alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Darien Bank *et al. v.*Varner *et al.*

Russell, C. J.

1. The motion to dismiss the writ of error on the ground that it was prematurely sued out is without merit.

2. An injunction should not be granted to restrain the sale of collateral deposited with a creditor to secure payment of a note which is past due, merely because the collateral, due to the depression of the times, will not bring its full value, or because the lender, at the time that he accepted the note, orally agreed to extend the time of payment thereof for as much as one year, where there is in the petition no allegation that the note was obtained by fraud, or that the defendant is insolvent.

*194No. 8808.

July 16, 1932.

3. A mere allegation tliat a majority of the stockholders of a bank, having the power to revise, modify, and repeal the acts of the board of directors, extended the time of payment upon a note owing to the bank, which was past due, for ninety days, without stating when, where, and by what authority said meeting of stockholders was held, adds nothing which would enable the petition to withstand a general demurrer.

4. The court erred in the allowance of the amendment and in overruling the general demurrer. *Judgment reversed.*

*All Hie Justices concur.*

*195
      *Tyson & Tyson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Paul J. Varner*and *M. Price,*contra.
**Exhibit 21.1**

List of Subsidiaries 

Supreme International, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as SupremeInternational, Inc. 

Jantzen, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Jantzen, Inc. 

Perry Ellis Menswear, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Perry Ellis Menswear, Inc. 

Perry Ellis Europe Limited, a private limited company incorporated in England and Wales 

Salant Holding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Salant Holding Corporation 

PEI Licensing, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Jantzen Apparel, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Jantzen Apparel Corp. 

Supreme Real Estate I, LLC, a Florida limited liability company 

Supreme Real Estate II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company 

Supreme Realty, LLC, a Florida limited liability company 

Supreme Munsingwear Canada Inc., a Canada corporation 

Supreme International Canada Co. Limited, a Canada corporation 

Perry Ellis Shared Services Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

Winnsboro DC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Tampa DC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Tampa DC Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Ireland 

Perry Ellis International Europe Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Ireland 

Perry Ellis International HK Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong 

Perry Ellis International Europe SARL, a private company incorporated under the laws of France 

Perry Ellis Real Estate, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Perry Ellis Real Estate Corporation 

Grand Team Holdings Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY NEAL McKINLEY, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. TRACY McCOLLUM, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 17-6097 (D.C. No. 5:16- CV-00126-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before PHILLIPS , McKAY , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, a pro se state prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1 ). In his habeas petition, Petitioner raised numerous issues rela ting to the sufficiency of the evidence, the representation he received at trial and on appeal, and se veral allegedly prejudicial evidentiary determinations. Th e district court’s twelve-page order, which adopted much of the magistrate judge’s thirty-five -page second supplemental report and recommendation, considered each of the assert ed issues and determ ined that Petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas relief on any of these grounds.

* This order is not binding precedent, except under the doc trines of law of the case, res judicata , and collateral est oppel. It may be ci ted, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 2, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 To obtain a certificate of appealability , Petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order to meet this burden, he must demonstrate “that reas onable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolv ed in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (int ernal quotation marks omitted). After carefully reviewing Petitioner’s brie f, the district court’s disposition, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and the record on appeal, including the transcripts, rulings, and other records from the state court pro ceedings, we see no error in the district court’s exhaustive order, to which we have nothing to add. We accordingly conclude that reasonable jurist s would not debate the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s claims. For substantially the reasons given by the district court and magistrate judge, we DENY Petitioner’s request for a cer tificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.
We GRANT Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

. Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
§ 792.28 What if I am not satisfied with the response I receive? If you are not satisfied with NCUA's response to your request, you can seek dispute resolution services from the FOIA Public Liaison and the Office of Government Information Services, and you can file an administrative appeal. Your appeal must be in writing and must be filed within 90 days from receipt of the initial determination (in cases of denials of the entire request or denials of a fee waiver or reduction), or from receipt of any records being made available pursuant to the initial determination (in cases of partial denials). In the response to your initial request, the Freedom of Information Act Officer or the Inspector General (or designee), will notify you that you may appeal any adverse determination to the Office of General Counsel. The General Counsel, or designee, as set forth in this paragraph, will: ( a ) Make a determination with respect to any appeal within 20 working days after the receipt of such appeal. If, on appeal, the denial of the request for records is, in whole or in part, upheld, the Office of General Counsel will notify you of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under FOIA. Where you do not address your appeal to the General Counsel, the time limitations stated above will be computed from the date of receipt of the appeal by the General Counsel.
( b ) The General Counsel is the official responsible for determining all appeals from initial determinations. In case of this person's absence, the appropriate officer acting in the General Counsel's stead will make the appellate determination, unless such officer was responsible for the initial determination, in which case the Vice-Chairman of the NCUA Board will make the appellate determination.
( c ) All appeals should be addressed to the General Counsel in the Central Office and should be clearly identified as such on the envelope and in the letter of appeal by using the indicator “FOIA-APPEAL.” Failure to address an appeal properly may delay commencement of the time limitation stated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, to take account of the time reasonably required to forward the appeal to the Office of General Counsel.
[63 FR 14338, Mar. 25, 1998, as amended at 68 FR 61737, Oct. 30, 2003; 73 FR 30478, May 28, 2008; 73 FR 56938, Oct. 1, 2008; 81 FR 93795, Dec. 22, 2016; 82 FR 29713, June 30, 2017]
# Official Journal C 104I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 104I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6426 March 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 104I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6426 March 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 104 I/01 | Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 104 I/01

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 26.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 104/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 104/1

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

(2021/C 104 I/01)

Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 369,

in the explanatory note to subheading 8543 70 90 the second paragraph is deleted.

On page 416,

in the explanatory note to 9506 69 90, the second and the third paragraph are deleted and replaced by the following:

“This subheading however excludes so-called ‘anti-stress balls’ which have the shape of a ball and can be decorated in various ways. They are usually made of plastic or rubber and are designed to be repeatedly squeezed in the hand as an anti-stress exercise. The ‘anti-stress balls’ and similar ‘anti-stress items’ of various shapes and designs are classified in heading 9503.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.

---
§ 652.80 When you must determine the risk-based capital level. ( a ) You must determine your risk-based capital level at least quarterly, or whenever changing circumstances occur that have a significant effect on capital, such as exposure to a high volume of, or particularly severe, problem loans or a period of rapid growth.
( b ) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, we may require you to determine your risk-based capital level at any time.
( c ) If you anticipate entering into any new business activity that could have a significant effect on capital, you must determine a pro forma risk-based capital level, which must include the new business activity, and report this pro forma determination to the Director, Office of Secondary Market Oversight, at least 10-business days prior to implementation of the new business program.
§ 121.410 Airline transport pilot certification training program. ( a ) A certificate holder may obtain approval to establish and implement a training program to satisfy the requirements of § 61.156 of this chapter. The training program must be separate from the air carrier training program required by this part.
( b ) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person serve as an instructor in a training program approved to meet the requirements of § 61.156 of this chapter unless the instructor: ( 1 ) Holds an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating;
( 2 ) Has at least 2 years of experience as a pilot in command in operations conducted under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or § 135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or as a pilot in command or second in command in any operation conducted under this part;
( 3 ) Except for the holder of a flight instructor certificate, receives initial training on the following topics: ( i ) The fundamental principles of the learning process;
( ii ) Elements of effective teaching, instruction methods, and techniques;
( iii ) Instructor duties, privileges, responsibilities, and limitations;
( iv ) Training policies and procedures; and
( v ) Evaluation.
( 4 ) If providing training in a flight simulation training device, hold an aircraft type rating for the aircraft represented by the flight simulation training device utilized in the training program and have received training within the preceding 12 months from the certificate holder on: ( i ) Proper operation of flight simulator and flight training device controls and systems;
( ii ) Proper operation of environmental and fault panels;
( iii ) Data and motion limitations of simulation;
( iv ) Minimum equipment requirements for each curriculum; and
( v ) The maneuvers that will be demonstrated in the flight simulation training device.
( c ) A certificate holder may not issue a graduation certificate to a student unless that student has completed all the curriculum requirements of the course.
( d ) A certificate holder must conduct evaluations to ensure that training techniques, procedures, and standards are acceptable to the Administrator.
[Doc. No. FAA-2010-0100, 78 FR 42377, July 15, 2013]
###### Editorial Note on Part 747

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 747.806 Transcripts.

Transcripts, if any, of formal investigative proceedings shall be recorded solely by the official reporter, or by any other person or means designated by the officer conducting the investigation. A party who has submitted documentary evidence or testimony in a formal investigative proceeding shall be entitled, upon written request, to procure a copy of his or her documentary evidence or a transcript of his or her testimony on payment of the appropriate fees; provided, however, that in a non-public formal investigative proceeding the NCUA Board may for good cause deny such request or the NCUA Board may place reasonable limitations upon the use of the documentary evidence and transcript. In any event, any witness, upon proper identification, shall have the right to inspect the official transcript of the witness's own testimony.
PUBLIC LAW 110–66—AUG. 9, 2007 121 STAT. 569 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2077: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

May 21, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–66 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 20805 

State Route 125 in Blue Creek, Ohio, as the ‘‘George B. Lewis Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. GEORGE B. LEWIS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 20805 State Route 125 in Blue Creek, Ohio, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George B. Lewis Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘George B. Lewis Post Office Building’’. 

Approved August 9, 2007. 

Aug. 9, 2007 

[H.R. 2077]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7466

APRIL LEIGH BARBER, Petitioner - Appellant, versusCAROL CARDWELL, Superintendent of North Carolina Correctional Institute for Women, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-70-5-MU) Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. April Leigh Barber, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: April Leigh Barber appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We deny Barber’s motion to hold her case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s review of Williams v. Taylor , 163 F.3d 860 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. granted , 67 U.S.L.W. 3612 (U.S. Apr. 5, 1999) (No. 98-8384). The issues before the Court in Williams are unrelated to the dispositive issues of Barber’s case. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Barber v. Caldwell , No. CA-97-70-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 1998).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 53699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25125]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC)

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee 
(ETTAC) will hold a plenary meeting on October 29, 2009 at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, in Room 3407. The ETTAC will discuss 
environmental goods and services trade liberalization efforts in the 
World Trade Organization, United Nations climate negotiations in 
Copenhagen, and other administrative items. This is the first time this 
ETTAC will meet since its re-chartering in September 2009. The meeting 
is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment.
    Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome anytime 
before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days 
of this meeting.
    The ETTAC is mandated by Public Law 103-392. It was created to 
advise the U.S. government on environmental trade policies and 
programs, and to help it to focus its resources on increasing the 
exports of the U.S. environmental industry. ETTAC operates as an 
advisory committee to the Secretary of Commerce and the Trade Promotion 
Coordinating Committee (TPCC). ETTAC was originally chartered in May of 
1994. It was most recently re-chartered until September 2010.

DATES: October 29, 2009.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: For further information phone Ellen Bohon, Office of Energy 
and Environmental Technologies Industries (OEEI), International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-0359 or via e-
mail at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e7b52525b50105c515651507e535f5752105a515d10595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b2e07070e054509040304052b060a0207450f0408450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>. This meeting is physically 
accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language 
interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to OEEI at 
(202) 482-5225.

Cheryl McQueen,
Acting Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
[FR Doc. E9-25125 Filed 10-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Annual Report of Innodata Isogen, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jack Abuhoff, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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.





/s/ Jack AbuhoffJack AbuhoffChairman of the Board,Chief Executive Officer and PresidentFebruary 28, 2011
# Official Journal C 285/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 285 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5027 November 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 285

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5027 November 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2007/C 285/01 | Special report No 5/2007 on the Commission's Management of the CARDS programme together with the Commission's replies | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Court of Auditors

2007/C 285/01

Special report No 5/2007 on the Commission's Management of the CARDS programme together with the Commission's replies

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN