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

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 96 (Monday, May 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28712-28713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11586]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Sunshine Act Meeting

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-

[[Page 28713]]

Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, 
November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and 
to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States to Congress.

TIME AND PLACE: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 from 11 a.m.-3 p.m. A break for 
lunch will be at the expense of the attendee. Security processing will 
be necessary for reentry into the building. The meeting will be held at 
Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 321, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda will be a discussion of Ex-Im Bank's Annual Competitiveness 
Report to Congress, and Committee members will receive updates on the 
Bank's portfolio and other activities.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will be open to public participation, 
and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or 
comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) 
before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a photo ID must be 
presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance process into the 
building, you may contact Richard Thelen at richard.thelen@exim.gov to 
be placed on an attendee list.
    If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language 
interpreter) or other special accommodations, please email Richard 
Thelen at richard.thelen@exim.gov prior to May 20, 2014.

MEMBERS OF THE PRESS: For members of the Press planning to attend the 
meeting, a photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of 
the clearance process into the building please email Matthew Bevens at 
matthew.bevens@exim.gov to be placed on an attendee list.

FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Niki Shepperd, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20571 at niki.shepperd@exim.gov

Cristopolis Dieguez,
Business Compliance Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2014-11586 Filed 5-15-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
No. 11-9234.

#### Amerson *v.*City of Des Moines, Iowa.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
10

Docket No. FAA-2013-0546 Directorate Identifier: -AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED

The Boeing 

Company

Randy Elliot 01/28/2013 Other. List below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information: Discussion on the number of Grp I, II, III and IV airplanes which 

are still active.
FERRY SWALE AREA OF THE ARIZONA STRIP FIELD OFFICE
ROUTE DESIGNATIONS Bureau of Land Management

Arizona Strip District Office

2
~~

Vermilion Cliffs

ai

ey
y \. National Monument

d,

=

Canyon ~ Vermi Mic: Cliffs.

Wilidern ee

Legend

Route Designation Land Status a gee 3 LOCATION MAP Projection: _ Universal Transverse Mercator
: Datum: North American 1983

Open to All Users (mitigating measures may apply) Bursa of Land Management Fe oe hn ‘cataaiiaiiaiaitiai Cleitiny Mcrema belle Yeas

Administrative Use Only (open to administrative 1) Native American Reservation ; ees [___| Arizona Strip Field Office Created on: Jan 28, 2008
motorized uses and non-motorized public use) lel Ni#onal' Bark Sewice a ,

Closed to All Motorized Use and Mechanized Use

(recommended for permanent closure as a route) Private

Undesignated Routes (outside jurisdiction i.e. private i State or Arizona
land, other Federal land, State land, or routes to be ?
designated in future planning)

Monument Boundary
Note: Decisions in this document only apply to Bureau
Wilderness Boundary of Land Management (BLM) lands in the Planning Area.

Planning Area Boundary
State Boundary

0 1 2
SS iors pee adongy oo raged neh. poa-needteapAegiansen renee

problems. If you have questions on specific routes that you cannot answer by

viewing these maps, you can either contact the BLM or review the GIS data.
0 1

This product may not meet BLM standards for accuracy and content. Different

data sources and input scales may cause some misalignment of data layers.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MELVIN ISAIAH SCURRY, )

DOC #Y63047, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3176

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed January 23, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; J. Frank Porter, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Argued October 15,

decided November 17, 1908.

#### COFFEY *v.*WILLOUGHBY.

[97 Pac. 1082.]

From Multnomah: Arthur L. Frazer, Judge.

Suit by B. D. Coffey against C. U. Willoughby, O. M. Smith- et al. to establish and foreclose a mechanic’s lien. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Reversed.

For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by *Mr. John H. Hall.*

For respondent there was a brief with oral arguments by *Mr. Andrew T. Lewis*and *Mr. Walter G. Hayes.*

Opinion by

Mr. Commissioner Slater.

This is a suit to establish and enforce an alleged mechanic’s lien upon two dwelling houses constructed upon the east two-thirds of lots 9 and 10, block 11, Albina Homestead in Multnomah County. The material facts in this case are substantially the same as those in the case of *Coffey*v. *Smith et al.*52 Or. 538 (97 Pac. 1079), and the conclusion there reached is controlling here. The same decree should be entered. Reversed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

Certifications 

 

I, Curtis J. Parker, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Cotelligent, Inc.; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of Cotelligent, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 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 and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures presented in the annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’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 overfinancial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI 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 function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether of not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 21, 2005
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

Before the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit

PER CURIAM. 

ORDER

On March 8, 2023, the Judicial Council voted unanimously to preclude the assignment of new cases to Judge 

Newman. In the course of the Judicial-Conduct and Judicial Disability proceedings, Judge Newman requested that 

she immediately be restored to the rotation of new case assignments. See May 25, 2023 Letter from G. Dolin to The 

Special Committee at 3. The Special Committee referred 

that request to the Judicial Council and construing it as a 

request for reconsideration, the Council reconsidered de 

novo whether Judge Newman should be precluded from receiving new case assignments.

By order of June 5, 2023, the Judicial Council, again 

acting under its statutory authority to “make all necessary 

and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within its circuit,” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 332(d)(1), precluded Judge Newman from receiving new 

case assignments. The Council found that despite a substantial reduction in workload and no new cases for several 

months, Judge Newman continued to have a backlog of 

seven very old cases. Four of those were pro se submitted 

cases which the Council noted are “generally among the 

most expeditiously resolved.” June 5, 2023 Order at 3. The 

Council concluded that “assigning additional cases to 

Judge Newman now will only interfere with her ability to 

clear her current backlog and exacerbate delays in her already long-delayed opinions.” Id. at 4. 
2

Judge Newman has now cleared her backlog: Shamoon

(21-1813), a pro se submitted case, issued on August 8, 

2023, after it had been pending for 207 days; Universal 

Electronics (21-1992) issued on August 18, 2023, after it 

has been pending for 288 days; Universal Electronics (21-

2128) issued on August 28, 2023, after it had been pending 

298 days; USC IP Partnership (22-1397) issued on August 

30, 2023, after it had been pending 229 days; another opinion in a pro se submitted case, issued in November 2023, 

after it had been pending 266 days; and, Watson (22-2148), 

a pro se submitted case, issued on November 8, 2023, after 

it had been pending 303 days.

Because her final backlogged opinion issued on November 8, 2023, the Judicial Council sua sponte vacates the 

June 5 Order.1

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The Judicial Council’s June 5, 2023 Order issued pursuant to § 332(d)(1) is vacated. 

SO ORDERED: November 9, 2023. 

1 The Judicial Council’s September 20, 2023 Order 

pursuant to the Judicial-Conduct and Judicial Disability

procedures is not affected by this order.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Release of Prior Orders in Ongoing Judicial Investigation - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kxP2voYWNC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/release-of-prior-orders-in-ongoing-judicial-investigation-3\/\">Release of Prior Orders in Ongoing Judicial Investigation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/release-of-prior-orders-in-ongoing-judicial-investigation-3\/embed\/#?secret=kxP2voYWNC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Release of Prior Orders in Ongoing Judicial Investigation” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"kxP2voYWNC\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The Court has approved the public release of all prior orders of the Special Committee and the Judicial Council, as well as Judge Newman\u2019s Letter Responses to date, with appropriate redactions to protect the identity of witnesses. \u00a0These orders, including orders entered today, are available below. Prior orders in this matter can be found on […]"}
February 10, 2015 Hearing Docket Clerk Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur Wright Building #2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 Re: Arash Durrani Case #2012WP050039 Dear FAA: 

# SACKS SACKS
ATTOR';EYS }.T LAW

lam requesting a formal hearing on the above noted case.

### ~ I 

## FEB 27 2015 HEARING DOCKET

Ifyou have any questions please feel free to contact my attorney, Stefan Sacks, at (323) 272-7877. Yours very truly,
ArashDurrani

cc. Lerre Green, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Regional Counsel P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007

1901 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 200 ·LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 •323.272.7877 Sacks & Sacks is a Partnership consisting ofProfessional Corporations
No. 10-11278.

#### Garcia *v.*Figueroa, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 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 Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period June 30, 2006
(the "Report"), David J. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, and President 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) To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                           DATE: AUGUST 11, 2006


                                           /S/ DAVID J. JOHNSON
                                           --------------------
                                           DAVID J. JOHNSON
                                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT


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 Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

<PAGE>
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.376 Oral hearing or argument. ( a ) Notwithstanding any requirement in the designation order that the hearing be conducted and resolved on a written record, a party may file a motion to request an oral hearing pursuant to § 1.291. Any such motion shall be filed after the submission of all the pleadings but no later than the date established in the scheduling order. *See* §§ 1.248 and 1.372 through 1.374. The motion shall contain a list of genuine disputes as to outcome-determinative facts that the movant contends cannot adequately be resolved on a written record and a list of witnesses whose live testimony would be required to resolve such disputes. The motion also shall contain supporting legal analysis, including citations to relevant authorities and parts of the record. If the presiding officer finds that there is a genuine dispute as to an outcome-determinative fact that cannot adequately be resolved on a written record, the presiding officer shall conduct an oral hearing limited to testimony and cross-examination necessary to resolve that dispute.
( b ) The presiding officer may, on his or her own motion following the receipt of all written submissions, conduct an oral hearing to resolve a genuine dispute as to an outcome-determinative fact that the presiding officer finds cannot adequately be resolved on a written record. Any such oral hearing shall be limited to testimony and cross-examination necessary to resolve that dispute.
( c ) Oral argument shall be permitted only if the presiding officer determines that oral argument is necessary to resolution of the hearing.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"17-2523: TRI UNION FROZEN PRODUCTS v. US [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"eoiH7O4gey\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-17-2523-tri-union-frozen-products-v-us-rule-36-judgment-17-2523-rule_36_judgment-11-7-2018-1\/\">17-2523: TRI UNION FROZEN PRODUCTS v. US [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-17-2523-tri-union-frozen-products-v-us-rule-36-judgment-17-2523-rule_36_judgment-11-7-2018-1\/embed\/#?secret=eoiH7O4gey\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-2523: TRI UNION FROZEN PRODUCTS v. US [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"eoiH7O4gey\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: TRI UNION FROZEN PRODUCTS v. US [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-2523 Origin: CIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-10-00180- CV In re P aul Christian Velte ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM H AY S CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

This petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Waldrop Filed: Apr il 9, 2010
No. 11-5233.

#### Greene *v.*Pollard, Warden.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.