alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-CN.102 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011 Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Release Local 2010 Census Data for Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, West Virginia, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico **What:**
Next week, the U.S. Census Bureau anticipates releasing local-level 2010 Census population counts for Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, West Virginia, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. For each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, the Census Bureau will provide summaries of population totals, as well as data on race, Hispanic origin and voting age for multiple geographies within the jurisdictions, such as census blocks, tracts, voting districts, cities, counties and school districts. According to Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. With this final release of redistricting data files, the Census Bureau will meet its statutory obligation.  The delivery of these files will be ahead of schedule, consistent with previous 2010 Census operations. **What:**
Each state's geographic products and redistricting data are first delivered to the state's leadership, such as the governor and majority and minority leaders in the state legislative body. Upon confirmation of delivery to the state leadership, we will release a news release with five custom tables of data. Within 24 hours, the full set of five detailed tables will be available to the public online at http://factfinder2.census.gov. For more information on the Census Bureau's Redistricting Data Program, visit . **Online Press Kit:**
For more information about the U.S. Census Bureau, please visit https://www.census.gov and http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau). Please visit http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ for an interactive map showcasing county-level population change from 1960 to 2010, as well as state-level data on race and Hispanic or Latino origin for 2010. The widget will be updated as states are released and can be embedded on your website. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy R. RUDOLPH.

No. 62460.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Timothy R. Rudolph applying for writs of mandamus and certiorari. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of World Air Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W.
Towe, Chief Financial Officer 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 (the Act), that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.



/s/ Michael W. ToweMichael W. ToweChief Financial Officer of World Air Holdings, Inc.


August 3, 2007
# C_2012260EN.01000601.xml

| 29.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6667 — Marquard & Bahls/Linde/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 260/02

On 22 August 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6667. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6667. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Mimi BERMAN, Appellant, v. Edward BERMAN, Appellee.

Nos. 69-814, 69-815.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 10, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
# C_2013313EN.01000502.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/5

---

Appeal Chamber

2013/C 313/09

On 23 September 2013, the General Court decided that, for the period from 23 September 2013 to 31 August 2016, the Appeal Chamber will be composed of the President of the Court and, in rotation, two Presidents of Chambers or, where the Vice-President is called upon to sit, the Vice-President and a President of Chamber.

The Judges who will sit with the President of the Appeal Chamber to make up the extended formation of five Judges will be the three Judges of the formation initially hearing the case and, in rotation, two Presidents of Chambers or, where the Vice-President is called upon to sit, the Vice-President and a President of Chamber.

---
# C_2014073EN.01000501.xml

| 12.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/5

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation — Equity interests held by Rockwood Holdings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 73/02

On 5 March 2014, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

1

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301) or by post, under reference M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation — Equity interests held by Rockwood Holdings, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
#### Clyde MARTIN and Wife, Icy Martin v. Melonee YARBER.

No. 47075.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 27, 1973.

William E. Andrews, Jr., Purvis, for appellants.

Gray, Montague & Jackson, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lamar County; Howard L. Patterson, Jr., Chancellor.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and SMITH, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.
#### Elaine B. JACOBS, Appellant, v. Robert R. JACOBS, Appellee.

No. O-246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 21, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Certification of CFO Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

      In  connection  with the annual  report of  DataMetrics  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period  ending  October 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Rafik
Moursalien,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  does  hereby  certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that
to my knowledge:

            (2)   The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.

DATAMETRICS CORPORATION


By: Rafik Moursalien
---------------------------------
    Rafik Moursalien, CFO

Dated: July 6, 2006



                                       47
Directorate Identifier: 2010 __ -NMREGULATORY EV ALVA nON

oJ -AD 1---

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory ac ion"?

YES () explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES () explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Alphonse J. COMEAUX v. GULF INSURANCE CO.

No. 9767.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1974.

*561Gordon M. White, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Ken E. Barnette, Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and BLANCHE, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge:

Judgment was signed herein on June 19, 1973, and notice of judgment mailed the same day. On June 28, 1973, plaintiff presented a motion and order for appeal to the judge, who signed it on that date. The motion reads in part as follows:

> “. . . . Mover desires to appeal sus-pensively therefrom and in the alternative appeal devolutively therefrom to the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit, State of Louisiana.

> “IT IS ORDERED, that a *suspensive*appeal be granted to the said Alphonse J. Comeaux, returnable to the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit, State of Louisiana, on the *24*day of August, 1973, upon said Alphonse J. Comeaux filing a proper appeal bond herewith.”

The words underlined above were filled in by the judge in his hand, blank spaces having been left in the order for that purpose.

No further action was taken by the plaintiff until October 23, 1973, when he filed an “Amended Motion and Order for Appeal” alleging that “the original order fixing the appeal in this case failed to fix the bond for devolutive appeal. . . .”. He obtained an order fixing the bond for a devolutive appeal at $500.00, which was filed on November 20, 1973.

Under Article 2087 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the delay for filing the appeal bond for a devolutive appeal is 90 days after the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial. In this case, the delays expired on September 24, 1973. Plaintiff’s bond is clearly filed too late.

