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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1181 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1181

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2005

             Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To ensure an open and deliberate process in Congress by providing that 
 any future legislation to establish a new exemption to section 552 of 
  title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of 
   Information Act) be stated explicitly within the text of the bill.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIFIC CITATIONS IN EXEMPTIONS.

    Section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
            ``(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute 
        (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such 
        statute--
                    ``(A) if enacted after July 1, 2005, specifically 
                cites to this section; and
                    ``(B)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from 
                the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion 
                on the issue; or
                    ``(ii) establishes particular criteria for 
                withholding or refers to particular types of matters to 
                be withheld;''.

            Passed the Senate June 24, 2005.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### FIRST WISCONSIN MORTGAGE TRUST, a Massachusetts business trust, Appellant, v. KLT, INC., an Illinois Corporation, HNC Realty Company; a Connecticut Corporation, and HNC Mortgage and Realty Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, Appellees.

No. 76-2173.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 20, 1977.

*72Bruno L. Di Giulian, of Di Giulian, Spel-lacy, Bernstein, Lyons &• Sanders, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Lewis I. Horwitz, of Broad & Cassel, Bay Harbor Islands, Burns, Middleton, Farrell & Faust, Palm Beach, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAGER, C. J., and CROSS and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.
#### Com. of Pa., Appellant, *v.*Heiland.

Argued July 12, 1933.

Before Tbexleb, P. J., Kelleb, Cunningham, Baldbige, Stadteeld, Pabkee and James, JJ.

*P. G. Cober,*District Attorney, and with him *Joseph Levy,*for appellant,

cited: Commonwealth v. Simpson, 310 Pa. 380; Commonwealth v. Tremeloni, 93 Pa. Superior Ct. 432.

*189
      *John A. Berkey,*for appellee,

cited: Commonwealth v. Emery, 273 Pa. 518.

July 14, 1933:

Pee Ctjeiam,

The defendant was charged with setting up a gambling device “to wit, mint slot machines at which money and other valuable things were played for.”

The trial judge decided that the Commonwealth had failed to prove that the machine was a gambling device and directed the jury to render a verdict of “not guilty” and to dispose of the costs, and the jury did accordingly, and rendered a verdict of “not guilty,” and placed the costs on the defendant. The Commonwealth appealed. This it had no right to do.

In cases charging nuisance, forcible §ntry and forcible detainer, the Commonwealth is given the right of áppeal by Act of 19 May 1874, P. L. 219. For error in quashing an indictment, arresting judgment, after verdict of guilty and the like, the Commonwealth may appeal. After a verdict of “not guilty,” except in. the above enumerated cases, the Commonwealth cannot secure a review of the case. The rule is the same whether the result is an error committed by the trial court or a perverse finding of the jury. See Com. v. Weber, 66 Pa. Superior Ct. 180; Com. v. Preston, 92 Pa. Superior Ct. 159.

The appeal is quashed.
Exhibit 32(a)








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 Culp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Franklin N. Saxon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Franklin N. SaxonFranklin N. SaxonChief Executive Officer







July 15, 2010








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 Culp, Inc. and will be retained by Culp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Thomas M. DOZIER, Appellant, v. Jacqueline M. DOZIER, Appellee.

No. 77-724.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 14, 1978.

*64Gilbert & Schumacher, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Harold Peter Barkas, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and KE-HOE, JJ.

NATHAN, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the husband challenges (1) the award to the wife of $20,-000.00 lump sum alimony to be paid from the husband’s share of the proceeds derived from the sale of the marital domicile; and (2) the award to the wife of title in the personal property on the premises, except for the husband’s personal effects.

The record reflects substantial evidentia-ry support for the award of $20,000.00 to the wife as lump sum alimony. This portion of the final judgment is affirmed. *Shaw v. Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); *Herzog v. Herzog,*346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); *Storer v. Storer,*353 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

However, we find that the award to the wife of all of the personalty in the marital home constitutes a gross abuse of the trial court’s discretion. There is no testimony in the record as to the ownership of the personal property, nor is there a showing by the wife of special equities therein. Therefore, we reverse this portion of the final judgment and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to entertain further hearing upon motion of either or both of the parties, relating to disposition of the personalty in the marital home.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
January 12, 2016 

Dear Mr. Gu: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−5070). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air), and power source for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) 

should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be 

located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 1/26/16. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267–2999. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Program Analyst
#### MACK TRUCKS, INC. v. Harry M. EDGE, d/b/a Reliable Truck Service et al.

No. 61379.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

In re: Mack Trucks, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. 352 So.2d 709.

