding Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NO. 07-07 -007 0-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A MA Y8, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ FER NA ND O G ON ZAL EZ, IN DI VID UA LLY , AN D D/ B/A GONZALE Z CUSTOM CABINET S, APP ELL ANT V. OR IX F IN AN CI AL SE RV IC ES, IN C. F /K/A OR IX C RE DI T ALLIAN CE , I NC ., APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 20 7 T H DI ST RI CTCOU RTOF CO MA L COU NT Y; NO . C -2 005- 0467- B; H ON ORABLE JAC K R OBIS ON , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Pendi ng before thi s C our t i s a n Am ended Motio n toDismiss fil ed by Appel lan t, Fer nando G onz ale z , i ndi v idu all y , and d/b/a Gon z ale zC ust om C abin e ts . He represent s2

t h a th e a n d A p p e ll e e , O ri x Fi n a n c ia l S e rvi c e s , I n c . f / k/ a O ri x C re d i tA l li a n c e , I n c . , h a ve settl ed al l matters i n c ontrov ersy . W it hout pass ing on t he mer it s o f the c ase, we g ra nt t he moti on a n d dismi ss the appeal . SeeTe x . R. App. P. 42. 1(a)(1). Hav in g d is m issed th e ap pea l at App ellant ’s re q uest , no moti on for re hear ing w il l be enter tai ned and our

mandate w il l is sue forthw it h. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24 - 0116 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JACOB TYLER POWELL ,

Defendant a nd Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 25 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 19 2024

09/19/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0116
# C_2006224EN.01001701.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/17

---

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 June 2006 — Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-324/05 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Application for mixed word and figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Turkish Power’ - Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark POWER - Rejection of the opposition - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

(2006/C 224/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: B. Piepenbrink, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 22 June 2005 in Case T-34/04 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance rejected the application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM rejecting the appeal brought by the appellant, proprietor of the trade mark ‘POWER’, against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition filed against the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘TURKISH POWER’ — Likelihood of confusion between trade marks

Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH

OHIM

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32(b)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Overnite Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick D. Hanley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) 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
Corporation.



|    |  |                                                  
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ PATRICK D. HANLEY                            
|    |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



November 8, 2004
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

HAYWARD HOPKINS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-1560 December 27, 2023 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Deborah A. Goins of Escobar, Michaels & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Burgess, 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 Graham Packaging Holdings Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 7, 2008



|    |  |                                                    
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Mark S. Burgess                                
|    |  | Mark S. Burgess                                    
|    |  | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-11-00585-CR

_________________

CHIDOZIE ROBERT OBIALOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10-09878

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Chidozie Robert Obialor1 pled guilty to 

aggravated assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West 2011). The trial court 

deferred adjudicating Obialor’s guilt, placed Obialor on community supervision for five 

years, and assessed a fine of $500. 

Before Obialor successfully finished serving the term imposed by the community 

supervision order, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to revoke the community 

 

1The record reflects that the defendant is also known as Chidoze Robert Obialor, 

Chidozie Obialor, Chidozie Robert Obialor, Jr., and Chidozies Robert Obialor.
2

supervision order. At the hearing on the motion to revoke, Obialor pled “true” to having 

violated several of the conditions of the community supervision order. At the conclusion 

of the hearing, the trial court found that Obialor violated the community supervision 

order, revoked Obialor’s community supervision, found Obialor guilty of aggravated 

assault, and sentenced Obialor to serve a term of twenty years in prison.

On appeal, Obialor’s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On May 17, 2012, we granted an extension of time for the 

appellant to file a pro se brief. Obialor has not filed a response.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion 

that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 

511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

AFFIRMED.

___________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Submitted on September 4, 2012

Opinion Delivered October 24, 2012

Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

 

2Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.