alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28695-28696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9760]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Consumer Advisory Council

ACTION: Notice of Meeting of the Consumer Advisory Council.

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

    The Consumer Advisory Council will meet on Thursday, June 21, 2007. 
The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will take place 
at the Federal Reserve Board's offices in Washington, DC, in Dining 
Room E on the Terrace Level of the Martin Building. Anyone planning to 
attend the meeting should, for security purposes, register no later 
than Tuesday, June 19, by completing the form found online at https://www.federalreserve.gov/secure/forms/cacregistration.cfm.
    Additionally, attendees must present photo identification to enter 
the building.
    The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and is expected to conclude at 1 
p.m. The Martin Building is located on C Street, NW., between 20th and 
21st Streets.
    The Council's function is to advise the Board on the exercise of 
the Board's responsibilities under various consumer financial services 
laws and on other matters on which the Board seeks its advice. Time 
permitting, the Council will discuss the following topics:
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Regulation Z/Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
    Members will discuss proposed amendments to Regulation Z, which 
implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The amendments would revise 
the disclosure requirements for open-end (revolving) plans that are not 
home-secured, including credit card accounts.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) 
hearing
    Members will discuss the Board's June 14 public hearing to gather 
information on how it might use its rulemaking authority under HOEPA to 
address concerns about abusive lending practices in the home mortgage 
market.

Reports by committees and other matters initiated by Council members 
also may be discussed.

    Persons wishing to submit views to the Council on any of the above 
topics

[[Page 28696]]

may do so by sending written statements to Jennifer Kerslake, Secretary 
of the Consumer Advisory Council, Division of Consumer and Community 
Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, 
DC 20551. Information about this meeting may be obtained from Ms. 
Kerslake, 202-452-6470.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 16, 2007.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-9760 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
# C_2014462EN.01000601.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Trento — Italy) — Teresa Mascellani v Ministero della Giustizia

(Case C-221/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Conversion of part-time employment relationship to full-time employment relationship without the worker’s consent))

(2014/C 462/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Teresa Mascellani

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997 which is annexed to Council Directive 1997/81/EC of 15 December 1997, concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, in particular Clause 5.2 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, it does not preclude national legislation pursuant to which the employer may order the conversion of a part-time employment relationship into a full-time employment relationship without the consent of the worker concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
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 Flanigan's  Enterprises,  Inc., (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended April 1, 2006,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission of the date hereof (the "Quarterly  Report"),
I, James G.  Flanigan,  Chief  Executive  Officer and  President 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)  This  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  of  the  Company,   to  which  this
certification is attached as a Exhibit,  fully complies with the requirements of
section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) This information  contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

                                         /s/  James G. Flanigan
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Name:    James G. Flanigan
                                         Chief Executive Officer and President
                                         Date:    May 16, 2006

                                       32
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-09-628-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: ISAAC DUANE WHITE

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Benavides, and Vela 

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Isaac Duane White, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the

above cause on November 19, 2009, by which he requests this Court to compel the

respondent, presiding judge of the 377th District Court in Victoria, Texas, to hold a hearing

on his motion for DNA testing in trial court cause number 93-2-15. According to relator, the

requested testing is material and will establish his innocence. Relator has not provided this

Court with a copy of his motion. 

Mandamus relief may be granted if the relator shows that: (1) the act sought to be
See Deleon v. Dist. Clerk, 187 S.W .3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). 2

See id. 3

See id. 4

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03 (a) (Vernon Supp. 2009). 5

See id.; Rivera v. State, 89 S.W .3d 55, 58-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). 6

 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 7

2

compelled is purely ministerial; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. The relator 2

must have a “clear right” to the relief sought and the merits of the relief sought must be

“beyond dispute.” “The requirement of a clear legal right necessitates that the law plainly 3

describes the duty to be performed such that there is no room for the exercise of

discretion.”4

To obtain DNA testing under chapter 64 of the code of criminal procedure, several

requirements must be met, including that: (1) “the evidence . . . still exists and is in a

condition making DNA testing possible”; (2) “identity was or is an issue in the case;” and

(3) “the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that . . . the

person would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through

DNA testing.” Nothing in article 64.03 requires a hearing of any sort concerning the trial 5

court’s determination of whether a defendant is entitled to DNA testing.6

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. 

7

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed

the 24th day of November, 2009.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1250 

To reauthorize the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 15, 2005 

Mr. REID (for Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, 

Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. CHAFEE)) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. GREAT APE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE. 

