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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, SGS North America, Inc., 6624 Langley Dr., Baton Rouge, LA 70809, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov*. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                    

*http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*

# DATES:

The approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger became effective on August 23, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2014.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: February 21, 2012.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. 2012-5101 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
Order entered January 30, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 007 39
- CR No. 05
- 15
- 00793
- CR MIGUEL GONZALES, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appea l from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F15
- 5952 7 - J, F15
- 59528
- J



### O RDER
The Court DENIES appellant’s third motion to extend time to file his brief.
We ORDER 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
T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 Christ i 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court isORDERED 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 day s from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
# L_2006282EN.01003701.xml

| 13.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 282/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 282/37

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1527/2006

of 12 October 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 6 to 12 October 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 13 October 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 12 October 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

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Sumter, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered July 10, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the 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 of grand larceny in the fourth degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that while the complainant was in the library at her school, she was sitting in a carrel on a straight-*660backed chair with no arms, and her bag was hanging on the back of the chair. When she felt the strap of her bag move and heard her keys jangling, she immediately turned around and saw the defendant walking away. On examining her bag, the complainant noticed that her wallet was missing. She immediately pointed the defendant out to a security guard, who chased and apprehended the defendant. During the chase, the security guard saw the defendant drop the complainant’s wallet into a garbage can. Upon the defendant’s arrest, money was found in his pants pocket in the exact amount and denominations that the complainant testified was missing from her wallet. Contrary to the defendant’s specific contention, based on these facts, the jury could reasonably find, in relevant part, that there was a sufficient physical nexus between the complainant’s body and her bag to establish that the wallet was taken from her person *(see,*Penal Law § 155.30 [5]; *People v Cunningham,*73 AD2d 976; *see also, People v Jones,*162 AD2d 151; *People v Evans,*131 AD2d 502, 503). 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 since this was a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the trial court erred by denying his request for a special jury charge on circumstantial evidence. However, we find that the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s charge request was harmless error *(see, People v Borazzo,*137 AD2d 96). The circumstantial evidence adduced at trial overwhelmingly established the defendant’s guilt of the crimes charged and excluded to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence *(see, People v Evans, supra,*at 502-503). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and notes included in this Form 10-K and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,766
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,038
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,958
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,843
<SALES>                                            225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,626
<CGS>                                               95
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,365
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,261
<INCOME-TAX>                                       561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,822
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,822
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42


</TABLE>
| (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 the Company. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |   |                                              |   |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: April 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Patrick G. Sheridan                      |   |
|                 |   | Patrick G. Sheridan , Principal Financial Officer |   |
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CRYSTALL LYNN LOWE,

 Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State. 

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-16-00255-CR

Appeal from the

426th District Court

of Bell County, Texas 

(TC# 75432)

O R D E R

The Reporter’s Record in the above styled and numbered cause was due September 24, 

2016, but it has not been filed. The Court Reporter has notified the Court that Appellant has not 

made a request for the preparation of the reporter’s record. On October 11, 2016, Mr. Steven 

Striegler, Appellant’s attorney, filed with this Court a Motion to Withdraw as Appellant’s 

Appointed Counsel on Appeal and Request for Appointment of New Counsel.

Before this Court considers the motion, it is ORDERED that the trial court conduct a 

hearing in order to determine if Appellant has retained new counsel or is entitled to the 

appointment of counsel on appeal. The trial court is authorized to enter any necessary orders,

including the appointment of new appellate counsel. In the event the trial court appoints new 

counsel to represent Appellant, the court should instruct counsel to take all necessary steps to 
2

ensure that the reporter’s record is filed.

Further, the trial judge shall enter any necessary orders and/or findings and shall forward 

them to the District Clerk of Bell County on or before November 1, 2016. The District Clerk 

shall prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and/or orders and

forward the same to this Court on or before November 10, 2016. Further, the transcription of the 

hearing shall be prepared, certified and filed with this Court on or before November 10, 2016.

The due date of the Reporter’s Record will be determined after the trial court’s 

findings are filed with this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of October, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
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 Quarterly Report of Jammin Java Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Anh Tran, President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.











Dated: June 20, 2011
By:/s/ Anh TranAnh TranChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)and Principal Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.1













CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, Woodrow Crouch, Chief Executive Officer, of International Power Group, Ltd. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on 10Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.







Date: August 18, 2008



/s/Woodrow Crouch

Woodrow Crouch

(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5746]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial 
gauger.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, 
Intertek USA, Inc., 3741 Red Bluff Road, Suite 105, Pasadena, TX 77503, 
has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic 
chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with 
the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity 
to conduct gauger services should request and receive written 
assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. 
Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific gauger service this 
entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be 
sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92f1f0e2bcfef3f0fae3d2f6fae1bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96f5f4e6b8faf7f4fee7d6f2fee5b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below 
for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited 
laboratories.
    http://cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/automated/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/gaulist.ctt/gaulist.pdf.

DATES: The approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger became 
effective on July 08, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be 
scheduled for July 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mike McCormick, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-5746 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10941 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELBERT DOUGLAS, JR., a/k/a Junior, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:92-CR-141-Y-03

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence filed by Elbert Douglas, Jr., federal prisoner # 23814-077. United States v. Freeman , 77 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 1996). Despite Douglas’s characterization of his motion, the motion is not based on newly discovered evidence, and it was not timely filed in the district court. F ED . R. C RIM . P. 33. Douglas’sNo. 96-10941 - 2 - motion to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dept , 811 F. 2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986); Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219- 20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Douglas’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of a waiver of this court’s requirements for appellate briefs is DENIED.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF  TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of California Independent Bancorp, a California corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Form10-K") that, to the best of their knowledge:



|Dated: March 25, 2003 |  |  | /S/  JOHN I. JELAVICHJohn I. Jelavich President and Chief Executive Officer        
|--------------------- |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 25, 2003  |  |  | /S/  KEVIN R. WATSONKevin R. Watson Chief Financial Officer and Corporate
Secretary

---

QuickLinks
April 20, 2011 

Mr. Chris Benich 

Vice President, Aerospace Regulatory Affairs 

Honeywell 

101 Constitution Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Mr. Benich: 

We have received your April 14, 2011, correspondence withdrawing your 

December 16, 2010, petition on behalf of Honeywell Aerospace for an exemption from 

§ 21.603 (a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

Your letter has been placed in the public docket (No. FAA-2010-1288). No further action 

will be taken on your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda D. Courtney 

Manager, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division
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 The Hartcourt Companies, Inc.. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Victor Zhou, Chief Executive Officer, and Rachel Zhang, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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 result of operations of the
Company.





Dated:
      August 29, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      Victor ZhouDated:
      August 29, 2008
            By:
            Victor
      Zhou
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              
              
              
              /s/ Rachel Zhang
              Rachel
      Zhang
              Chief
      Financial Officer





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.