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

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8951]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Keir Collection of Art of the Islamic World'' 
Exhibitions

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibitions of ``Keir Collection of Art of the Islamic 
World,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, TX, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, from on about October 1, 
2015, until on or about December 31, 2019, is in the national interest. 
I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published 
in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: November 10, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-27132 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF  THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION

I,
Robert F. Orlich, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Transatlantic Holdings, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant and have:



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



/s/ ROBERT F. ORLICH Robert F. Orlich President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:
February 24, 2010

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, in his capacity as an officer of KSwiss Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| |  |  | The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 21, 2005



|                      |  |                                                                               
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    STEVEN NICHOLS
|Name:                 |  | Steven Nichols                                                                
|Title:                |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                         
|                     
|/s/    GEORGE POWLICK
|Name:                 |  | George Powlick                                                                
|Title:                |  | Vice President of Finance, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|
Order entered November 25, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00541-CR

SANTANA GAONA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-61227-V

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

July 12, 2024

BRITTNEY C. SHEDD v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF NURSING

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Rutherford County

No. 22CV-2204 Bonita Jo Atwood, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2024-01018-COA-R3-CV

___________________________________

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a complaint for judicial review. Because 

the appellant did not file her notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate court within 

thirty days after entry of the order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 

4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

ANDY D. BENNETT, W. NEAL MCBRAYER, and JEFFREY USMAN, JJ.

Brittney Chanel Shedd, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, pro se.

Rachel Greer Appelt, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Tennessee Board of Nursing.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Brittney Chanel Shedd has filed a notice of appeal from an order entered on April 

13, 2023, dismissing her Complaint for Judicial Review for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) requires that a notice of appeal 

be filed with the clerk of the appellate court within thirty days after entry of the judgment 

appealed. Ms. Shedd did not file her notice of appeal until July 11, 2024, more than a year 

after entry of the judgment. 

 

1A case designated as a memorandum opinion “shall not be published, and shall not be cited or 

relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.” Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10.

07/16/2024
- 2 -

The thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and 

jurisdictional. Albert v. Frye, 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn. 2004); Binkley v. Medling, 117 

S.W.3d 252, 255 (Tenn. 2003). This Court can neither waive nor extend the time period. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 2 and 21(b); Flautt & Mann v. Council of City of Memphis, 285 S.W.3d 

856, 868 at n.1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008); Jefferson v. Pneumo Servs. Corp., 699 S.W.2d 181, 

184 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). The failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives this Court 

of jurisdiction to hear the matter. Flautt & Mann v. Council of City of Memphis, 285 

S.W.3d at 869 at n.1.

The appeal is dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. All pending 

requests for relief are denied. Ms. Shedd is taxed with the costs for which execution may 

issue.

PER CURIAM
Treasury approves Mississippi’s plan to invest $3 million of CPF funding in 

Digital Connectivity Technology projects that aim to address gaps in digital 

equity, affordability, and broadband adoption.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Mississippi

 

▪ Program Summary: $3 million for Digital Connectivity Technology (2% of CPF allocation)

▪ Program Description: The digital connectivity category of

Mississippi’s Broadband Expansion and Accessibility of

Mississippi (BEAM) Fund program will increase the availability

of free public wi-fi in community facilities such as libraries and

community centers. The program will prioritize projects that

demonstrate community support, have high social and economic

impact, and are scalable to increase speeds. 

▪ Key State Contact: Office of BEAM, a division of the Department of Finance and 

Administration

Mississippi Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information

Mississippi estimates 

this program will 

serve more than 

50,000 individuals 

annually
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  Certification Pursuant To Section 906 Of The
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Datascope
Corp. (the "Company") for the Quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         o        the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         o        the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


May 17, 2004



                            /s/ Lawrence Saper
                           -------------------------------------------------
                           Lawrence Saper
                           Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




                            /s/ Murray Pitkowsky
                           -------------------------------------------------
                           Murray Pitkowsky
                           Senior V.P., Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

 

 

COMMISSIONERS: Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman 

 Julie Brill 

 Maureen K. Ohlhausen 

 Joshua D. Wright 

 

________________________________________________ 

 ) 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Ardagh Group S.A, a public limited liability company, ) Docket No. 9356 

 and ) 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., a corporation, ) PUBLIC 

 and ) 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, a corporation. ) 

________________________________________________) 

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING 

In the event that a lapse in appropriations results in a shutdown of most Commission 

operations, the Commission hereby directs that this proceeding be stayed for the duration of the 

shutdown and for an additional five business days thereafter. The evidentiary hearing date and 

any pre-hearing deadlines will be extended by the number of business days of the stay. The 

Administrative Law Judge retains discretion to adjust any such pre-hearing deadlines to the 

extent compatible with the hearing date as extended by this Order or to make a recommendation 

to the Commission regarding an alternative hearing date. Accordingly, 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 By the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

ISSUED: September 30, 2013
#### Robert John McGOWAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2181.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 15, 1977.

