alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GEORGE LAWLEY & SON CORPORATION, OF BOSTON, MASS., v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 15005 Congressional.

Decided January 8, 1934]

*686
      *Mr. Frank F. Nesbit*for tbe plaintiff. *Mr. Clarence W. DeKnight*was on the briefs.

*Mr. Arthur*Cobb, witb whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frank J.*Wideman, for tbe defendant. *Messrs. W. W. Scott*and *James J. Sweeney*were on tbe brief.

*696Whaley, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In some respects this case is *Iron*Works, which came to the court under the same Senate bill and the same congressional reference, viz, Senate bill 8533, June 6, 1910, and Senate Resolution 269 of June 21, 1910. The petition herein was filed December 15, 1910, two days after that of the *Union Iron Works.*The *Union Iron Works dase*was decided April 10, 1933, no. 15014, Cong., and in *77*C.Cls. 467.

The opinion in the *Union Iron Works case*is applicable here and need not be repeated. The claim is for a gratuity and plaintiff is not entitled to relief in this court on legal or equitable grounds. Plaintiff’s claim for relief is therefore solely a matter for Congress.

It is ordered that the special findings of fact and conclusion of law, together with this opinion, be transmitted to the Senate, in accordance with the act of March 3, 1911, 36 Stat. 1087, 1138 (section 151 of the Judicial Code; section 257, title 28, of the United States Code), amending the act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 505, 507.

Williams, *Judge;*LittletoN, *Judge;*GreeN, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief Justice,*concur.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00396-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF L.L., A CHILD 

 

 

On Appeal from the 108th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 82,798-E, Honorable Douglas Woodburn, Presiding 

 

January 27, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Pending before the court is the joint motion of appellant, A.L., and appellee, the 

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department). Therein, the parties 

request that the trial court's judgment be reversed to the extent that it terminates the 

parental relationship between A.L. and his child L.L. The request is made because the 

Department concedes that it summarily terminated A.L.'s parental rights via an 

inapplicable statutory procedure and that A.L. has the right to require the Department 

to prove formal grounds warranting termination.
2

Because of the Department's concession, we reverse that portion of the trial 

court’s judgment terminating A.L.'s parental relationship with L.L. In all other things, the 

judgment is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the trial court.

Per Curiam
Exhibit 32.2


                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 APA Optics, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anil K. Jain,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Signature: /s/Anil K. Jain
           ---------------
Print Name: Anil K. Jain
            ------------
Print Title: Chief Financial Officer
             -----------------------


<PAGE>
Order filed April 28, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00989-CR

____________

JAMEL JUREA WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1426876

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due January 11, 2016. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The record comprises six volumes. Volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 have been 

filed. Patricia Palmer is responsible for filing volume 5. This court has granted 

Palmer three extensions until March 21, 2016 to file volume 5. When the last 

extension was granted, we stated that no further extensions would be granted. 

Volume 5 has not been filed.
Accordingly, we ORDER Patricia Palmer to file volume 5 of the record by 

May 12, 2016. If volume 5 of the record is not timely filed as ordered, this court will 

abate the appeal and order the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason 

for failure to file the volume. 

PER CURIAM
#### RASOR *v.*MOTT.

Appeal and Error — Extension op Time — Statutes.

Where a writ of error was sued out more than ten days after the hill of exceptions was signed, and the showing made on motion to dismiss indicates very clearly that appellant was not in fault, this court, in construing section 6 of the judicature act (Act No. 314, Pub. Acts 1915) authorizing this court to extend the time beyond ten days, will allow said writ to stand as if showing had been made before the writ was taken out, and the motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

Ejectment by King Rasor and another against Cassius M. Mott. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs bring error. On motion to dismiss.

Submitted October 3, 1916.

(Calendar No. 27,506.)

Denied December 22, 1916.

O. *G. Tuttle,*for the motion.

*Carl H. McLean, contra.*

Moore, J.

Judgment in this case was entered June 2, 1916. The bill of exceptions was signed August 11th, and writ of error was issued August 24, 1916. This is a motion to dismiss the writ of error, because it was not obtained within 10 days after the bill of exceptions was signed. The motion to dismiss is opposed for the reason that the plaintiffs were in no way responsible for the delay in suing out the writ of error. The motion involves a construction of section 6, chap. 50, of the new judicature act (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 13741). The showing made indicates very clearly that the delay in suing out the writ of error beyond ten days is a delay for Which the appellants are in no wise responsible. The act authorizes this court, upon a *312proper showing made, to extend the time beyond ten days after the bill of exceptions has been signed. On the 10th of April, 1916, in the unreported case of *Blake*v. *Insurance Co.,*we construed this act and granted an extension of the time beyond the ten days. In the instant case the bill of exceptions has been signed and the writ of error has been sued out. If the showing made upon this motion had been made to this court before the writ of error was sued out, we should have felt bound to extend the time in which to take out the writ of error. Inasmuch as the writ of error has been taken out, it may stand the same as though an extension of time had been granted upon a proper showing.

The appellee will be granted costs.

Stone, C. J., and Kuhn, Ostrander, Bird, Steere, and Brooke, JJ., concurred. Person, J., did not sit.
#### § 121.265 Fire-extinguishing agents.

Only methyl bromide, carbon dioxide, or another agent that has been shown to provide equivalent extinguishing action may be used as a fire-extinguishing agent. If methyl bromide or any other toxic extinguishing agent is used, provisions must be made to prevent harmful concentrations of fluid or fluid vapors from entering any personnel compartment either because of leakage during normal operation of the airplane or because of discharging the fire extinguisher on the ground or in flight when there is a defect in the extinguishing system. If a methyl bromide system is used, the containers must be charged with dry agent and sealed by the fire-extinguisher manufacturer or some other person using satisfactory recharging equipment. If carbon dioxide is used, it must not be possible to discharge enough gas into the personnel compartments to create a danger of suffocating the occupants.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23654-1 Filed:03/01/23 Entered:03/01/23 12:22:22 Desc:

Exhibit I Page 1 of 1
#### § 1217.100 Scope.

