alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99-1





Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title 18 of the United States Code





I, James R. Bazet, the chief executive officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on
Form     10-Q of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.





/S/    JAMES R. BAZET





James R. Bazet


November 14, 2002
### §493. Membership

#### (a) Members

The members of the Council shall be the following:

(1) The President.

(2) The Vice President.

(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security.

(4) The Attorney General.

(5) The Secretary of Defense.

(6) Such other individuals as may be designated by the President.

#### (b) Attendance of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff at meetings

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (or, in the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) may, in the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as principal military adviser to the Council and subject to the direction of the President, attend and participate in meetings of the Council.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title IX, §903, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2258; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title IX, §908(b), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3404.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–163 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 98]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29034]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question 
whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the 
BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than 
February 3, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Senior Vice 
President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. Comments 
can also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bc8e4e6e6eee5fff8a5eafbfbe7e2e8eaffe2e4e5f8cbe5f2a5edf9e9a5e4f9ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f0c2022222a213b3c612e3f3f23262c2e3b2620213c0f213661293d2d61203d28">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Caisse F[eacute]d[eacute]rale de Cr[eacute]dit Mutuel, 
Strasbourg, France; and its subsidiaries Cr[eacute]dit Industriel et 
Commercial and Banque Transatlantique, both of Paris, France; to engage 
in financial and investment advisory activities through their indirect 
subsidiary, Transatlantique Private Wealth LLC, New York, New York, 
pursuant to section 225.28(b)(6) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 28, 
2020.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2020-29034 Filed 12-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 939.815 Performance standards—coal exploration.

Part 815 of this chapter, *Permanent Program Performance Standards—Coal Exploration,* shall apply to any person conducting coal exploration operations.
#### STATE v. RUSSELL

No. 520P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 563

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 March 1998.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                     DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                 3,369
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                          9,184
<ALLOWANCES>                           (400)
<INVENTORY>                            6,631
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      20,090
<PP&E>                                 4,024
<DEPRECIATION>                       (2,571)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       110,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 24,499
<BONDS>                               29,319
<COMMON>                               2,362
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                            31,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         110,234
<SALES>                               54,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      54,891
<CGS>                                 39,525
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         39,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      14,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         135
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   (4,120)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (3,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                         (1,200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    3,090
<DISCONTINUED>                       (3,025)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                              65
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .01
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David G. Clark, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 509]—

Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), rendered December 7, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (two counts) and resisting arrest (two counts).

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (two counts) and resisting arrest (two counts). Although the People and defendant agreed to a joint recommendation that defendant be sentenced to eight years in prison, County Court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 12 years. Defendant now appeals, arguing that his sentence was improperly exacerbated based upon a factual misstatement made by County Court during sentencing.

While County Court was under no obligation to accept the prison term jointly recommended by the People and defendant *1092
      *(see People v Mills,*17 AD3d 712, 713 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 766 [2005]; *People v Rawdon,*296 AD2d 599, 599 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 771 [2002]), we must nevertheless vacate defendant’s sentence. During his plea allocution, defendant stated that he pointed his weapon in the air in order to scare away pursuing police officers. County Court, however, in imposing its sentence, indicated that it was taking into account the circumstances in which the offenses occurred, including defendant’s pointing of a loaded weapon *at*a police officer. While a police officer had described such conduct, defendant disavowed it upon his plea. Thus, this matter must be remitted for resentencing.

Mercure, J.E, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; matter remitted to the County Court of Columbia County for resentencing; and, as so modified, affirmed.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Hourly Entrance Rates of Common Laborers in Large Cities, Spring and Summer of 1943

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Division of Wage Statistics. 						*Hourly Entrance Rates of Common Laborers in Large Cities, Spring and Summer of 1943 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 775*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1944,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4255,			accessed on September 24, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
bruary 20, 2015 for TDI SNUR 

Office Phone Email .0 1# .... 6'¥J .... r!5 "I 

...=..-l("'.:::;, 76 )~ {83- ~3 1-1 

Ii1J tJ
#### SPARKS, Respondent, v. FOGARTY, Appellant et al.

