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


SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington,
D.C. 20549





FORM
8-K





CURRENT
REPORT


Pursuant
to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date
of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 22, 2008


__________________________________________





Lakeland
Industries, Inc.


(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware
            0-15535
            13-3115216(State
      or other jurisdiction
            (Commission
            (IRS
      Employerof
      incorporation)
            File
      Number)
            Identification
      No.)





701 Koehler Avenue, Suite 7,
Ronkonkoma, New York 11779-7410


(Address
of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)





Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code: (631)
981-9700





Not
Applicable


(Former
Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)





Check the
appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously
satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
provisions:





o
            Written
      communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR
      230.425)


ý
            Soliciting
      material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14a-12)


o
            Pre-commencement
      communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14d-2(b))


o
            Pre-commencement
      communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.13e-4(c))








Item  8.01
            Other
      Events.





On April
22, 2008, Lakeland Industries, Inc. (“Lakeland”) issued a press release
confirming that it has received a notice from Seymour Holtzman withdrawing his
notice of intent to nominate two individuals for election at Lakeland’s 2008
annual meeting of stockholders and advising Lakeland that he has no intent of
nominating anyone for election as a director at the 2008 annual
meeting.  A copy of Lakeland’s press release is included as Exhibit
99.1 hereto and is incorporated herein by reference.




Item
9.01
            Financial
      Statements and Exhibits.




(d)
            Exhibits.




The
following have been filed as exhibits to this Form 8-K:




99.1
            Press
      Release dated April 22, 2008.















SIGNATURES





Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto
duly authorized.








LAKELAND INDUSTRIES,
      INC.Date   April
      22, 2008
            /s/ Christopher J.
      RyanChristopher
      J. RyanPresident
      & CEO








EXHIBIT
INDEX





Exhibit
              Number
            Description99.1
            Press
      Release dated April 22, 2008.
Exhibit 31.2


            PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, John W. Peters, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Suncrest Global
Energy 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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which 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 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)) 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 small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

      (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.



                                /s/ John W. Peters
Date: November 8, 2005          ___________________________________________
                                John W. Peters, Principal Financial Officer
#### State of Missouri, Respondent, *vs.*Peters Myers, Appellant.

1. *Indictment*— Broker's *license*— Failure *to*obtain., *application for. etc.*— One dealing in bills of exchange etc., without obtaining the license required by the statute, (Wagn. Stat. p. *2H,*§ I) cannot shield himself from its penalties by showing that he made application for license and tendered the tax, as provided bylaw. See State vs. Jamison. (23 Mo. 330.)

*Appeal from Barton Circuit Court.*

*W. H. Phelps,*for Appellant.

*Jno. A. Hockaday, Att’y Gen'l,*for Respondent.

Sherwood, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was indicted for dealing in bills of exchange &c., &c. without having obtained a license so to do. He was convicted of the charge, and now relies for reversal on the point that the court improperly excluded evidence offered by him, to show that he had made due application to the collector in the manner required by law and had tendered him the requisite sum of money, but the officer refused to issue a license as it was his duty to do. There was no error in rejecting such evidence.

The law (Wagn. Stat. § 1, p. 247) applies to all who carry on the business of dealing in, or buying, or 'selling, or shaving any kind of bills of exchange, checks, drafts &c., &c. * * *' “without a license for that purpose continuing in force,” and punishment must follow an infraction of the law, regardless of the reason which prevented a license from being obtained or the motive actuating the officer'who, in dereliction of his duty, refused to grant it. The same view as here announced was taken by this court in relation to a dram-shop license, which the county court' refused to grant. State vs. Jamison (23 Mo. 330).

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

All the other judges concur.
PUBLIC LAW 110–452—DEC. 2, 2008 122 STAT. 5025 

Public Law 110–452 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To develop the next generation of parental control technology. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007’’. 

SEC. 2. EXAMINATION OF ADVANCED BLOCKING TECHNOLOGIES AND 

EXISTING PARENTAL EMPOWERMENT TOOLS. 

(a) INQUIRY REQUIRED.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission 

shall initiate a notice of inquiry to consider measures to examine— 

(1) the existence and availability of advanced blocking technologies that are compatible with various communications 

devices or platforms; 

(2) methods of encouraging the development, deployment, 

and use of such technology by parents that do not affect the 

packaging or pricing of a content provider’s offering; and 

(3) the existence, availability, and use of parental empowerment tools and initiatives already in the market. 