This part sets forth policy and procedures with respect to the use of the NASA's authority to certify to the U.S. Commissioner of Customs duty-free entry of articles into the United States for the use of NASA or for implementation of a NASA international program, including articles that will be launched into space, spare parts for such articles, ground support equipment, or uniquely associated equipment for use in connection with a NASA international program or launch service agreement. This part also sets forth NASA's procedures with respect to the use of its authority to bring foreign-owned articles and articles from space into the customs territory of the United States, and describes the nonimport status of such articles.
**Exhibit 32.1****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**I, Montgomery L. Bannerman, Chief Executive Officer of Verso Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), dohereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007(the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and  2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated:May 15, 2007              /s/ Montgomery L. Bannerman   Montgomery L. Bannerman,   Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24926-24929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10575]



[[Page 24926]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 00-32]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 00-32 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    Dated: April 24, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5001-10-C

[[Page 24927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AP00.008


[[Page 24928]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AP00.009


[[Page 24929]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AP00.010

[FR Doc. 00-10575 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-C
**Exhibit        99**

**Financial        Measures that Supplement Generally Accepted Accounting        Principles**

**General        Electric Capital Services, Inc. and consolidated        affiliates**

**Delinquency        Rates on Certain Financing Receivables**

**GE        Commercial Finance**

|     | **At**             |   |
|----------|--------------------|--------|
|     | **3/31/06****(a)** |   | **12/31/05** |   | **3/31/05** |   |
|     |               |   |   |   |   |   |
| Managed  | 1.31               | %      | 1.31 | % | 1.54 | % |
| Off-book | 0.61               |   | 0.76 |   | 1.05 |   |
| On-book  | 1.60               |   | 1.53 |   | 1.70 |   |

**GE        Consumer Finance**

|     | **At**             |   |
|----------|--------------------|--------|
|     | **3/31/06****(a)** |   | **12/31/05** |   | **3/31/05** |   |
|     |               |   |   |   |   |   |
| Managed  | 5.14               | %      | 5.08 | % | 5.18 | % |
| Off-book | 5.24               |   | 5.28 |   | 4.94 |   |
| On-book  | 5.13               |   | 5.07 |   | 5.20 |   |
|     |               |   |   |   |   |   |

| (a) | Subject                  to update. |
|-----|-------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6949

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BARRY ELIJAH DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District 

Judge. (1:06-cr-00005-MJG-1; 1:08-cv-02963-MJG)

Submitted: June 28, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry Elijah Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Barry Elijah Davis seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Official Journal L 5/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.005.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 5 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5610 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.005.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 5

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5610 January 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 9/2013 of 9 January 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia | 1 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 10/2013 of 9 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 5 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 11/2013 of 9 January 2013 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 892/2012 for the 2012/13 marketing year | 7 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 9/2013 of 9 January 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia

1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 10/2013 of 9 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

5

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 11/2013 of 9 January 2013 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 892/2012 for the 2012/13 marketing year

7

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### § 810.2 Public notice of offering.

On the occasion of an offering of FFB bills, tenders therefor will be invited through public notices issued by the Federal Financing Bank. Each notice will set forth the amount offered, the issue date, the date they will be due and payable, the place and the date of the closing hour for the receipt of tenders and the date on which payment for accepted tenders must be made or completed.
#### PHILADELPHIA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO. v. UNITED STATES

[77 C.Cls. 764; 290 U.S. 703]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court January 8, 1934.
# C_2019172EN.01000101.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2019/C 172/01)

Last publication

OJ C 164, 13.5.2019

Past publications

OJ C 155, 6.5.2019

OJ C 148, 29.4.2019

OJ C 139, 15.4.2019

OJ C 131, 8.4.2019

OJ C 122, 1.4.2019

OJ C 112, 25.3.2019

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
EXHIBIT 31

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                         302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                         302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Blair Zykan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TDI Holding Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of June 30, 2004; and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  August 10, 2004


/s/ Blair Zykan
-----------------------
Blair Zykan,
President & CFO
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0574**
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4125

_____________________________
T ERRANCE L EONARD P ETERSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. W. Joel Boles , Judge

. June 13, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , B ILBREY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Terrance Leonard Peterson, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<PAGE>


                                 EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

<PAGE>

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our reports (1)
dated February 14, 2003 with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements
and schedules of Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company and (2) dated
January 31, 2003 with respect to the subaccounts of Separate Account VA-2L,
which are available for investment by contract owners of the
Dreyfus/Transamerica Triple Advantage Variable Annuity, included in
Post-Effective Amendment No. 25 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No.
33-49998) and related Prospectus of Dreyfus/Transamerica Triple Advantage
Variable Annuity.

                                                           /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
April 25, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 11
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 11 appear at 61 FR 18052, April 24, 1996.

§ 11.35 Does FAA include sensitive security information and proprietary information in the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)? ( a ) *Sensitive security information.* You should not submit sensitive security information to the rulemaking docket, unless you are invited to do so in our request for comments. If we ask for this information, we will tell you in the specific document how to submit this information, and we will provide a separate non-public docket for it. For all proposed rule changes involving civil aviation security, we review comments as we receive them, before they are placed in the docket. If we find that a comment contains sensitive security information, we remove that information before placing the comment in the general docket.
( b ) *Proprietary information.* When we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
[Doc. No. 1999-6622, 65 FR 50863, Aug. 21, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 68474, Dec. 5, 2007]