(Supreme Court. A-ppellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

Action by Frederick W. Sparks against Thomas Fogarty and another.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

HOOKER, J., not voting.
§ 1662.12 Expedited processing. ( a ) Expedited processing must be requested at the same time as the FOIA request. The Chief FOIA Officer provides expedited processing when the requester can demonstrate a “compelling need” for the requested information, such as: ( 1 ) When there is an imminent threat to the life or safety of a person;
( 2 ) When the request is from the media, or others primarily engaged in disseminating information, and shows an immediate urgency to inform the public about actual or alleged government activities; or
( 3 ) When the requester can show, in detail and to the Chief FOIA Officer's satisfaction, that a prompt response is needed because the requester may be denied a legal right, benefit, or remedy without the requested information, and that it cannot be obtained elsewhere in a reasonable amount of time.
( b ) Only the Chief FOIA Officer may make the decision to grant or deny expedited processing. Requests that do not meet the “compelling need” criteria will be processed normally. If the Chief FOIA Officer does not grant the request for expedited processing, the requester may appeal the denial to the Director of Selective Service. In the appeal letter, the requester should explain why they believe their request demonstrates a “compelling need,” such as describing how the request meets the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. The process described in § 1662.16 will apply to these appeals.
EX-10.4
                              PATENT APPLICATION

(a)  United States Patent Application No. 10/733,806

George S. Avery, December 10, 2003

Abstract

An artificial turf is provided that resists migration of rubber infill
into the space above the turf. Artificial grass is attached to and
extends upward from a backing material, which may be one or more
layers.  The artificial grass includes groups of at least two
different kinds of fiber sewn through a common path in the backing
material.  One of the kinds of fibers is an artificial grass blade
shaped so as to appear like a blade of grass.  The other kind of fiber
in each group is pre-stressed/crimped so that the relaxed shape of the
fiber is non-linear, resembling a curlicued or articulated form having
lateral excursions.  The lateral excursions cause portions of one such
pre-stressed fiber to overlap and interfere with another, forming a
mesh.  The height of the pre-stressed fibers in their relaxed state in
the turf is less than the height of the relatively unstressed
fiber(s).  Resilient granules are embedded in the mesh, and are
captivated by the interfering pre-stressed fibers.  In one embodiment,
the pre-stressed fiber is constructed of nylon material, and the
relatively unstressed artificial grass blade of polyethylene.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00208-CV

Richard PAMPLIN and Networth Cashflow Systems, LLC,

Appellants

v.

Kelly STEPHENSON, Trustee of The Coffee Time, Inc. 401(k) (PSP) and

Craig Noack, Court-Appointed Turnover Receiver,

Appellees

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CI05138

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Costs of court for this appeal are taxed against Richard Pamplin and Networth Cashflow Systems, 

LLC.

SIGNED March 29, 2023.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### § 21.670 Procurement contract.

A legal instrument which, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6303, reflects a relationship between the Federal Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when the principal purpose of the instrument is to acquire property or services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government. See the more detailed definition for contract at 48 CFR 2.101.
### §7113. National consultation rights

(a) If, in connection with any agency, no labor organization has been accorded exclusive recognition on an agency basis, a labor organization which is the exclusive representative of a substantial number of the employees of the agency, as determined in accordance with criteria prescribed by the Authority, shall be granted national consultation rights by the agency. National consultation rights shall terminate when the labor organization no longer meets the criteria prescribed by the Authority. Any issue relating to any labor organization's eligibility for, or continuation of, national consultation rights shall be subject to determination by the Authority.

(b)(1) Any labor organization having national consultation rights in connection with any agency under subsection (a) of this section shall—

(A) be informed of any substantive change in conditions of employment proposed by the agency, and

(B) be permitted reasonable time to present its views and recommendations regarding the changes.