4 Section 4 of the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 

5 (16 U.S.C. 6303) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (d)— 

7 (A) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ‘‘or’’ 

8 after the semicolon at the end; 

9 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the pe10 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

11 (C) by adding at the end the following: 
2 

•S 1250 IS

1 ‘‘(6) address root causes of threats to great 

2 apes in range states, including illegal bushmeat 

3 trade, diseases, lack of regional or local capacity for 

4 conservation, and habitat loss due to natural disas5 ters.’’; and 

6 (2) in subsection (i)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘Every’’ and inserting the 

8 following: 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Every’’; 

10 (B) in paragraph (1) (as designated by 

11 subparagraph (A)), by striking ‘‘shall’’ and in12 serting ‘‘may’’; and 

13 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(2) APPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal 

15 Advisory Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C.) shall not 

16 apply to a panel convened under paragraph (1).’’. 

17 SEC. 2. GREAT APE CONSERVATION FUND. 

18 Section 5(b)(2) of the Great Ape Conservation Act 

19 of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6304(b)(2)) is amended— 

20 (1) by striking ‘‘expand’’ and inserting ‘‘ex21 pend’’; and 

22 (2) by striking ‘‘$80,000’’ and inserting 

23 ‘‘$150,000’’. 
3 

•S 1250 IS

1 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 The Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 is amended 

3 by striking section 6 (16 U.S.C. 6305) and inserting the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

6 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the 

7 Fund— 

8 ‘‘(1) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 

9 and 2007; 

10 ‘‘(2) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

11 ‘‘(3) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 

12 and 2010.’’. 

Æ
No. 00-6838.

#### Davidson *v.*Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

Certification of President



I, Ramon Chimelis, President, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Big Sky Industries III, Inc.;

2.

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;

3.

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

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 small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



Dated: January 26, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President
#### Karla H. ABATIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALTA HEALTH & LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, f/k/a Anthem Home Life Insurance Company, f/k/a Home Life Financial Assurance Company, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-55601.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 2006.

W. Todd Turley, Esq., Craig Price, Esq., Griffith & Thornburgh, Santa Barbara, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jane A. O’Donnell, Esq., Bullivant, Houser & Bailey, Irvine, CA, R. Daniel Lindahl, Esq., Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appel-lee.

Before MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Augu st 1, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00349

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.R., A CHILD

,

Appellant

From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3688CCL

Honorable Sergio J. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s motion to file his brief late is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief was filed on July

31, 2019. Appellee’s brief is due on or before August 20, 2019

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit
10.6





ADDENDUM TO ORIGINAL
LEASE








COME NOW, both the Lessor
(Kurt F. Evans and/or Lela S. Evans, d/b/a Evans Family Investments), and the
Lessee (Lakeland Industries, Inc.), and to the original Lease Agreement dated
August 1, 2001, with the parties agreeing that this Addendum shall be made a
part of the original Lease Agreement as though fully incorporated herein, with
the parties agreeing to the following provisions:





1. The
“Original Lease” shall be extended per its exact same terms with the following
agreed upon Addendum:





a)
Effective August 1, 2007, Lessee shall pay to Lessor the sum of Eight thousand
($8,000) dollars per month beginning August 1, 2007 and for an agreed upon term
of five (5) years;





b) Lessee
shall have the option to renew the original Lease as well as this Addendum
provided that they pay the new amount of Eight thousand eight hundred ($8,800)
dollars beginning August 1, 2012, for an additional five-year term;





c) Lessee
shall be further granted the option to purchase the leased premises located at
2401 Southwest Parkway, St. Joseph, Missouri, for the amount of Eight hundred
thousand ($800,000) dollars, which shall be the net to Lessor with Lessee
agreeing to pay any closing costs, real estate agent fees, title insurance or
any other expenses or costs related to the finalization of any such sale by
Lessor to Lessee.








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto set their hands, having read and fully understanding and
acknowledging the contents of this Addendum and accept this Addendum as a
further extension of the original Lease Agreement, on this 31st day of
January, 2007.








KURT
      F. EVANSd/b/a
      EVANS FAMILY INVESTMENTSBy:
            /s/ Kurt F.
      EvansKurt
      F. Evans, LessorLAKELAND
      INDUSTRIES, INC.By:
            /s/ Christopher J.
      RyanChristopher
      J. Ryan, Lessee
No. 00-6617.

#### Keyes *v.*Dormire, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-24-00009-CR

ANDREW JAMES GARIBAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 90th District Court

of Young County (CR11982)

August 22, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
#### Sheddrick BENTLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 98-2637.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 23, 1998.

Louis 0. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Christofer A. Clayton, Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and James W. Rogers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By petition seeking belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j), petitioner asserts that he timely requested that court appointed counsel file a notice of appeal. The petition is supported by an affidavit of trial counsel. In response to an order to show cause, the state does not object to the belated appeal. Accordingly, we grant the request for a belated appeal and remand to the trial court. The trial court shall treat this court’s mandate as the notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(j)(5)(D). If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent petitioner on appeal.

JOANOS, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, William J. Carden, certify that:1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Spectrum Realty, Inc.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 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 ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 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) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  November 2, 2006  By:  */s/ William J. Carden*    William J. Carden     Chief Executive Officer and Acting