Denied.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

Certification of Treasurer



I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer, 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 23, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21582]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-549-502]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 
Tubes From Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1997.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit for the final results of the antidumping duty administrative 
review for the antidumping order on Certain Circular Welded Carbon 
Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (hereinafter, 
``the Act'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Totaro or Dorothy Woster, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230, telephone (202) 482-1398 or 482-3362, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Sec. 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the 
Department may extend the deadline for completion of an administrative 
review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the 
review within the statutory time limit of 365 days. In the instant 
case, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to 
complete this review within the statutory time limit. See Memorandum 
from Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa (August 7, 1997).
    Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the 
time limits mandated by the Act (245 days from the last day of the 
anniversary month for preliminary results, 120 days after publication 
of the preliminary determination for final results), in accordance with 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time 
limit for the final results until October 7, 1997.

    Dated: August 8, 1997.
Roland L. MacDonald,
Executive Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Office VII.
[FR Doc. 97-21582 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Jagged Peak, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 26, 2009, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 7, 2009
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Paul B. Demirdjian 
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
SERVED APRIL 15, 2010 

. 1 1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

LAKE CHELAN AIR SERVICE, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09NM0007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0096 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On May 11, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter 

referred to as "Complainant") filed a Complaint in this matter. Lake Chelan 

Air Service, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") had filed a 

Request for Hearing on May 5, 2009. 

Under date of April 13, 2010, Respondent withdrew its Request for 

Hearing, indicating that the matter had settled. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an 

agency attorney may withdraw a complaint or a party may withdraw a 

request for a hearing without the consent of the administrative law 

judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party 

withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the 

administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having 

been read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 
1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing be and is 

hereby granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09NM0007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Franklin L. Smith, Attorney 

Hedrick Smith, PLLC 

800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 

Seattle, WA 98104 

TEL: 206-464-1166 

FAX: 206-464-1811 

David F. Shayne, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057-3356 

TEL: 425-227-2165 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5411 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Order filed September 14, 2021 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00353-CV

____________

SHAKEDRIA WEST, Appellant

V.

THE ESTATE OF WANDA CASTILLE, REGINALD CASTILLE, AND 

MONICA HUDSON, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1159146

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due August 9, 2021. No brief or motion to extend time 

has been filed. Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before September 

28, 2021, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
No. 99-6240.

#### Flores *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2149]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-30, RM-8922]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Pocatello, ID

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed on behalf of Riverside Broadcasting Company requesting the 
allotment of Channel 221A to Pocatello, Idaho, as that community's 
fourth local FM service. Coordinates used for Channel 221A at Pocatello 
are 42-52-24 and 112-27-00.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 17, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows:
    Henry E. Crawford, Esq., Law Offices of Henry E. Crawford, 1150 
Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-30, adopted January 
17, 1997, and released January 24, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-2149 Filed 1-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit 23(a)


CONSENT of INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the inclusion in the  Registration  Statements of NCT Group,  Inc.
and subsidiaries  (the "Company") and to the  incorporation by reference in Form
S-8 (File Nos.  33-64792,333-90297,333-11213 and 333-47956) of our report, which
includes  explanatory  paragraphs  about  the  existence  of  substantial  doubt
concerning the Company's ability to continue as a going concern and the adoption
of the new  accounting  standards  on goodwill and for equity  instruments  with
characteristics  of both  liabilities and equity,  dated February 25, 2005, with
respect to Note 27, March 31, 2005, on our audits of the consolidated  financial
statements and schedule as of December 31, 2003 and 2004 and for the years ended
December 31, 2002,  2003 and 2004 which report is included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.



Eisner LLP


New York, New York
April 1, 2005
ex10_20.htm


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
      10.20

    


    Written
      Description of

    2007
      Executive Incentive Compensation Annual Plan

    President
      and Chief Executive Officer

    


    The
      following is a description of the material terms of the 2007 Executive Incentive
      Compensation Annual Plan (the “Plan”) that was adopted by the compensation
      committee of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) with respect to
      the bonus payable to Shaun Burke, the Company’s President and Chief Executive
      Officer, for 2007:

    


    The
      Plan
      will pay a maximum of $100,000.  There are three possible levels of
      incentive awards: threshold (25%); target (50%); and maximum
      (100%).  For any amount to be paid, the threshold level of performance
      must be achieved.  The three performance measurements of the Company
      (and the weight given to each measurement) applicable to each award level are:
      net income (50%); assets (30%); and core deposits (20%).  The
      following criteria must all be satisfied before an award is paid under the
      Plan:
      (i) net income of the Company of at least $6,510,000; (ii) satisfactory audits
      as determined by the Board of Directors of the Company including but not limited
      to a CAMELS Bank Examination Rating of 2 or better; (iii) no restatement of
      income for any prior period previously released; (iv) net charge-offs to average
      net loans do not exceed .20%; and (v) satisfactory performance appraisal,
      actively employed by Guaranty Bank, and in good standing at the time the bonus
      is paid.  If the Company’s net income, assets or core deposits for
      2007 are restated in any future periods, the award due or paid under the Plan
      shall be recalculated per the adjustment, and any difference between the
      recalculated award and the award previously paid will be repaid pursuant to
      terms established by the Board of Directors of the Company.  No
      additional amount, however, shall be paid based on the recalculated
      award.