(2) If any views or recommendations are presented under paragraph (1) of this subsection to an agency by any labor organization—

(A) the agency shall consider the views or recommendations before taking final action on any matter with respect to which the views or recommendations are presented; and

(B) the agency shall provide the labor organization a written statement of the reasons for taking the final action.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the right of any agency or exclusive representative to engage in collective bargaining.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title VII, §701, Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1201; amended Pub. L. 102–378, §2(55), Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1354.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–378 struck out "(1)" after subsec. (a) designation.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1101 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Mary M. Dammann, Deceased. John J. Lynch, as Executor of Mary M. Dammann, Deceased, et al., Appellants; Otto P. Burkard, Respondent.

In a proceeding for a judicial settlement of an account of proceedings and for a construction of paragraph *“*Nineteenth ” of testator’s will, the executor and seven surviving residuary legatees appeal from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, dated December 20, 1961, as adjudged said paragraph to mean that the share of the residuary estate left to a deceased residuary legatee, Charles A. K. Ensenbach, “ be distributed as in intestacy to Heinrich Dammann, the distributee entitled to inherit the same”. Decree, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
§ 935.11 Conditions of State regulatory program approval. The approval of the Ohio State program is subject to the State revising its program to correct the deficiencies listed in this section. The program revisions may be made, as appropriate, to the statute, the regulations, the program narrative, or the Attorney General's opinion. This section indicates, for the general guidance of the State, the component of the program to which the Secretary requires the change be made. ( a ) - ( e ) [Reserved]
( f ) Steps will be taken to terminate the approval found in § 935.10.
( g ) [Reserved]
( h ) Steps will be taken to terminate the approval found in § 935.10: ( 1 ) Unless Ohio submits to the Secretary by September 30, 1985, a revised program amendment that demonstrates how the alternative bonding system will assure timely reclamation at the site of all operations for which bond has been forfeited.
( i ) - ( j ) [Reserved]
( k ) Steps will be initiated to terminate the approval found in § 935.10.
( l ) - ( m ) [Reserved]
[47 FR 34717, Aug. 10, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 1958, Jan. 17, 1983; 48 FR 23193, May 24, 1983; 48 FR 46027, Oct. 11, 1983; 48 FR 46531, Oct. 13, 1983; 49 FR 18482, May 1, 1984; 49 FR 37590, Sept. 25, 1984; 49 FR 43953, Nov. 1, 1984; 50 FR 25710, June 21, 1985]
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Genesee Valley Union Trust Company, as Trustee under Trust Executed by Pearletta E. Luscher. Evelyn L. Moore, Appellant; Lucy Roche, Respondent.

Order unanimously modified in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Considering the entire trust agreement we find that it was the intention of the donor at the time of its creation to provide for payment from the interest and principal thereof for her maintenance and well-being during her lifetime, and after death for her funeral and incident burial expense. Any indebtedness remaining unpaid which had been incurred for her proper care and well-being including the balance due in the sum of $6,600 for the reasonable value of the service rendered by the Couny of Monroe should be charged to the principal of the trust. (Appeal by Evelyn L. Moore, as administratrix, from an order of Monroe Special Term judicially settling the account of the Genesee Valley Union Trust Company as trustee, and construction of the trust agreement.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, MeClusky, Henry and Noonan, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7213** 

SAMUEL HAYWOOD MYLES , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. CHAPLAIN WALLACE, In his individual capacity and his official capacity; CHAPLAIN KOWALEZYK, In hi s individual capacity and his official capacity; CHAPLAIN ELLIOTT, In his individual capacity and his official capacity , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virgin ia , at Elkins
. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. ( 2:07

- cv - 00043

- REM

- JES )

Submitted : January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Samuel Haywood M yles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Samuel Haywood Myles seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge . We dismiss the appeal f or lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or

or der, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket

on April 8, 2010 . The notice of appeal was filed on June 1 4 , 2010
. *

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Because Myles failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an ex tension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Myles’ motion for inquiry and classification as moot. We dispense with oral argument because3 the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the co urt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED