alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frank Edward MILANO, Appellee, v. Sam GARRISON and State of North Carolina, Appellants.

No. 80-6225.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 3, 1980.

Decided June 23, 1981.

*375Richard N. League, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N. C., (Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. of N. C., Rudolph A. Ashton, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellants.

Michael S. Scofield, Charlotte, N. C., for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.

WIDENER, Circuit Judge:

A jury found the petitioner, Frank Edward Milano, guilty of first degree rape in North Carolina Superior Court. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. *State v. Milano,*297 N.C. 485, 256 S.E.2d 154 (1979). The district court granted the petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. We reverse.

The district court held that the exclusion of the results of a Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) (a form of lie detector) examination favorable to Milano, while admitting by agreement the unfavorable results of a polygraph examination, denied Milano a fair trial. Finding the PSE to be at least as reliable as the polygraph, the district court relied upon its opinion in *Jackson v. Garrison,*495 F.Supp. 9 (W.D.N. C.1979), and stated that lie-detector testimony “ought to be admissible in criminal prosecutions, on behalf of either side, if the defendant has testified.”

Milano does not assert that the results of PSE examinations are generally admissible. He contends that under *Chambers v. Mississippi,*410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), the failure of the trial court to admit the results of the PSE examination so that he could rebut the state’s polygraph evidence denied him a fair trial.

The admission of the results of the polygraph examination had been stipulated to by Milano and the prosecution. The trial court found that the polygraph examination was administered under proper conditions by a qualified polygraphist. The North Carolina Supreme Court found the trial court’s admission of the results of the polygraph test was. proper under North Carolina law. *Milano,*256 S.E.2d at 162. However, the prosecution refused to stipulate to the admission of the PSE results. North Carolina law does not allow the admission of lie-detector evidence absent a stipulation to its admissibility by the parties. *Milano,*297 N.C. at 493-500, 256 S.E.2d at 162-63. North Carolina’s rules regulating the admission of lie-detector evidence are “matter[s] of state law and procedure not involving federal constitutional issues.” *Jackson v. Garrison,*677 F.2d 371 (4th Cir. 1981). The trial court did not deprive the petitioner of any constitutional rights when it excluded the PSE results and admitted the polygraph results; the first had not been agreed to while the latter had.

The judgment of the district court is accordingly

REVERSED.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant, FAADocketNo. 2014-0546

vs. DGW, Inc., d/b/aMelrose T-Top, lntl, Judge: Richard C.

# AECEIVED SEP 2 2 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET Respondent. MOTION TO CHANGE HEARING LOCATION 

### Now COMES the Respondent, DGW, Inc., d/b/a Melrose T-Top ("Melrose"), by and through its attorneys, GRIFFINIWILLIAMS, LLP, and for its Motionto Change Hearing Location, states as follows: 1. On or about August 19, 2014, the Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration (the "FAA") filed a Complaint against Respondent seeking a proposed civil penalty of $38,500 for an alleged violation of49 

### § U.S.C. 5123. At the time the Complaintwas filed, the FAArequested a hearing in Louisville, Kentucky. 2. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.209(b) provides that, "the person filing an answer should suggesta location for the hearing whenfiling the answer." 3. Prior to filing the Answer, the hearing was scheduled m Louisville, Kentucky. 4. Both Respondent and its counsel are located in the suburbs of Chicago, Illinois and travel to Louisville, Kentucky to participate in the hearing in this cause will be anunnecessary expense and burdento Respondent.



### 15. Moreover, the FAA has offices in the greater Chicago, Illinois area that would be more convenientto Respondent and its counsel. 6. Additionally, the FAA will not be prejudiced because its counsel and the Honorable Administrative Law Judge handling assigned to this matter are not from the Louisville, Kentucky area, and are travelling regardless of whether the hearing in this

cause is inLouisville, Kentucky or Chicago, Illinois. WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests that the hearing in this cause andvenue be located inthe greater Chicago, Illinois area.

