alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. 279

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

An Act

To amend the Act of June 7, 1924, to provide for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INDIAN PUEBLO LAND ACT AMENDMENTS.

The Act of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 636, chapter 331), is amended

by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 20. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided by Congress,

jurisdiction over offenses committed anywhere within the exterior

boundaries of any grant from a prior sovereign, as confirmed by

Congress or the Court of Private Land Claims to a Pueblo Indian

tribe of New Mexico, shall be as provided in this section.

‘‘(b) JURISDICTION OF THE PUEBLO.—The Pueblo has jurisdiction,

as an act of the Pueblos’ inherent power as an Indian tribe, over

any offense committed by a member of the Pueblo or an Indian

as defined in title 25, sections 1301(2) and 1301(4), or by any

other Indian-owned entity.

‘‘(c) JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.—The United States

has jurisdiction over any offense described in chapter 53 of title

18, United States Code, committed by or against an Indian as

defined in title 25, sections 1301(2) and 1301(4) or any Indianowned entity, or that involves any Indian property or interest.

‘‘(d) JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO.—The State

of New Mexico shall have jurisdiction over any offense committed

by a person who is not a member of a Pueblo or an Indian as
S. 279—2

defined in title 25, sections 1301(2) and 1301(4), which offense

is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Video Display Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in
the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the
registrants internal controls over
financial reporting.
 Date: July 15, 2008
    /s/ Ronald D. OrdwayRonald D. OrdwayChief Executive Officer
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 1 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 2 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 3 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 4 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 5 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 6 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 7 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 8 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 9 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 10 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 11 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 12 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 13 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 14 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 15 of 16
Case 4:00-cv-00483-RH Document 129 Filed 11/05/01 Page 16 of 16
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 2:06-cr-0169-WHA 

 ) 

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL MOTIONS’ DEADLINE

COMES NOW, the defendant, James Calvin Talley, by and through the 

undersigned attorney, Richard K. Keith, and moves this Honorable Court to extend 

the deadline for filing pretrial motions. 

As grounds in support thereof, the following is stated: 

1. The deadline for filing pretrial motions is currently March 29, 2007. 

2. Trial in this matter is set on the June 4, 2007 Trial Term. 

3. The discovery in this sixteen (16) defendant case is voluminous and will 

require additional time to review it in its entirety prior to preparing any 

pretrial motions, particularly as the defendant is incarcerated. 

4. Assistant United States Attorney A. Clark Morris has no objection to 

continuing the pretrial motions deadline in this matter. 

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 132 Filed 03/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the moves this Honorable Court to 

extend the deadline for filing pretrial motions in this matter. 

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of March, 2007. 

s/ Richard K. Keith 

RICHARD K. KEITH (KEI003)

Attorney for Defendant 

KEITH & DUBIN, P.C.

22 Scott Street 

Montgomery, AL 36104-4012 

Telephone: (334) 264-6776 

Facsimile: (334) 265-5362 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 19, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification 

of such filing to the following: 

A. Clark Morris, AUSA 

United States Attorney's Office 

Post Office Box 197 

Montgomery, AL 36101-0197 

s/ Richard K. Keith 

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 132 Filed 03/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1

I, John M. Presley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form
10-K of the Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Bank as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The Companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
Company and have;

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the
Company is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and

c. presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data, and I have
identified for the Companys auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b. any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal controls; and

6. The Companys other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the
date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|                     |  |                                              
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2010 |  | /s/ John M. Presley                          
|                     |  | John M. Presley                              
|                     |  | Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 51.6 How to make application.

An application for inspection service may be filed in an office of inspection at any market referred to in § 51.4 (b), (c), or (d) or with any inspector. It may be made in writing, orally, electronically, or by telephone. If made orally or by telephone, the inspector may require that it be confirmed by the applicant in writing or electronically. An application may be made for one or more lots, or it may be in the nature of a blanket application for inspection of all designated lots of a given commodity within a particular period, or for all designated lots loaded or received at a specified point.

[81 FR 93572, Dec. 21, 2016]
December 5, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROBERT ARNOLD, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00049-CV V.