*1117Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Chief, Appellate Division, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MOORE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for possession of marijuana which was predicated upon a nolo contendere plea with reservation of right to appeal the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.

Appellant and a friend were parked at night on a dirt road in a somewhat isolated, wooded area when a police unit pulled alongside. Both vehicles had the windows open and the police officer who had been trained at the police academy to detect the odor of marijuana did in fact detect a strong odor of the substance. He also witnessed appellant “lean forward as if to put a cigarette or something of that nature out in the ashtray.”

Under the circumstances the officer requested appellant and his companion to exit their vehicle whereupon he told appellant what he had smelled and advised that if they had any more of the unburned substance that he wanted it. Appellant reached in his vehicle and retrieved a baggie which contained suspect marijuana and handed it to the officer. Appellant was then placed under arrest and advised of his “Miranda rights.”

Upon further questioning appellant opened his trunk and handed the officer additional marijuana. These were two other instances where marijuana was found but these are not the subject of this appeal.

Arriving in a secluded, wooded area in the dark of night, finding a vehicle containing two occupants parked with its lights out and detecting a strong odor of marijuana gave the officer probable cause that a crime was being committed. Under these circumstances, the evidence of such crime could well have vanished if a search warrant had been sought. It has been held that the detection of an odor of marijuana by one trained to detect such odor is sufficient probable cause to conduct a search. See *Berry v. State,*316 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) and *State v. Jones,*222 So.2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). The fact that the officer requested appellant to hand him any remaining unburned substance in lieu of conducting an otherwise valid search should not militate against admission of such evidence so obtained.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 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 Annual Report of ML Life Insurance Company of New York
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Deborah J. Adler, Chairman of the Board,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Actuary of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 results of
operations of the Company.



| | /s/ DEBORAH J. ADLER
Deborah J. Adler
Chairman of the Board,
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Actuary
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 28,
2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ML Life Insurance Company of New York and will be retained by ML
Life Insurance Company of New York and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0529 IN THE MATTER OF: Y.S., Respondent and Appellant . **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 8 2022

08/08/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0529
#### In re ESTATE of Charles DECKER, Deceased.

No. 72-868.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 4, 1973.

William A. Johnson, of Johnson, Acker-man & Babst, James C. Blanton, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Robert C. Salisbury, of Caldwell, Pacetti, Barrow & Salisbury, Palm Beach, for ap-pellees Louis Rosansky, Herman Rosansky, Meyer Rosansky, Bessie Myers, Eva Hawthorne, and Meyer Rosansky as Conservator of Sarah Rosansky.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court correctly analyzed and determined that the testamentary trust in question violated the rule against perpe-tuities. No reversible error appearing the appealed judgment is

Affirmed.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0672 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-058-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 12-AD-39

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2423 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2423

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to provide that 
grand and petit jurors serving in the Superior Court of the District of 
  Columbia shall receive fees and expenses at the same rates paid to 
 grand and petit jurors appearing in the district courts of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2021

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to provide that 
grand and petit jurors serving in the Superior Court of the District of 
  Columbia shall receive fees and expenses at the same rates paid to 
 grand and petit jurors appearing in the district courts of the United 
                                States.

    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 ``District of Columbia Juror Pay 
Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHING FEES FOR JURORS SERVING IN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE 
              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AT SAME RATES PAID FOR JURORS 
              SERVING IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.

    (a) Establishment of Fees.--Section 11-1912(a), District of 
Columbia Official Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) Grand and petit jurors serving in the Superior Court shall 
receive fees and expenses at rates equivalent to the rates provided 
under section 1871 of title 28, United States Code, for fees and 
allowances paid to grand and petit jurors appearing in the district 
courts of the United States.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 15-718, District of Columbia 
Official Code, is repealed.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply 
with respect to fees and expenses paid on or after the first day of the 
first fiscal year which begins after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```