Plaintiff claims that his bond was filed too late because of the failure of the trial judge to fix the amount of the devolutive appeal bond at the time the original order was signed, and that this failure prevented the running of the delay for appeal. The contention is without merit. It is the appellant’s responsibility to perfect his appeal timely by filing the bond. The judge gave the appellant what he asked tor, a suspen-sive appeal, when he signed the first order. If appellant had wanted a devolutive appeal, he had only to ask for it within the delays provided by law, and he failed to do so.

Since the appeal bond was filed too late, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s appeal, and it is dismissed, at plaintiff’s cost.

Appeal dismissed.
#### J. E. STEVENSON, Jr. and M. Pickett Myers, III v. Alice H. KIKER (same as Alice Hazel Kiker), Individually and as Executor of the Estate of James R. Kiker, Deceased.

No. 44854.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 8, 1968.

Townsend, Welch & Terney, Drew, for appellants.

Robertshaw, Merideth & Swank, Green-ville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3095

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the treatment

of certain lump sum distributions under the pension offset requirements

applicable to State unemployment compensation laws.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 21, 1993

Mr. CAMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect

to the treatment of certain lump sum distributions under

the pension offset requirements applicable to State unemployment compensation laws.

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

3 That (a) paragraph (15) of section 3304(a) of the Internal

4 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirements for ap5 proval of State unemployment compensation laws) is

6 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph

7 (A), by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph
2

•HR 3095 IH

1 (C), and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following

2 new subparagraph:

3 ‘‘(B) the requirements of this paragraph

4 shall not apply to any distribution or payment

5 to the extent such distribution or payment is

6 not includible in the gross income of the indi7 vidual under subtitle A by reason of being a di8 rect trustee-to-trustee transfer or by reason of

9 a rollover contribution; and’’.

10 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take

11 effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 22, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 22, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0170. EDWARD BARBER v. LAWRENCE WHITTINGTON, WARDEN et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: NONE
Filed 1/15/14 City of Lake Forest v. Lake Forest Wellness Center etc. CA4/3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION THREE 

CITY OF LAKE FOREST, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

LAKE FOREST WELLNESS CENTER 

AND COLLECTIVE et al., 

 Defendants and Appellants. 

 G043817 (consol. with G043867) 

 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00298887) 

 O P I N I O N 

 Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R. 

Chaffee, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Howard|Nassiri, Vincent D. Howard, Damian J. Nassiri, Naveen Madala; 

and Donna Bader for Defendants and Appellants. 

 Best Best & Krieger, Jeffrey V. Dunn and Lee Ann Meyer for Plaintiff and 

Respondent. 

* * * 
2

 Lake Forest Wellness Center and Collective contends local bans against 

medical marijuana dispensaries are preempted because the Legislature made clear its 

policy determination in Health and Safety Code section 11362.775 that the cultivation of 

marijuana for sick Californians by qualified cooperative or collective associations is not a 

nuisance, and therefore, what the Legislature has authorized, the City of Lake Forest (the 

city) may not ban. We agreed in an unpublished opinion, and because the trial court 

granted the city’s injunction request solely on the basis of the city’s dispensary ban, we 

reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded the matter for further proceedings. 

The Supreme Court granted the city’s petition for review and later concluded in City of 

Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 

729 (Inland Empire) that local governments may ban medical marijuana dispensaries 

without triggering preemption by the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 11362.5) or California’s Medical Marijuana Program (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11362.7 et seq.). The high court transferred this case back to us to consider in light of 

Inland Empire, and because that decision is controlling authority (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. 

v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455), we affirm the preliminary injunction. The 

parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 

 

 ARONSON, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J. 

FYBEL, J.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 20, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 20, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A25I0030. LINDA LYLE HAMBY et al v. STEVEN L. MORTON. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 20A03796
#### GRAY PRODUCTS CORP., etc., Petitioner, v. GIGI'S ITALIAN AMERICAN RESTAURANT, INC., etc., Respondent.

No. 43693.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 8, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 275 So.2d 613.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleasesMiscellaneous

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB12-TPS.76**
**Contact:**  Public Information Office301-763-3030

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, OCT. 23, 2012

## Stay Connected to the Economy with Census Bureau Mobile App

This week the Department of Commerce will release two key economic indicators from the U.S. Census Bureau: New Residential Sales (Oct. 24) and the Advance Report on Durable Goods: Manufacturers’ Shipments, Inventories and Orders (Oct. 25).  Get the news on the go as it is released through the Census Bureau’s free, easy-to-use mobile app, “America’s Economy,” available for download for both Apple and Android phones and tablets.  The app provides real-time updates for 16 key economic indicators from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis.  <https://www.census.gov/mobile/>.

**No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6603

JOHN HAROLD JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-98-1952-WMN)

Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Harold Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Johnson appeals the district court's order denying relief

on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Johnson v. Corcoran, No. CA-98-1952-WMN

(D. Md. Apr. 8, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED