alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Glen H. Davidson, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL PETER HERRERA, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 08-56837 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-2410-JFW-CT
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 13, 2011 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIDSON ** , Senior District Judge. ** Petitioner Michael Peter Herrera, a Calif ornia state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm. 

# FILED
OCT 31 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Herrera argues that the evidence presente d at his state trial was insufficient to permit the jury to find that the Santa Monica gang’s “primary activities” involved a crime enumerated in California’s gang enhancement statute. See Cal. Penal Code § 186.22; People v. Sengpadychith , 27 P.3d 739, 744 (Cal. 2001) (holding that an enumerated crime is a gang’s “primary” activity when it is one of the gang’s “‘chief’ or ‘principal’ occupations”). In Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 309 (1979), the Supreme Court held that when the claim is made that a pe rson has been convicted in state court upon insufficient evidence, the inquiry is wh ether, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319. Moreover, because Herrera is a st ate prisoner challenging his conviction in federal court, he must also show that the California state court was “objectively unreasonable” in denying his sufficien cy of the evidence claim. Juan H. v. Allen , 408 F.3d 1262, 1275 n.12 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, the California state court reasonably applied Jacksonbecause a rational trier of fact could have f ound that the Santa Monica gang’s “primary activities” included at least one of those listed in California Penal Code § 186.22(e).3 Next, Herrera argues that the state trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “primary activities” as found in California’s model jury instructions. The phrase “primary activitie s” is sufficiently clear such that an average juror would understand its meaning. See United States v. Tirouda , 394 F.3d 683, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2005) (“No prejudice results from a district court’s failure to define a concept ‘within th e comprehension of the average juror.’” (quoting United States v. Dixon , 201 F.3d 1223, 1231 (9th Cir. 2000)). The California Court of Appeal therefore did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent in denying Herrera’s challenge to the jury instructions. AFFIRMED.
#### §§ 745.105-745.106 [Reserved]
Order entered February 4 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00480 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF B.Q.T., A CHILD On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 12 - 07404 - S



### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s February 2, 2015 motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief. Appellant shall file a reply brief by FEBRUARY 12, 2015
. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
§ 171.100 Regulation based on petition. ( a ) The Commissioner will forward for publication in the Federal Register, within 90 days after filing of the petition (or within 180 days if the time is extended as provided for in section 409(c)(2) of the Act), a regulation prescribing the conditions under which the food additive may be safely used (including, but not limited to, specifications as to the particular food or classes of food in or on which such additive may be used, the maximum quantity that may be used or permitted to remain in or on such food, the manner in which such additive may be added to or used in or on such food, and any directions or other labeling or packaging requirements for such additive deemed necessary by him to assure the safety of such use), and prior to the forwarding of the order to the Federal Register for publication shall notify the petitioner of such order and the reasons for such action; or by order deny the petition, and shall notify the petitioner of such order and of the reasons for such action.
( b ) The regulation shall describe the conditions under which the substance may be safely used in any meat product, meat food product, or poultry product subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*) or the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 *et seq.*).
( c ) If the Commissioner determines that additional time is needed to study and investigate the petition, he shall by written notice to the petitioner extend the 90-day period for not more than 180 days after the filing of the petition.
[42 FR 14489, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 65 FR 51763, Aug. 25, 2000]
###### Editorial Note on Part 112

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 112.113 How must I handle harvested covered produce during covered activities?

You must handle harvested covered produce during covered activities in a manner that protects against contamination with known or reasonably foreseeable hazards—for example, by avoiding, to the degree practicable, contact of cut surfaces of harvested produce with soil.
###### Editorial Note on Part 107

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 107 appear at 81 FR 49895, July 29, 2016.

#### § 107.3 Definitions.

The following definitions shall apply, in addition to the definitions contained in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act):

*Exempt formula.* An exempt infant formula is an infant formula intended for commercial or charitable distribution that is represented and labeled for use by infants who have inborn errors of metabolism or low birth weight, or who otherwise have unusual medical or dietary problems.

