alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Missile Defense Agency (MDA), DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        On Tuesday, December 28, 2010 (75 FR 81589) the Department of Defense announced meeting date changes to the closed meetings of the                               ( print page 336)                            Missile Defense Advisory Committee. Due to administrative matters, these meetings have been rescheduled from January 6-7, 2011 to January 19-20, 2011. There are no other changes to the notice announced on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 (75 FR 77848).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. David Bagnati, Designated Federal Officer at                         *MDAC@mda.mil,*                         phone/voice mail 703-695-6438, or mail at 7100 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-7100.                    

Dated: December 29, 2010.

Morgan F. Park,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2010-33168 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
[No. 38175-0-I.

Division One.

November 3, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Antonieta Young, *Respondent,*and Andres Brigham Young, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-3-05033-3, Norma Smith Huggins, J., entered February 5, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### Isedore Siegal and Son, Inc., Respondent, v Burberrys International Limited, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered October 1, 1979 in Albany County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This is an action for breach of contract for the sale of certain articles of clothing. Plaintiff does business as Cohoes Manufacturing Co., a retail clothing store. Defendant is a manufacturer and importer of men’s and women’s clothing and accessories. Plaintiff alleges that defendant contracted to sell certain merchandise to it but refused to deliver. Defendant denies any contract was made and specifically alleges the Statute of Frauds. Special Term denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and this appeal ensued. It is alleged that five representatives of plaintiff met the sales manager of defendant at the latter’s showroom in New York City for the purpose of purchasing merchandise; that discussions were had concerning certain articles of clothing; and that there came a time when one of plaintiff’s representatives requested an order pad which was furnished by the sales manager. The “pad” is the crux of the instant litigation and two sheets of it are attached to the complaint. One of the sheets pertains to men’s clothing, the other to women’s. The pad is labeled “work sheet” and bears defendant’s name, address and trademark. All of the writing on the two sheets was done by representatives of plaintiff, allegedly at the direction and supervision of defendant’s sales manager. The portions of the sheets filled out pertain to style, cloth, price, size and quantities. It is further alleged that the completed sheets were given to the sales manager who made copies and gave copies to a representative of plaintiff. There are also averments in the record that the procedure followed by the parties is the custom and usuage in the industry for placing an order. Defendant urges reversal on the ground, *inter alia,*that there is no writing to sustain the alleged contract as required by section 2-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code. We disagree and are to affirm. Initially, we note that on such a motion the evidence offered by the nonmoving party must be accepted as true and a decision on the motion must be made on the version of the facts most favorable to the nonmoving party *(Strychalski v Mekus,*54 AD2d 1068). Considering the record in its entirety, and viewing the evidence in light of this principle, we are of the opinion that there are factual issues raised which must await trial for resolution. Specifically, considering the two sheets together with the evidence pertaining to their execution, a question of fact is raised as to the intent of the parties and particularly as to whether defendant intended to authenticate the sheets. Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ERIC ROGERS,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

OFFICE, LAWRENCE KRASNER, 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

PADOC,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 30 EM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2020, the “Petition for Release” and the “Motion 

to Expedite King’s Bench Proceedings” are DENIED.
#### Randall Dean LAMARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of OREGON, acting by and through, BAKER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-35393.

D.C. No. CV-04-06041-AS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*513Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 27, 2005.

Randall Dean Lamarr, Portland, OR, pro se.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Randall Dean Lamarr, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against County Court employees alleging that defendants failed to act on his application to proceed in forma pauperis, resulting in the dismissal of his state court action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine, *Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam,*334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed this action pursuant to the *Rooker-Feld-man*doctrine because the gravamen of Lamarr’s complaint requires federal review of the state court ruling against him. *See id.*at 898 (federal district courts are not authorized to review state court judgments). Because Lamarr’s constitutional claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the substance of the state court decision, review of such claims is also barred under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to *or by*the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GLAMIS GOLD
LTD. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          26,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      986
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,629
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,218
<PP&E>                                         151,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,062
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       109,587
<OTHER-SE>                                         709
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,161
<SALES>                                         32,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,869
<CGS>                                           21,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,057
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  63
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,058)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (51)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,007)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,007)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas G. Hood, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Southwall Technologies Inc.;

Based on my knowledge, this 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;

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 report;

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; and
c)	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; and
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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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; and

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
Denied; Opinion Filed August 12, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00916-CV

IN RE STEVEN GARCIA

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-02004-2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court are relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and request for emergency 

relief, respondent’s response, and relator’s reply. By his petition, relator seeks relief from the trial 

court’s order denying his petition for an occupational license based on a lack of “essential need.” 

See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. §§ 521.242, 521.244. Relator asserts the trial court’s finding that 

no essential need exists for him to operate a motor vehicle was a clear abuse of discretion because 

he submitted all the required documentation and evidence in an ex parte hearing with no 

controverting evidence. He further asserts he has no adequate remedy on appeal because of the 

length of time a regular appeal takes. 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we 
–2–

conclude relator has not established his right to mandamus relief. We, therefore, deny relator's 

petition for writ of mandamus and request for emergency relief.

190916F.P05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
**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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southwall
      Technologies Inc. (the “Company”), for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Dr. R. Eugene Goodson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the
                Company.








August
                10, 2007
            
            By:Dr.
                R. Eugene GoodsonPrincipal
                Executive Officer*Executive
                Chairman*







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
      required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.





In
      accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K, this certification is being
“furnished” as Exhibit 32.1 to the Company's quarterly report and shall not
      be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that
      section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under
      the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth
      by
      specific reference in such a filing.
# L_2018231EN.01001801.xml

| 14.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 231/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 231/18

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1234

of 12 September 2018

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Marrone di Serino’/‘Castagna di Serino’ (PGI)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Marrone di Serino’/‘Castagna di Serino’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Marrone di Serino’/‘Castagna di Serino’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Marrone di Serino’/‘Castagna di Serino’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Marrone di Serino’/‘Castagna di Serino’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Marrone di Serino’/‘Castagna di Serino’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 September 2018.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 75, 28.2.2018, p. 6.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 2 OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 15th

day of April , 2015 , the c ause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

MICHAEL ANGEL GARZA , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00051

- CR; Trial Court No. 002

- 81506

- 12

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order i n these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the
same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals
for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly
recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court
of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of
Tyler, thi s the 9 th day of June , 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk

# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 2 OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

B efore our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 15th

day of April , 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

MICHAEL ANGEL GARZA , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00052

- CR; Trial Court No. 002

- 83977

- 12

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the
same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COM MAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals
for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly
recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Cou rt of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of
Tyler, this the 9 th day of June , 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 32

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 Quarterly Report of Archon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Paul W. Lowden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Grant L. Siler, Principal Accounting Officer,
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that to our knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: August 13, 2008



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/    PAUL W.
LOWDEN                       
|Paul W. Lowden                              
|Chairman of the Board and President         
|(Principal Executive Officer)               
|                                            
|/s/    GRANT L.
SILER                       
|Grant L. Siler                              
|Principal Accounting Officer                
|(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)

This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by

such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange

Act of 1934.
#### § 1210.1 Authority.

For the purposes of the regulations in this part the act (44 Stat. 1101; 21 U.S.C. 141-149) “To regulate the importation of milk and cream into the United States for the purpose of promoting the dairy industry of the United States and protecting the public health” shall be known and referred to as “the Federal Import Milk Act.”