CITY OF ORANGE, TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal from 

the judgment signed by the court below on November 28, 2012. Having considered 

the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED. We order 

the trial court’s judgment set aside and VACATED without regard to the merits, 

and we REMAND the cause to the trial court for entry of a non-suit in accordance 

with the parties’ agreement.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6726

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHUKS EVARISTUS NWANERI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CR-91-305-HAR, CA-96-3051-JFM)

Submitted: October 7, 1997 Decided: October 28, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chuks Evaristus Nwaneri, Appellant Pro Se. Jan Paul Miller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motions

for appointment of counsel and a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Nwaneri, Nos. CR-91-305-HAR; CA-96-3051-JFM (D. Md. Apr.

29, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
November 5, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JEANNE RANSOM, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00987-CV V.

JEANINE EATON, D.D.S., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Jeanine Eaton, 

D.D.S., signed September 19, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the 

judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Jeanne Ransom, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# L_2022131DE.01001201.xml

| 5.5.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 131/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 131/12

---

Berichtigung der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2021/1890 der Kommission vom 2. August 2021 zur Änderung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 543/2011 hinsichtlich der Vermarktungsnormen im Sektor Obst und Gemüse

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 384 vom 29. Oktober 2021
  )

Seite 33, Anhang zur Änderung von Anhang I der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 543/2011, Teil B (Spezielle Vermarktungsnormen), Teil 1 (VERMARKTUNGSNORM FÜR ÄPFEL), Anlage, Nicht erschöpfende Liste von Apfelsorten, Legende der Tabelle:

VERMARKTUNGSNORM FÜR ÄPFEL

Anstatt:

| „* | = | Mutante, die keinen Sortenschutz hat, aber einer eingetragenen/geschützten Handelsmarke zuzurechnen ist; Mutanten, die nicht mit einem Sternchen gekennzeichnet sind, haben keinen Sortenschutz.“ |
| --- | --- | --- |

„*

=

Mutante, die keinen Sortenschutz hat, aber einer eingetragenen/geschützten Handelsmarke zuzurechnen ist; Mutanten, die nicht mit einem Sternchen gekennzeichnet sind, haben keinen Sortenschutz.“

muss es heißen:

| „* | = | Mutante, die keinen Sortenschutz hat, aber einer eingetragenen/geschützten Handelsmarke zuzurechnen ist; Mutanten, die nicht mit einem Sternchen gekennzeichnet sind, haben Sortenschutz.“ |
| --- | --- | --- |

„*

=

Mutante, die keinen Sortenschutz hat, aber einer eingetragenen/geschützten Handelsmarke zuzurechnen ist; Mutanten, die nicht mit einem Sternchen gekennzeichnet sind, haben Sortenschutz.“

Seite 81, Anhang zur Änderung von Anhang I der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 543/2011, Teil B (Spezielle Vermarktungsnormen), Teil 10 (VERMARKTUNGSNORM FÜR TOMATEN/PARADEISER), Abschnitt IV, Buchstabe A, Ziffer ii (Klasse I), Absatz 1, Satz 2:

VERMARKTUNGSNORM FÜR TOMATEN/PARADEISER

Anstatt:

„Innerhalb dieser Toleranz sind höchstens 1 % Erzeugnisse zulässig, die weder den Anforderungen der Klasse II noch den Mindesteigenschaften entsprechen, oder Erzeugnisse, die Verderb aufweisen.“

muss es heißen:

„Innerhalb dieser Toleranz sind insgesamt höchstens 1 % Erzeugnisse zulässig, die weder den Anforderungen der Klasse II noch den Mindesteigenschaften entsprechen oder die Verderb aufweisen.“

---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   09-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           12-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              01-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                09-30-2000
<CASH>                                          14,632
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,674
<INVENTORY>                                      8,351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,261
<PP&E>                                         342,076
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 450,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,921
<BONDS>                                        411,215
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       216,047
<OTHER-SE>                                    (239,947)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   450,955
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               279,330
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  120,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               137,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                22,435
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,967
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,152)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (29,152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (29,152)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.50)