(b) CONTENT OF PROCEEDING.—In conducting the inquiry 

required under subsection (a), the Commission shall consider 

advanced blocking technologies that— 

(1) may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution 

platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms; 

(2) may be appropriate across a wide variety of devices 

capable of transmitting or receiving video or audio programming, including television sets, DVD players, VCRs, cable set 

top boxes, satellite receivers, and wireless devices; 

(3) can filter language based upon information in closed 

captioning; 

(4) operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the 

creator of such video or audio programming; and 

(5) may be effective in enhancing the ability of a parent 

to protect his or her child from indecent or objectionable 

programming, as determined by such parent. 

(c) REPORTING.—Not later than 270 days after the enactment 

of this Act, the Commission shall issue a report to Congress 

detailing any findings resulting from the inquiry required under 

subsection (a). 

(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘advanced blocking 

technologies’’ means technologies that can improve or enhance the 

ability of a parent to protect his or her child from any indecent 

or objectionable video or audio programming, as determined by 

Deadline. 

Notice. 

Child Safe 

Viewing Act of 

2007. 

Dec. 2, 2008 

[S. 602] 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLAW
122 STAT. 5026 PUBLIC LAW 110–452—DEC. 2, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 602: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 110–268 (Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Oct. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Oct. 3, considered and passed House, amended. 

Nov. 17, Senate concurred in House amendment. 

Æ 

such parent, that is transmitted through the use of wire, wireless, 

or radio communication. 

Approved December 2, 2008. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLAW
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50146

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jorge Antonio Casio-Caro, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-3631-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Antonio 

Casio-Caro has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Casio-Caro has not filed a response. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50146 Document: 00515829257 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
No. 20-50146

2

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42. 

Case: 20-50146 Document: 00515829257 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/14

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 14 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.50 N 76.81 W Meters AGL

★■

■

■

■

★

■ ■

■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★

● ●

●

●
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carl Joseph DAVIS.

No. 61523.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 1978.

Alton T. Moran, Director, Allen J. Ber-geron, Jr., Appellate Counsel, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., Marilyn C. Castle, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**China: Fibers and Oilseeds Statistics (90012)**
Exhibit


EXHIBIT 10.5


QUANTUM FUEL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES WORLDWIDE, INC
AMENDED AND RESTATED SUMMOARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Each non-employee director receives the following compensation effective July 1, 2015 unless otherwise noted:  
Stock Awards:
•  Annual grant of restricted stock equal in value to $12,000 issued on the day of the annual meeting.  
Board and Committee Retainers:
Board Retainer:
•All non-employee directors receive an annual retainer of $30,000.
•Chairman of the Board receives an additional annual retainer of $15,000.
Committee Retainers:
•Audit Committee chair receives an additional annual retainer of $14,000.
•All other members of Audit Committee receive an annual retainer of $7,000.
•Compensation Committee chair receives an additional annual retainer of $11,000.
•All other members of Compensation Committee receive an additional retainer of $5,500.
•Nominating and Governance Committee chair receives an additional annual retainer of $7,000.
		
	•
	All other members of Nominating and Governance Committee receive an additional retainer of $3,500.


Meeting Fees:  None
Payment of Board and Committee Retainers:
All retainers are paid in four equal installments following the end of such quarter.  Directors have the option to elect to receive all or part of the Board and Committee retainers in stock.  The number of shares of stock to be received will be based on the fair market value of a share of the Company’s common stock on the last day of the applicable calendar quarter determined in accordance with applicable listing rules. 
Expenses:
Directors are also reimbursed their travel expenses incurred in connection with attending a meeting.
No. 9520.

#### Ahlers, Exrx. *v.*Waltz et al.

(Decided May 22, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Messrs. Keam & Keam*and *Mr. Drausin Wulsin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. E. G. Beemelin; Mr. G. H. Beemelin*and *Mr. Jacob Shroder,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shatjck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
Fw: Interagency Review of EPA SOx /NOx Secondary Standard

Jan King to: Sherry Russell 07/12/2011 09:14 AM

Jan King

Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group

phone: (919) 541-5665

fax: (919) 541-2664

Mailcode: C404-05

----- Forwarded by Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/12/2011 09:14 AM -----

From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Laity, James A." <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan 

King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/07/2011 06:07 PM

Subject: Fw: Interagency Review of EPA SOx/NOx Secondary Standard

Jim, 

Karen wrote a quick response to your questions. I hope these are helpful. 

The proposed 1-hr secondary standard of 75 ppb would generally be more stringent than the current 3-hr, 

500 ppb secondary standard, although the relative degree of stringency would vary due to differences in 

temporal air quality patterns in different areas. The proposal notice proposes to keep the current 3-hr 

standard and to add the 1-hr standard.