*Manufacturer.* A person who prepares, reconstitutes, or otherwise changes the physical or chemical characteristics of an infant formula or packages or labels the product in a container for distribution. The term “manufacturer” does not include a person who prepares, reconstitutes, or mixes infant formula exclusively for an infant under his/her direct care or the direct care of the institution employing such person.

*References.* References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21, unless otherwise noted.

[50 FR 48186, Nov. 22, 1985, as amended at 79 FR 8074, Feb. 10, 2014]
# EUR-Lex - 31990L0335 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31990L0335

**Commission Directive 90/335/EEC of 7 June 1990 amending for the fourth time the Annex to Council Directive 79/117/EEC prohibiting the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing certain active substances **

*
Official Journal L 162 , 28/06/1990 P. 0037 - 0037 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 33 P. 0012 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 33 P. 0012 *

*****

COMMISSION DIRECTIVE

of 7 June 1990

amending for the fourth time the Annex to Council Directive 79/117/EEC prohibiting the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing certain active substances

(90/335/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 79/117/EEC of 21 December 1978 prohibiting the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing certain active substances (1), as last amended by Directive 89/365/EEC (2), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas the development of scientific and technical knowledge makes necessary certain amendments to the Annex to Directive 79/117/EEC;

Whereas it seems desirable to delete a certain number of temporary derogations from the prohibitions laid down in the Directive since less hazardous treatments are now available;

Whereas all Member States have informed the Commission that they do not intend or no longer intend to avail themselves of these derogations;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

The Annex to Directive 79/117/EEC is hereby amended as follows:

1. In Part A, 'Mercury compounds':

(a) Under item 4, 'Alkyl mercury compounds', the text in column 2 is deleted;

(b) under item 5, 'Alkoxyalkyl and aryl mercury compounds', the text in column 2 is replaced by: 'Seed treatment cereals'.

2. In part B, 'Persistent organo-chlorine compounds':

(a) under item 1, 'Aldrin', the text in column 2 is deleted;

(b) under item 5, 'Endrin', the text in column 2 is deleted.

Article 2

Member States shall, not later than 1 January 1991, bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.

Article 3

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 June 1990.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 33, 8. 2. 1979, p. 36.

(2) OJ No L 159, 10. 6. 1989, p. 58.
Exhibit 22.2














INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT








We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Cicero Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160581) of our report dated March 31,
2009,relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Cicero Inc. and subsidiaries which appears
in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Cicero Inc. and Subsidiaries for the years ended December
31, 2008 and 2007.








/s/ Margolis & Company P.C.






Bala
Cynwyd, Pennsylvania


March 31,
2010
38011, 38046.

#### NALLEY v. WHITAKER; and *vice versa.*

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. “Any agreement (except contracts with overseers) that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof” must be in writing. *Code*§ 20-401 (5); *Byrd v. Piha,*165 Ga. 397 (2) (141 S. E. 48).

2. The authority to execute a contract required by law to be in writing must be in writing. *Byrd v. Piha,*supra; *Blanchard & Calhoun Realty Co. v. Comer,*185 Ga. 448 (1) (195 S. E. 420); *Code*§ 4-105.

3. In cases of special agencies persons dealing with the agent must examine his authority. *Code*§ 4-301; 2 Am. Jur. 77, 78, Agency, § 96; 2 C. J. S. 1191, Agency, § 92.

4. One entering into a fifteen-year lease contract executed by an agent in behalf of a purported principal is charged with notice that the agent’s authority to execute the lease is required by law to be in writing and is under a duty to inquire and ascertain whether such written authority exists and *231what the. limits of the aúthority are, and such person is guilty of negligence in failing to make such an inquiry.

Decided July 20, 1960.

*Smith, Field, Dor emus & Ringel, Sam F. Lowe, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Phillips & Johnson,*contra.

5. One who enters into such a contract without making due inquiry into the agent’s authority is precluded from recovering damages from the agent either on the ground that the agent contractually misrepresented the fact that he had authority, either expressly or impliedly, or on the ground that he fraudulently misrepresented that he had authority to execute the lease as agent. Both counts of the petition in this case allege that Colie B. Whitaker, Jr., warranted that he ■ was authorized as a duly authorized agent of Colie B. Whitaker, an individual doing business as Whitaker Oil Company, to execute the lease, and that he had no such authority.

6. The case of *Weinstein v. Rothberg,*87 Ga. App. 94 (73 S. E. 2d 106) is distinguishable from this case in that in that case the contract was not required to be in writing and there were no facts to show that the person dealing with the agent was guilty of negligence in not further inquiring into the authority of the agent.

7. A plaintiff may not recover on the basis of warranty of authority or fraud when he could have protected himself by the exercise of ordinary care. *Millender v. Looper,*82 Ga. App. 563, 569 (61 S. E. 2d 573), and cases cited.

It follows that the court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the two counts of the petition, the first of which is on the theory of breach of warranty of authority and the second on the theory of fraud by misrepresentation of the fact of authority. Other proceedings were nugatory.

*Judgment reversed on the cross-bill. Main bill dismissed.*

*Gardner, P. J., Townsend, Carlisle, Nichols, Bell and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF R EINSTATEMENT

Appellate case name: Richard Contreras, Sr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00758

- CR

Trial court case number: 1401233

Trial court: 230th District Court of Harris County

We are in receipt of a reporter’s record of an abatement hearing held on March 26, 2015,

indicating Michael Driver will remain as counsel for appellant, and that the trial court ordered

Driver to file a brief on behalf of appellant by April 24, 2015. We reinstate this appeal on our

active docket and ORDER appellant’s brief due on April 24, 2015. Due to the age of this appeal

no extensions of this deadline will be considered.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Act ing individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 16, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 329 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 329

 Recognizing the significance of the hundredth anniversary of the soda 
                               Cheerwine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2017

Mr. Budd submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the significance of the hundredth anniversary of the soda 
                               Cheerwine.

Whereas Cheerwine was founded in Salisbury, North Carolina, in 1917 by Lewis D. 
        Peeler;
Whereas Cheerwine is a family-owned and -operated business and the oldest 
        family-owned soft drink company in the United States;
Whereas Cheerwine was the first bottled cherry-flavored soda in the United 
        States;
Whereas Clifford Peeler took over the company in 1931 and helped guide the 
        company through the Great Depression;
Whereas Cheerwine was enjoyed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953;
Whereas in the 1970s, Cliff and Mark Ritchie joined the family business and 
        expanded Cheerwine's presence;
Whereas in 1992, Mark Ritchie took over the company, and Cheerwine was enjoyed 
        by a second President, George H. W. Bush, in Salisbury, North Carolina; 
        and
Whereas this family-owned and -operated institution, now run by L.D. Peeler's 
        great-grandson, Cliff Ritchie, celebrates its hundredth birthday in 
        2017: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the significance of the hundredth 
        anniversary of the soda Cheerwine and acknowledges its 
        contribution to North Carolina's vibrant food culture and 
        unique local character;
            (2) recognizes that Cheerwine is an important part of North 
        Carolina's heritage and culture; and
            (3) recognizes that family businesses such as Cheerwine 
        provide good-paying jobs and are the building blocks of the 
        United States economy.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 107

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 107 appear at 81 FR 49895, July 29, 2016.

#### § 107.270 Compliance with this subpart.

A recalling firm may satisfy the requirements of this subpart by any means reasonable calculated to meet the obligations set forth in this Subpart E. The recall guidance in subpart C of part 7 of this chapter specify procedures that may be useful to a recalling firm in determining how to comply with these regulations.

[54 FR 4008, Jan. 27, 1989, as amended at 65 FR 56479, Sept. 19, 2000]
§ 1316.47 Request for hearing; answer. ( a ) Any person entitled to a hearing and desiring a hearing shall, within the period permitted for filing, file a request for a hearing that complies with the following format (see the Table of DEA Mailing Addresses in § 1321.01 of this chapter for the current mailing address): (Date) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ (Mailing Address) Subject: Request for Hearing Dear Sir: The undersigned ___ (Name of the Person) hereby requests a hearing in the matter of: ___ (Identification of the proceeding). (State with particularity the interest of the person in the proceeding.) All notices to be sent pursuant to the proceeding should be addressed to: (Name) (Street Address) (City and State) Respectfully yours, (Signature of Person)
( b ) A party shall file an answer as required under §§ 1301.37(d) or 1309.46(d) of this chapter, as applicable. The presiding officer, upon request and a showing of good cause, may grant a reasonable extension of the time allowed for filing the answer.
[87 FR 68045, Nov. 14, 2022]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, Stephen I. Sadove, Chief Executive Officer of Saks Incorporated (the Company), has
executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 29, 2006 (the Report).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 6th day of September 2006.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Stephen I. Sadove  
|Stephen I. Sadove      
|Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Saks Incorporated
and will be retained by Saks Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Jack G. Schwartz, Appellant, v Certified Management Corp. et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 13, 1979, granting Investors’ motion to cancel the *lis pendens*and permitting plaintiff to make substituted service upon Investors’ attorneys, modified, on the law, by reversing so much thereof as granted the motion to cancel, and denying that motion, and, as modified, otherwise affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff Schwartz alleges in his complaint that he was wrongfully evicted from his apartment because he opposed a plan to convert his building to a co-operative. There is no dispute that, after the *lis pendens*was filed on March 16, 1979, the plaintiff served summonses within 30 days upon (i) Certified Management Corp., the managing agent of the premises, (ii) William Crocker, the building superintendent, and (iii) Charles Bernstein, the individual now residing in the subject apartment. In a prior order that is not challenged, Special Term found that service had not been properly effected upon Investors, Ltd., the owner of the building. Subsequently, Special Term granted the instant motion to cancel the *lis pendens*because the owner had not been served within 30 days after filing (CPLR 6514, subd [a]). Plaintiffs attorney stresses that Investors did not file a partnership business certificate as is required by section 130 of the General Business Law. Thus, that attorney did not know where to serve Investors. Furthermore, there is an indication that, during the 30-day period, plaintiffs attorney attempted to serve Investors at the Florida address listed in the deed for the building. The attorney states that no office for Investors could be located at that address. Finally, it should be noted that Investors’ attorney was unwilling to reveal a proper address for Investors. In a multidefendant case, one owner must normally be served to preserve a *lis pendens*(cf. *Micheli Contr. Corp. v Fairwood Assoc.,*73 AD2d 774). However, in view of (i) Investors’ failure to file a partnership business certificate, (ii) Investors’ evasive conduct, and (iii) plaintiffs good faith effort to make service during the 30-day period, the *Us pendens*will be preserved by the service effected upon the other three defendants. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Lupiano, Silverman and Yesawich, JJ.
#### § 1250.60 Applicability.

Land and air conveyances engaged in interstate traffic shall use only such servicing areas within the United States as have been approved by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs as being in compliance with the requirements prescribed in this subpart.

[40 FR 5624, Feb. 6, 1975, as amended at 48 FR 11432, Mar. 18, 1983]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTechnology for Future NASA Missions: Civil Space Technology Initiative (CSTI) and PathfinderInformation is presented in viewgraph form on a number of related topics. Information is given on orbit transfer vehicles, spacecraft instruments, spaceborne experiments, university/industry programs, spacecraft propulsion, life support systems, cryogenics, spacecraft power supplies, human factors engineering, spacecraft construction  materials, aeroassist, aerobraking and aerothermodynamics.Document ID19890002389Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference ProceedingsDate AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1988Subject CategoryAstronautics (General)Report/Patent NumberNAS 1.55:3016NASA-CP-3016Accession Number89N11760Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19890002389.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitleN89-11761 through N89-11779Workvisibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024