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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 7807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0060]

National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Solicitation for Membership

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation for membership.

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

SUMMARY: We are giving notice that we have reestablished the 
Secretary's National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee for a 2-year 
period. The Secretary is soliciting nominations for membership on this 
Committee.

DATES: Consideration will be given to nominations received on or before 
April 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be addressed to the person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Joanne Garrett, Director, 
Operational Support Staff, WS, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road, Unit 87, 
Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-7921.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Wildlife Services Advisory 
Committee (the Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on 
policies, program issues, and research needed to conduct the Wildlife 
Services program. The Committee also serves as a public forum enabling 
those affected by the Wildlife Services program to have a voice in the 
program's policies. The Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson 
shall be elected by the Committee from among its members.
    We are soliciting nominations from interested organizations and 
individuals. An organization may nominate individuals from within or 
outside of its membership. The Secretary will select members to obtain 
the broadest possible representation on the Committee, in accordance 
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. II) and U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Regulations 1041-1. Equal opportunity 
practices, in line with the USDA policies, will be followed in all 
appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of 
the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups 
served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent 
practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent 
minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

    Done in Washington, DC this 7th day of February 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-3141 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
```
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1449

_____________________________
D YLAN E DWARD S IZEMORE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. John F. Simon , Judge

. May 21, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , R AY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney Genera l, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Ballard, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered July 10, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a redacted version of the defendant’s July 4, 1985, hospital records. Because the redacted version of the defendant’s hospital records contained more than just "facts which are 'plain to the observation of anyone without expert or professional knowledge’ ” *(Matter of Grand Jury Investigation,*59 NY2d 130, 134, quoting *Klein v Prudential Ins. Co.,*221 NY2d 449, 453), we find that the defendant’s physician-patient privilege was violated. However, the error in admitting the defendant’s hospital records into evidence was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt such that there is no significant probability that, had it not been for this error, the jury would have acquitted the defendant *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2033 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Anisic Aldehyde. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Anisic 

Aldehyde. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ANISIC ALDEHYDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.11.57 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Anisic Aldehyde) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2033 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 33.2
 Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria
 1.
    
    Pursuant to Subpart 229.1100  Asset Backed Securities, 17 C.F.R. §§229.1100-229.1123
(Regulation AB), Regulus Group LLC, for itself and its wholly-owned subsidiaries
(individually and collectively Regulus), is responsible for assessing its compliance
with the servicing criteria applicable to the remittance processing services it provides to
customers who are issuers or servicers of asset backed securities transactions and who have
requested confirmation of Regulus compliance in connection with loan and/or receivables
portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the
Platform). Remittance processing is a service whereby check payments that are
remitted by mail to a post office box are collected, processed through a highly automated data
capture system, and prepared for deposit to a bank account held by the beneficiary of the
payment.2.
    
    The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB were used in Regulus
assessment of compliance. Regulus has concluded that the servicing criteria set forth in Items
1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of Regulation AB are applicable to the servicing activities
it performs with respect to the Platform (such criteria the Applicable Servicing
Criteria). Regulus has concluded that the remainder of the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are inapplicable to the activities it performs with respect
to the Platform because Regulus does not participate in the servicing activities referenced by
such servicing criteria.3.
    
    As of and for the year ended December 31, 2008, Regulus has complied in all material respects
with the Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB.4.
    
    KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on Regulus
assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008. A copy of that attestation report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
 /s/ Kathy Hamburger
Kathy Hamburger CEOFebruary 4, 2009
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOEL GARCIA

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 274

- C R

Appeal from the

210 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 201 5 0D0 00100 )

O R D E R

On October 30, 2019, T. Brent Mayr was withdrawn as counsel of record for the Appellant.

However, it appears that the trial court has not yet appointed new counsel. Therefore, the trial

court is ordered to appoint counsel to represent Appell ant on appeal. The order of appointment

shall be filed with the trial court no later than December 16 , 201 9 . Further, the order of

appointment shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and forwarded to this Court no later

than December 26 , 201 9