The current secondary standard for NO2 is an annual standard of 53 ppb, which is the same as the 

annual NO2 primary standard. The proposal notice proposes to keep the current annual standard and to 

add the 1-hr standard of 100 ppb, which is identical to the 1-hr NO2 primary standard set in 2010.

The effect of setting secondary standards identical to the new 1-hr primary standard would be to 

recognize the ecological benefit of the reductions in oxides of nitrogen and sulfur that will result from 

strategies to meet the new 1-hr standards. It would not result in any areas receiving less protection, while 

some areas will receive directionally more protection than that afforded by only the current secondary 

standards.

"Laity, Jim" Lydia, Karen, Could you give me a quick answer... 07/07/2011 05:17:35 PM

From: "Laity, Jim" <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>

To: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/07/2011 05:17 PM

Subject: FW: Interagency Review of EPA SOx/NOx Secondary Standard

Lydia, Karen, Could you give me a quick answer to the questions below:

For Sox, Is the proposed secondary NAAQS of 75 ppb over 1 hour more stringent than the current .5 ppm (500

ppb) over 3 hours?    Are you also keeping the current secondary standard?  What is the practical effect of setting

the secondary NAAQs for NOx and SOx at the same level as the primary?  i.e. Are there areas that will receive less

protection or more protection?
What is the current NAAQS for NOx?  According to EPA’s website (http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html), it

appears that the secondary NAAQS for NOx is already the same as the primary?  So, what is the effect of the

revised proposal?

Thanks,   jim
Interim Decision #2339 

MATTER OF ALLMON 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-20284228 

Decided by Board January 16, 1975 

Petitioner is a United States citizen who sought immediate relative status for his alleged 

adopted son under section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Beneficiary 

was adopted in Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Article 400 of the Civil Code of 

Tamaulipas provides for adoption only by persons "who have no descendants." Petitioner 

had two natural children. Therefore the adoption was not valid and the petition was 

properly denied because the beneficiary does not qualify as the child of the petitioner 

under section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Act. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Pro se 

The petitioner is a United States citizen who sought immediate relative status for his alleged adopted son under section 201(b) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act. The petition was denied by the district director in a decision dated November 15, 1973. The petitioner 

appealed from that denial. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The petitioner presented a decree of adoption, dated December 5, 

1970, issued by the Civil Registry of the City of Matamoros in the 

Mexican State of Tamaulipas, according to which he and his wife 

adopted the beneficiary. 

The district director denied the petition nn the ground that the 

adoption was not valid inasmuch as the petitioner and his wife have two 

natural children. As the district director pointed out, Article 400 of the 

Civil Code of Tamaulipas provides for adoption only by persons "who 

have no descendants." We have secured a translation of Article 400 from 

the Library of Congress. It reads as follows: 

Art. 400. Persons over 30 years of age, in the full exercise of their rights and who 

have no descendants, may adopt a minor or an incompetent, even if he is of legal age, 

provided the adopter is 17 years older than the person adopted, and that the adoption is 

beneficial to the latter. 

We were advised by the Library of Congress, in a memorandum 

dated December 13, 1974, that Article 400 of the Civil Code of 

Tamaulipas is equivalent to Article 390 of the Civil Code of the Federal 

District and Territories of the Republic of Mexico, which apparently has 

been adopted verbatim by a number of Mexican states. 

165 
Interim Decision #2339 

We accordingly agree with the district director's conclusion that the 

beneficiary does not qualify as the "child" of the petitioner under section 

101(b)(1)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

The appeal accordingly will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

166
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Renee Y. DAIGLE.

No. 61225.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 22, 1977.

In re: Renee Y. Daigle applying for writ of certiorari and review. Evangeline Parish.

Writ refused. No error.

TATE, J.,

concurs: La.C.Cr.P. art. 230.1 (1977) requires an accused to be brought before the judge within 72 hours for purposes of appointment of counsel. An accused is entitled to be released forthwith until counsel is secured, if no appointment is made. Here the right to be released is moot, since counsel has been secured. The remedy for violation is exclusion of any statement secured when counsel should have been but was not afforded.

DIXON, J.,

would grant. The legislature has clearly provided that the sanction for the violation of 230.1 of C.Cr.P. is the immediate release of the defendant. This ruling ignores the plain words and clear intent of the statute.

CALOGERO, J., is of the view the writ should be granted. The law is unequivocal.

DENNIS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Nelson Mitchell Privette, Appellant

No. 06

- 17

- 00198

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

1725819 ). Memorandum Opinion delivere d by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of thi s date, we find that the motion of the appellant to

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Nelson Mitchell Privette, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED FEBRUAR Y 6, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk