alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.957 Failure to file a timely, appropriate or complete response or comment in *inter partes* reexamination.

(a) If the third party requester files an untimely or inappropriate comment, notice of appeal or brief in an *inter partes* reexamination, the paper will be refused consideration.

(b) If no claims are found patentable, and the patent owner fails to file a timely and appropriate response in an *inter partes* reexamination proceeding, the prosecution in the reexamination proceeding will be a terminated prosecution and the Director will proceed to issue and publish a certificate concluding the reexamination proceeding under § 1.997 in accordance with the last action of the Office.

(c) If claims are found patentable and the patent owner fails to file a timely and appropriate response to any Office action in an *inter partes* reexamination proceeding, further prosecution will be limited to the claims found patentable at the time of the failure to respond, and to any claims added thereafter which do not expand the scope of the claims which were found patentable at that time.

(d) When action by the patent owner is a *bona fide* attempt to respond and to advance the prosecution and is substantially a complete response to the Office action, but consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been inadvertently omitted, an opportunity to explain and supply the omission may be given.

[65 FR 76777, Dec. 7, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 18906, Apr. 16, 2007]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22898]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, October 23, 2009.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person For More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-22898 Filed 9-18-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
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 Quarterly  Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  October  1,  2005 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
Mintz,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/David Mintz*
--------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
November 21, 2005


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
#### WILSON V. THE STATE.

(Decided Feb. 8, 1912.)

Original petition in Court of Appeals.

S. W. Frierson, for petitioner. R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Petition dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7009

In Re: WILLIAM FRED MCDONALD,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CR-93-244, CA-97-154)

Submitted: February 9, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Fred McDonald, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William Fred McDonald petitions this court for a writ of

mandamus directing the district court to act upon his motion filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). The district

court entered a final order on January 29, 2001, denying relief on

McDonald’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, although we grant McDonald

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition

as moot. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### § 226.2 Requesting a smaller claims proceeding.

A claimant may request consideration of a claim under the smaller claims procedures in this part at the time of filing a claim. The claimant may change its choice as to whether to have its claim considered under the smaller claims procedures or the standard Board procedures at any time before service of the *initial notice.* If the claimant changes its choice, but the *initial notice* has already been issued, the claimant shall request reissuance of the *initial notice* indicating the updated choice. Once the claimant has served the *initial notice* on any respondent, the claimant may not amend its choice without consent of the other parties and leave of the Board. A claimant's request to change its choice as to whether to have its claim considered under the smaller claims procedures or the standard Board procedures shall follow the procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter. If the request is made following service of the *initial notice* on any respondent, the claimant's request shall indicate whether the other parties consent to the request.

[89 FR 2492, Jan. 16, 2024]
### DOH/EPA Request for Additional Information of 01 August 2014

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility

Questions 9 through 12, (DOH/EPA Request 1c.): Describe all monitoring efforts from 2009

‐ present of

groundwater and/or drinking water. Provide any supporting documents (including monitoring data,

sampling methods, and analytical methods exercised).

Response: The following drinking water information is provided for the regulatory monitoring

completed for the JBPHH Water System #360 at Red Hill from 2009 to the present.

The list below contains the sampling performed by the Navy as required by regulation. These sampling

reports were submitted to the State of Hawaii Department of Health and are also maintained in Navy

records. Other analyses performed by the DOH on the Red Hill system are not included in this list and

those results are maintained in the DOH database.

Date

Submitted Date

Sampled Contaminant Sample Location

8/14/2009 5/19/2009 Phase II and Phase V

contaminants Pump head tap

4/14/2010 9/1/2009 Phase II and Phase V

contaminants Pump head tap

4/14/2010 7/21/2009 Inorganic Chemicals, Volatile

Organics, Secondary

Contaminants Pump head tap

5/17/2010 4/22/2010 Triggered Source monitoring Pump head tap

10/4/2011 7/13/2011 Nitrate Pump head tap

7/3/2012 4/24/2012 Phase II and Phase V

contaminants Tap outside chlorine bldg

10/26/2012 9/6/2012 Nitrite/Nitrate Tap outside chlorine bldg

1/31/2013 7/30/2012 SOCs, Inorganics, VOCs, Sodium,

Secondary Contaminants Tap outside chlorine bldg.

7/24/2013 7/18/2013 Triggered Source monitoring Pump head tap

6/20/2014 4/8/2014 Phase II and Phase V

contaminants Tap outside chlorine bldg

All analyses were performed by certified laboratories using methods prescribed by EPA and the DOH.

Information from this sampling contributes to the annual Water Quality Report for the Joint Base Pearl

Harbor

‐ Hickam Water System.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.100 Procedure; pendency.

(a) An *inter partes* review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part.

(b) In an *inter partes* review proceeding, a claim of a patent, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend under § 42.121, shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the *inter partes* review proceeding will be considered.

(c) An *inter partes* review proceeding shall be administered such that pendency before the Board after institution is normally no more than one year. The time can be extended by up to six months for good cause by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, or adjusted by the Board in the case of joinder.

[77 FR 48727, Aug. 14, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 18766, Apr. 1, 2016; 83 FR 51358, Oct. 11, 2018]
Exhibit 32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
In connection with the Quarterly Report of McRae Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ending October 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Marvin G. Kiser, Sr., Vice President of Finance of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.
/s/Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.
§ 93.311 Investigation time limits. ( a ) *Time limit for completing an investigation.* An institution must complete all aspects of an investigation within 120 days of beginning it, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report for comment in accordance with § 93.312, and sending the final report to ORI under § 93.315.
( b ) *Extension of time limit.* If unable to complete the investigation in 120 days, the institution must ask ORI for an extension in writing.
( c ) *Progress reports.* If ORI grants an extension, it may direct the institution to file periodic progress reports.
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to January 19, 2021)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-20-149 State v. Jimenez

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       6,005,253
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          12,782
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 41,578,015
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     94,828,120
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,119,174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             149,738,361
<DEPOSITS>                                 129,432,542
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,670,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,513,573
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,484,560
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,637,586
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             149,738,261
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,699,258
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,716,458
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                35,630
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             8,451,346
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,658,645
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,738,190
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,713,156
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  795,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              32,026
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,817,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                342,522
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     342,522
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   349,521
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.85
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,158,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   523,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                893,800
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,246,480
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  981,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    59,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,119,174
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,119,174
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, Hamsa Shadaksharappa, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. (the"registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:	July 29, 2003	
/s/ Hamsa Shadaksharappa	

Hamsa Shadaksharappa

Senior Vice President - Financial Services, Chief FinancialOfficer and Secretary
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

October 14, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 128223 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128223 COA: 259543 Genesee CC: 04-014768-FC THEODORE HARO LD NOVAK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 4, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1 ), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave grante d of (1) whether defendant’s use of a toy gun to commit the armed robbery is accounted for by the se ntencing guidelines, MCL 777.31, (2) in any event, whether the facts of this case cons titute substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the sentencing guide lines range, and (3) if so, whether the extent of the trial court’s departure was justified by those reasons. S ee MCL 769.34(3); People v Babcock

, 469 Mich 247 (2003).

We do not retain jurisdiction.

W EAVER , J., dissents and states as follows:

I dissent from the order remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. Applying the analysis of my partial dissent and partial concurrence in People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 28 0-284 (2003), I would deny leave. The trial court satisfied the requirement fo r “a substantial and compelling reason” for its departure from the sentencing guidelines, and its decisi on did not venture beyond the range of principled outco mes under the circumstances.

s1010 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 14, 2005

Clerk