Richard L. Williams Joshua M. Feagans KristinN. Stone GRIFFINIWILLIAMS LLP 50l W. State Street, Suite 203 Geneva, IL 60134 (630) 457-1205 (630) 262-0644 facsimile One o**\~ts attome~**  \



### 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the state ofIllinois, hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses was deposited in the U.S. Mail, proper postage prepaid and affixed and mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following persons on September 16, 2014: FederalAviationAdministration Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding- Suite 2Wl000 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. Office ofRegional General Counsel, AS0-7 Federal Aviation Administration SouthernRegion 1701 ColumbiaAvenue CollegePark, Georgia 30337



### 3 Hon. Richard C. Goodwin Attn: Patricia Matthews U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, D.C. 20590
IV 

House Calendar No. 220 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 951 

[Report No. 109–602] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2006 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 

resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules. 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of July 27, 2006, providing 

6 for consideration or disposition of any of the following 

7 measures: 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

HRES 951 RH 

1 (1) A conference report to accompany the bill 

2 (H.R. 2830) to amend the Employee Retirement In3 come Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue 

4 Code of 1986 to reform the pension funding rules, 

5 and for other purposes. 

6 (2) A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code 

7 of 1986 to increase the unified credit against the es8 tate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000, to 

9 repeal the sunset provision for the estate and gen10 eration-skipping taxes, and to extend expiring provi11 sions, and for other purposes. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
House Calendar No. 220 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 951 

[Report No. 109

–602] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

tions reported from the Committee on Rules. with respect to consideration of certain resoluJULY 26, 2006 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000188 16-APR-2020 07:55 AM
§ 200.504 Frequency of audits. Except for the provisions for biennial audits provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, audits required by this part must be performed annually. Any biennial audit must cover both years within the biennial period. ( a ) A state, local government, or Indian tribe that is required by constitution or statute, in effect on January 1, 1987, to undergo its audits less frequently than annually, is permitted to undergo its audits pursuant to this part biennially. This requirement must still be in effect for the biennial period.
( b ) Any nonprofit organization that had biennial audits for all biennial periods ending between July 1, 1992, and January 1, 1995, is permitted to undergo its audits pursuant to this part biennially.
§ 810.7 Activities requiring specific authorization. Any person requires a specific authorization by the Secretary before: ( a ) Engaging in any of the activities listed in § 810.2(b) with any foreign country or entity not specified in the Appendix to this part;
( b ) Providing or transferring sensitive nuclear technology to any foreign country or entity; or
( c ) Engaging in or providing technology (including assistance) for any of the following activities with respect to any foreign country or entity (or a citizen or national of that country other than U.S. lawful permanent residents or protected individuals under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)): ( 1 ) Uranium isotope separation (uranium enrichment), plutonium isotope separation, or isotope separation of any other elements (including stable isotope separation) when the technology or process can be applied directly or indirectly to uranium or plutonium;
( 2 ) Fabrication of nuclear fuel containing plutonium, including preparation of fuel elements, fuel assemblies, and cladding thereof;
( 3 ) Heavy water production, and hydrogen isotope separation, when the technology or process has reasonable potential for large-scale separation of deuterium (2H) from protium (1H);
( 4 ) Development, production or use of a production accelerator-driven subcritical assembly system;
( 5 ) Development, production or use of a production reactor; or
( 6 ) Reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel or targets containing special nuclear material.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 381 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 381

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 13, 2017.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
     Committee on the Judiciary: Mr. Rutherford.
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Mr. Gowdy, Chair.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, ranked as 
follows on the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Mr. Chaffetz, after Mr. 
Jordan.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 25

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 25.415 Unique entity identifier.