</TABLE>
§ 4280.116 Grant applications—general. ( a ) *General.* Separate applications must be submitted for RES and EEI projects. An original, hardcopy or electronic, of each application is required.
( b ) *Application content.* Applications for RES projects or EEI projects must contain the information specified in § 4280.118 unless the requirements of either § 4280.119(a) or § 4280.120(a) are met. If the requirements of § 4280.119(a) are met, the application may contain the information specified in § 4280.119(b). If the requirements of § 4280.120(a) are met, the application may contain the information specified in § 4280.120(b). For RES Projects only, the Agency may require a feasibility study based on the scope of the project to the applicant's overall operations, including new facilities with significant impacts on an existing operation, or when the application information or technical report does not provide sufficient documentation and analysis of the project's engineering, technical, financial, or market feasibility, or the economic viability of the project including any feedstock or off-take agreements, that are needed to evaluate whether a project will be successful. The elements of an acceptable feasibility study may vary by project scope and should be prepared by a qualified and independent third party.
( c ) *Evaluation of applications.* The Agency will evaluate each RES and EEI grant application and make a determination as to whether the application meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4). ( 1 ) The application is complete, as defined in § 4280.103;
( 2 ) The Applicant is eligible according to § 4280.112;
( 3 ) The project is eligible according to § 4280.113; and
( 4 ) The proposed project has technical merit as determined under § 4280.117.
United States District Court

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Time Commenced: 10:30am Case # 3:20cv5980-RV/MJF

Time Concluded: 10:56am Date: April 29, 2021

DOCKET ENTRY: Telephonic Conference. Order to be entered.

PRESENT: HONORABLE Roger Vinson , SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sylvia Williams Phipps Reporting Tim Inacio

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Law Clerk

Style of Case: In Re Skanska USA Civil Southeast Inc and Skanska USA Inc.

Attorneys for Petitioner:

Harold Watson 

Scott Remington 

Jeremy Branning

Andrew Spencer

Attorneys for Respondents/Claimants:

Sam Geisler, Stephen Echsner, Thomas Gonzalez, Robert Kelly, Emanuella Paulos

Filed in open court: 4/29/2021 

Deputy Clerk Initials: SW

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 590 Filed 04/29/21 Page 1 of 1
|  |
|--|
|  |

# Standard Reference Sample Project Online Reports

To view these publications, you need the Adobe Acrobat ® Reader installed on your computer. A free copy of the Acrobat ® Reader may be downloadedfrom Adobe Systems Incorporated.

> 
**Note**: The Fall 2003 results and all future study results will not    be published but displayed on the "Results" page.

 Results of    the U.S. Geological Survey's Analytical Evaluation Program for Standard Reference    Samples Distributed in **March 2003**:  U.S. Geological Survey Open-File    Report 03-261 (T-173, M-166, N-77, N-78, P-40, Hg-36)

 Results of    the U.S. Geological Survey's Analytical Evaluation Program for Standard Reference    Samples Distributed in **September 2002**:  U.S. Geological Survey    Open-File Report 02-481 (T-171, M-164, N-75,    N-76, P-39, Hg-35)

 Results of    the U.S. Geological Survey's Analytical Evaluation Program for Standard Reference    Samples Distributed in **March 2002**:  U.S. Geological Survey Open-File    Report 02-243 (T-169, M-162, N-73, N-74, P-38, Hg-34)

 Results of    the U.S. Geological Survey's Analytical Evaluation Program for Standard Reference    Samples Distributed in **September 2001**:  U.S. Geological Survey    Open-File Report 02-8 (T-167, M-160, N-71,    N-72, P-37, Hg-33)

 Results of    the U.S. Geological Survey's Analytical Evaluation Program for Standard Reference    Samples Distributed in **April 2001**:  U.S. Geological Survey Open-File    Report 01-287 (T-165, M-158, N-69, N-70, P-36, Hg-32)

 Results of    the U.S. Geological Survey's Analytical Evaluation Program for Standard Reference    Samples Distributed in **October 2000**:  U.S. Geological Survey    Open-File Report 01-137 (T-163, M-156, N-67,    N-68, P-35, Hg-31)

 Results of    the U.S. Geological Survey's Analytical Evaluation Program for Standard Reference    Samples Distributed in **March 2000**:  U.S. Geological Survey Open-File    Report 00-398 (T-161, M-154, N-65, N-66, P-34, Hg-30)

 Results of    the U.S. Geological Survey's Analytical Evaluation Program for Standard Reference    Samples Distributed in **October 1999**:  U.S. Geological Survey    Open-File Report 00-227 (T-159, M-152, N-63,    N-64, P-33, Hg-29)

 Results of    the U.S. Geological Survey's Analytical Evaluation Program for Standard Reference    Samples Distributed in **March 1999**:  U.S. Geological Survey Open-File    Report 99-259 (T-157, M-150, N-61, N-62, P-32, Hg-28, GWT-5, GWM-4)