alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 2 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
GEROME LEON DEBROW,

Petitioner-Appellant,
v. EDWARD L. EVANS, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 98-6175 (D.C. No. CIV-97-536-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , BALDOCK , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining petitioner’s brief and the appellat e record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument.-2-

Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, seeks review of the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief und er 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before petitioner can proceed on appeal, he must secure a certificate of appealability from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Raising the same issues h e raised in the district court, petitioner argues that this court should grant a certificate of appealability on the following grounds: (1) the ma gistrate judge failed to address whether he was denied a direct appeal through no fault of his own; (2) he was denied his right to counsel during the ten days fol lowing his guilty plea; (3) he did not receive a competency hearing before he pled guilty; and (4) his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily. Upon consideration of the record and petitioner’s b rief, we conclude petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. See id. § 2253(c)(2). We DENY petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion and order filed March 31, 1998, and by the magistrate-3-

judge in his findings and recommendations filed Nov ember 26, 1997, adopted by the district court on March 31. The appeal is DISM ISSED.

Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
#### 228.370 Ground and flight risk.
NO. 07-05-0404-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JANUARY 17, 2006

______________________________ BRETT THOMAS BAIRD, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT #3 OF D ENTON COUNTY; NO. 2004- 09096-C; HONORAB LE DAVID D. GARCI A, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and H ANCOCK, JJ. ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND Appellant

Brett Thomas Baird has given notice of appe al from a Judgment of Community

Supervision for the offense of Duty on Striking Fi xture or Highway Landscaping
. The appella te court c lerk rece ived and filed th e trial court clerk’s record on September 23, 2005. Th e trial court repo rter’s record was f iled on November

15, 2005
. By letter da ted Dece mber 28, 2 005, t h e appellate clerk reminded counsel for appellant

that appellant’s brief was due on December 15, 2005, and that neither the brief2

nor a motion for a further extension of time had been received. Counsel for appellant was further advised by such letter that if no response to the letter was received by January 6, 2006, the appeal would be abated to the trial co urt for he aring pu rsuant to Rule of A ppellate Procedur

e 38.8(b) . No resp onse has been rec eived. Accordingly, this appeal is abated and the cause is reman ded to th e trial court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(b)(2 ). Upon r emand, th e judge o f the tria l court is directed to immediately cause no tice to b e given of and toconduct a hearin g to dete rmine: (1) whether a ppellan t desires to prosec ute this appeal; (2) if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, then whet her appellant is indigent, and if not indigent, whether counsel for appellant has abandon ed the ap peal; (3) if appellant desires to pr osecute this appeal, whether appellant’s present counsel should be replaced; and (4) what orders, i f any, sho uld be e ntered toassure th e fi lin g of appropri ate notices and documentation to dismiss appellant’s appeal if ap pellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, or, if appe llan t desires to prosecute this appeal, to assure that the appeal w ill be diligently pursued. If the trial court determines that the present attorney for appellant should be replaced, the court should cause the clerk of this court to be furnished the name, address, and State Bar of Texas identifi cation n umber of t he newly-appoint ed or new ly-retain ed attorn ey. In support of its determination, the trial court shall prepare and file written findings of fact and conclusions of law and cause them to be included in a supplemental cl erk’s record. The hearing proceedings shall be transcribed and included in a supplemental3

reporter’s record. Those supplemental records shall be submitted to the clerk of this cour t no later than February 17, 2006.

Per Curiam
Do not pu blish.
Case: 1:12-cv-03724 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:70
Case: 1:12-cv-05704 Document #: 98 Filed: 01/28/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901
Case: 1:12-cv-05704 Document #: 98 Filed: 01/28/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:902
Case: 1:12-cv-05704 Document #: 98 Filed: 01/28/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:903
Case: 1:12-cv-05704 Document #: 98 Filed: 01/28/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:904
Case: 1:12-cv-05704 Document #: 98 Filed: 01/28/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:905
Case: 1:12-cv-05704 Document #: 98 Filed: 01/28/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:906
Case: 1:12-cv-05704 Document #: 98 Filed: 01/28/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:907
Case: 1:12-cv-05704 Document #: 98 Filed: 01/28/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:908
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

# REcEIvED OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON D.C. 

## OCT 1 62016 

## ARING DOCKET IN THE MATTER OF 

### JETTECH,LLC FAA DOCKET NO. FAA 2013-1079(Civil Penalty Action)



### STIPULATED MOTION TO WITHDRAW REQUEST FORHEARING AND DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
RespondentJettech, LLC, pursuant to a settlement agreement reached betweenthe parties, hereby withdraws its appeal and request for hearing inthis matter, and, along with the Respondent FAA, stipulates thatthe Complaint and all charges therein be dismissed with prejudice andthatthe hearing and 

### all otherproceedings currently set be vacated, eachparty to bear its own costs and attorney fees. Respectfully submittedthis 11th day ofOctober, 2016.

s/Michael L. Poindexter Attorney for Respondent s/K.yle Lomazow (with permission) Attorney for Complainant 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing was served onthis 13th day ofOctober, 2016, by sending copies via facsimile and/or electronically via e-mail to the following: Federal Aviation Administration Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building 800 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20591 Fax: 202 493-5142

### Kyle E. Lomazow FAA Attorney Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, Washington 98057 Fax 425 227-1007

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. (Ell-310) Washington. DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 John R. "Rob" Irwin JETTECH, LLC

S/Michael 

### L. Poindexter
**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 filing of the Annual Report onForm 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) by Aspyra, Inc.(“Registrant”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to theirknowledge:

1.           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and

2.           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Registrant as of and for the periods presented in theReport.

 

Date:August 31, 2006
| /S/ Steven M. Besbeck                                     |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Steven M. Besbeck, President and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Aspyra, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Rose L. Steinberg et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard W. Altschuler et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Order entered August 31, 1960 denying plaintiffs’ motion for examination before trial of certain individual defendants, reversed on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion granted to the extent of directing that the defendant Herbert J. Yates appear and be examined before trial at Special Term, Part II, at a time to be agreed upon by the parties or to be fixed by Special Term, with $10 costs. The examination shall be limited to Items 1, 2, 7, 8, 11A-11D, 13A, 13C, 14A, 14C, 15A, 15C, 17, 18 and 19, with limitation however of Item 7 to cover only period from January 1, 1950 to date and with limitation of Item 17 to cover only such sales as were not made in the regular course of business of the corporation. Such examination as is here granted is without prejudice to the application for a further examination before trial of the defendants upon a showing that such further examination is justified. In order for plaintiffs to obtain an examination before trial in a stockholders’ derivative action, they must establish special circumstance (New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, rule XI, subd. 7; Bronx County Supreme Court Rules, rule XX, subd. 7) and such examination will be denied or limited *“*unless supported by factual allegations of evidentiary value to establish the charges of improper conduct”. *(Van Aalten v. Mack,*7 A D 2d 289.) Here, in the case at bar, it does appear by way of special circumstances that, during the period said Herbert J. Yates was president of the defendant corporation and active in the conduct of the business thereof, his wife, his two sons, a brother-in-law and a son-in-law were employed by the corporation with payment to them of substantial compensation from the funds of the corporation. In fact, it appears that the woman who became his wife, prior to and during her marriage to him, was promoted and used for many years as a principal actress in feature pictures produced by the corporation; that such pictures were ventures which were costly and that the financial success of the same is questioned. These matters are the subject of specific allegations in the complaint tending to charge individual defendants, including said Yates, with wrongdoing in connection therewith. Consequently, we believe that a pretrial examination, with the scope thereof clearly delineated, is justified (see *Manacher*v. *Central Coal Co.,*7 A D 2d 208) but there being no proper showing of factual support for the broad general allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint, the examination should be limited as hereinbefore provided. Settle order on notice. Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7300-7301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections

[[Page 7301]]

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant 
applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Pilot Projects Increasing 
the Impact of the NIH Centers for Advancing Research on Botanicals 
and Other Natural Products.
    Date: February 19th, 2021.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIH/NCCIH, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, 
MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Patrick Colby Still, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NCCIH/NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-5475, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d3a3b2a7a1bab0b8fda0a7babfbf93bdbabbfdb4bca5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8efeeffafce7ede5a0fdfae7e2e2cee0e7e6a0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 21, 2021.
Ronald J. Livingston, Jr.,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-01708 Filed 1-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

\2tff) ll-E-170 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:10 AM Sheet 210 of 264 
P.2 

EMSIG 

Vf'iZ'V9 i«:w » 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Fax=5188280026 

rtBt»»<»iu*«*« raa Mr «v 

Jul 23 '98 11=36 P. 02 

A 94 52 

Contact Report 

Melanie Proctor, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

July 20,1998 

Mr. Timothy Haskins, Director of Regulatory A£fai 

Emsig Manufacturing Corporation 

Telephone Number: (518) 828-7301 

Fax Number: (518) 828-0026 

Contact Summary: 

Mr. Haskins was concerned about the placement of Emsig's processes in the EPA's 

plastic composites maximum achievable control technology database. Based on Mr. Haskins 

request, Ms. Proctor sent him a copy ofthe EPA's plastic composites process descriptions. 

After reviewing and discussing the plastic composites process descriptions with Ms. 

Proctor, Mr. Haskins determined that Emsig's sheet casting process was best grouped with 

centrifugal casting operations, rod casting was best grouped with polymer casting, and their 

molding operation was best grouped with compression molding. 

Mr. Haskins explained that their average weighted hazardous air pollutant (HAP) content 

of their neat resin used for sheet casting is 36.4 pereent (including any HAP added to the neat 

resin). According to Mr. Haskins, Emsig used SSS tons ofresin for sheet casting, 680 tons of 

resin for rod casting, and 145 tons of resin for molding in 1997. 

INFORMATION, IS ACCURATE 
EMSIG 

P.3 

Fax:5188280025 Jul 25 *y8 11:5b KU1 

518/828-7301 

EMSIG MANUFACTURING CORP. 

Second Street Extension 

Hudson, New York 12534 

Fax 518/828-^iW 

FAX MESSACE SHEET 

TO: 

FROM: 

/VsAci<*<£-

*** flm*xj(U^#i 

NO. OF SHEETS 

(inc. this page) A. 

COMMENTS: 

IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE. 

2~
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of Flow International Corporation, a
Washington corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ending April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Douglas P. Fletcher, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/    DOUGLAS P. FLETCHER                                   
|Douglas P. Fletcher Principal Financial Officer July 25, 2006
# C_2017111EN.01000102.xml

| 8.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8381 — Motherson Sumi Systems/PKC Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 111/02)

On 20 March 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8381. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8381. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.4




NUMBER                                                                    SHARES

              Incorporated Under The Laws Of The State Of New York



                             VILLAGEWORLD.COM, INC.

                                        See Reverse Side For Certain Definitions
                                                 and Restrictive Legend

                    TOTAL AUTHORIZED ISSUE 201,000,000 SHARES

<TABLE>
<S>                                                                                 <C>
    200,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $.001 EACH                                         1,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $.001 EACH
                 COMMON STOCK                                                                  PREFERRED STOCK
</TABLE>



                CLASS C 6% CUMULATIVE CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK

This is to Certify that ________________________________________ is the owner of

                         **                               **
________________________________________________________________________________

   FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF CLASS C 6% CUMULATIVE CONVERTIBLE
                               PREFERRED STOCK OF
                   VILLAGEWORLD.COM, INC. (the "Corporation")

transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or
by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate, properly
endorsed.

The powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional, or
other special rights of the shares of Class C 6% Cumulative Convertible
Preferred Stock and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such
preferences and/or rights, are set forth in an amendment to the Corporation's
Certificate of Incorporation on file with the Department of State of the State
of New York. Such amendment can also be secured from the Corporation by any
stockholder who so requests and without charge.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly
authorized officers.

Dated: ___________________



<TABLE>
<S>                                                       <C>                 <C>
___________________________________________               CORPORATE           ___________________________________________
David Levi,                       SECRETARY                 SEAL              Peter Keenan                      PRESIDENT
</TABLE>
22.1007 Requirement to obtain wage determinations. The contracting officer shall obtain wage determinations for the following service contracts: ( a ) Each new solicitation and contract in excess of $2,500.
( b ) Each contract modification which brings the contract above $2,500 and— ( 1 ) Extends the existing contract pursuant to an option clause or otherwise; or
( 2 ) Changes the scope of the contract whereby labor requirements are affected significantly.
( c ) Each multiple year contract in excess of $2,500 upon— ( 1 ) Annual anniversary date if the contract is subject to annual appropriations; or
( 2 ) Biennial anniversary date if the contract is not subject to annual appropriations and its proposed term exceeds 2 years—unless otherwise advised by the Wage and Hour Division.
[54 FR 19816, May 8, 1989, as amended at 71 FR 36933, June 28, 2006]
217.204 Contracts. ( e ) ( i ) Notwithstanding FAR 17.204(e), the ordering period of a task order or delivery order contract (including a contract for information technology) awarded by DoD pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 3403— ( A ) May be for any period up to 5 years;
( B ) May be subsequently extended for one or more successive periods in accordance with an option provided in the contract or a modification of the contract; and
( C ) Shall not exceed 10 years unless the head of the agency determines in writing that exceptional circumstances require a longer ordering period.
( ii ) Paragraph (e)(i) of this section does not apply to the following: ( A ) Contracts, including task or delivery order contracts, awarded under other statutory authority.
( B ) Advisory and assistance service task order contracts (authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3405 that are limited by statute to 5 years, with the authority to extend an additional 6 months (see FAR 16.505(c)).
( C ) Definite-quantity contracts.
( D ) GSA schedule contracts.
( E ) Multi-agency contracts awarded by agencies other than NASA, DoD, or the Coast Guard.
( iii ) Obtain approval from the senior procurement executive before issuing an order against a task or delivery order contract subject to paragraph (e)(i) of this section, if performance under the order is expected to extend more than 1 year beyond the 10-year limit or extended limit described in paragraph (e)(i)(C) of this section (see FAR 37.106 for funding and term of service contracts).
[70 FR 73152, Dec. 9, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 58696, Sept. 30, 2014; 87 FR 76993, Dec. 16, 2022]