*Unique entity identifier* has the meaning given in paragraph C.2 of the award term in appendix A to this part.
§ 60.61 Provision of information. ( a ) The Director shall provide to the Governor and legislature of any State in which a geologic repository operations area is or may be located, and to the governing body of any affected Indian Tribe, timely and complete information regarding determinations or plans made by the Commission with respect to the site characterization, siting, development, design, licensing, construction, operation, regulation, permanent closure, or decontamination and dismantlement of surface facilities, of such geologic repository operations area.
( b ) For purposes of this section, a geologic repository operations area shall be considered to be one which “may be located” in a State if the location thereof in such State has been described in a site characterization plan submitted to the Commission under this part.
( c ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the Director is not required to distribute any document to any entity if, with respect to such document, that entity or its counsel is included on a service list prepared pursuant to part 2 of this chapter.
( d ) Copies of all communications by the Director under this section are available at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov ,* and/or at the NRC Public Document Room, and copies are furnished to DOE.
[51 FR 27164, July 30, 1986, as amended at 64 FR 48954, Sept. 9, 1999]
# EUR-Lex - 31988D0199 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31988D0199

**88/199/EEC: Commission Decision of 18 February 1988 approving the plan relating to the examination for hormone residues submitted by Italy (Only the Italian text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 094 , 12/04/1988 P. 0025 - 0025 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 18 February 1988

approving the plan relating to the examination for hormone residues submitted by Italy

(Only the Italian text is authentic)

(88/199/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by document of 13 July 1987, Italy sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I (A), Groups I and II to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan, as modified, has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I (A), Groups I and II to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by Italy is hereby approved.

Article 2

Italy shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 1988.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 13, 2023. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 13, 2023 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0153. KAY GREENSTEIN v. DEE KLINE . Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2021CV356184
#### § 1002.4 Confidentiality of information.

The Secretary or his representative shall not disclose any information reported to or otherwise obtained by him, pursuant to this part, which concerns or relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code, except that such information may be disclosed to other officers or employees of the Department and of the other agencies concerned with carrying out the requirements of the Act. Nothing in this section shall authorize the withholding of information by the Secretary, or by any officers or employees under his control, from the duly authorized committees of the Congress.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SPECTRUM
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,797
<SECURITIES>                                       448
<RECEIVABLES>                                      162
<ALLOWANCES>                                        86
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,521
<PP&E>                                             588
<DEPRECIATION>                                     370
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,436
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,739
<SALES>                                            131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,481
<CGS>                                               52
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       52
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,043)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,043)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,043)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.62)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard Leeds, Chief Executive Officer of Systemax Inc.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Systemax
Inc. (the "registrant") as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual 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 (except as disclosed in Item 9A of this annual report on Form 10-K as
amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A) we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
reasonably ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
these entities, particularly during the period in which this annual 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; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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:

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting known to me
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) 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: November 22, 2005

/s/ RICHARD LEEDS
Richard Leeds, Chief Executive Officer
§ 1132.300 Purpose of PROC Article III. PROC Article III of the general terms and conditions specifies provisions that recipients must include in contracts under their awards, as applicable. It thereby: ( a ) Implements, in conjunction with PROC Articles I and II, OMB guidance concerning recipients' contract provisions under grants and cooperative agreements in 2 CFR 200.317 and 200.326;
( b ) Partially implements the OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.205(d) and 200.213 concerning suspension and debarment requirements; and
( c ) Partially implements the OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.517 concerning retention and access of auditors' records.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-28-1997      
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-29-1997               
<CASH>                                                511,100                
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       1,271,834
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (98,174)
<INVENTORY>                                         1,724,705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      120,415
<PP&E>                                              1,524,188
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (1,210,621)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      3,843,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,593,756
<BONDS>                                               451,386
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              102,304
<OTHER-SE>                                          1,696,001
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        3,843,447
<SALES>                                             2,725,231         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    2,725,231
<CGS>                                               1,541,792
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       2,010,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     10,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (837,216)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (837,216)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.83)
                                                  


</TABLE>