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 6 th day of November , 201 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7224

BERT V.E. PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE TRENT; DONNA KUROSKI; ASHLEY GINANNI; JOHN DOE, 

Unknown,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:10-cv-00120-IMK-DJJ)

Submitted: November 21, 2012 Decided: December 28, 2012

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bert V.E. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Llewellyn Deniker, 

Sara Ellen Hauptfuehrer, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC, Bridgeport, 

West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bert V.E. Parker appeals the district court’s orders

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing 

Parker’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and denying Parker’s 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to amend. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Parker v. Trent, No. 

1:10-cv-00120-IMK-DJJ (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 10 & June 20, 2012). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
31.1  Certifications  I, Paul J.B. Murphy, III, certify that:  1.I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of New World Restaurant Group,
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 officers 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The
registrants other certifying officers 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):  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 registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.   Dated:  March 11, 2005
  By: /s/ PAUL J. B. MURPHY, IIIPaul J.B. Murphy, IIIChief Executive Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2248 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Bioallethrin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Bioallethrin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BIOALLETHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.32 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Bioallethrin) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and in7 serting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

10 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

11 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

                I, Herbert J.Lanese, President and Chief Executive Officer of DynCorp International LLC(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

 

(1)                                 the QuarterlyReport of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “QuarterlyReport”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                 the informationcontained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/  HERBERT J. LANESE

Herbert J. Lanese

President and Chief  Executive Officer

Date: November 7, 2007 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ezra Carter v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00838-CR

Trial court case number: 1576111

Trial court: 230th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the above-referenced 

appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). 

Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a form motion requesting access to a copy of the appellate record 

for use in preparing a response to appointed counsel’s brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 

315, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant further requests a 30-day extension of time to file 

his pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief

Appellant’s request for a copy of the record is dismissed as moot because appellant’s 

appointed counsel averred in both her motion to withdraw and her Anders brief that she mailed a 

copy of the appellate record to appellant.

Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file his pro se response is granted. 

Appellant’s response shall be due within 30 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Justice Gordon Goodman_____

 Acting individually 

Date: ___May 9, 2019__
# L_2006246EN.01000601.xml

| 8.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 246/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 246/6

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1327/2006

of 7 September 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 1 to 7 September 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 September 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 September 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
Exhibit  3(v)


                             CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                           CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
                                       OF
                                 PREFERRED STOCK
                                       OF
                         CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


     CLEAN  DIESEL  TECHNOLOGIES,  INC. (the "Company"), a corporation organized
and  existing  under  the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does
hereby  certify  as  follows:

     FIRST:  That in accordance with the requirements of Sections 141 and 242 of
the  General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the Board of Directors of
the  Company  (the  "Board")  duly  adopted a resolution proposing and declaring
advisable  that  (i)  The second sentence of Section 1 (a) of the Certificate of
Designation,  as  amended  (the  "Certificate"),  for  the  Company's  Series  A
Convertible Preferred Stock (the "Stock") be amended to provide as follows: "The
number  of  shares  of  this Series shall be 20,000 registered shares, par value
$0.05  per  share." and (ii) such amendment be recommended to the holders of the
Stock  and  submitted  to  such  holders  for  their  consent  and  approval.

     SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to a resolution of the Board, the holders
of the Stock, in accordance with Sections 228 and 229 of the General Corporation
Law  of  the  State  of  Delaware,  on  November  12, 2000 duly consented to and
approved  the  aforesaid  amendment  of  the  Certificate.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Certificate of Amendment to
Certificate  of  Designation  of  Preferred  Stock  to  be  duly  executed  and
acknowledged  in  accordance  with Section 103 of the General Corporation Law of
the  State  of  Delaware  on  this  22nd  day  of  November,  2000.


CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


By:  /s/  C.  W.  Grinnell
   ----------------------------
     Charles  W.  Grinnell
     Vice President & Secretary


                                       32
<PAGE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 10, 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, June 10, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0214. QUINTEZ D. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory 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:

19CR00758