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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission. 

**Federal Register**                     Citation of Previous Announcement—78 FR 97 (January 2, 2013).                

# Date & Time: 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.

# Place: 

999 E Street NW., Washington, DC

# Status: 

This meeting will be closed to the public.

Changes in the Meeting—The January 8, 2013 meeting will be continued on Thursday, January 10, 2013.

# Person To Contact For Information: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shelley E. Garr,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2013-00290 Filed 1-7-13; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the Fund) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the Report), I, Kenneth I. Denos, Chief Executive Officer of the Fund, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: November 18, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Kenneth I. Denos   
|                         |  |  |  | Kenneth I. Denos       
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 14

- 00605

- CV

IN RE Maria VALDIVIA (Estrada)

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 19, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED AS MOOT

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus on August 26, 2014. This court granted a

temporary stay and requested a response to the petition on August 27, 2014.

Relator filed a motion to dismiss this mandamus proceeding on November 6, 2014,

advising the court that the matter in controversy had become moot due to the entry of a final order

in the underlying custody dispute . Accordingly, this original mandamus proceeding is dismissed

as moot. The temporary stay previously ordered by this court is also lifted as moot

.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2005

- CI

- 17414, styled In the Interest of A.V. and A.V., Children , pending

in the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales presiding.
# C_2016202EN.01005301.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/53

---

Article 10

In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

---
```

                                                                      Exhibit 23

McGladrey & Pullen
Certified Public Accountants

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos.
333-91367 and 333-66622) on Form S-8 of BNS Holding, Inc. of our report dated
January 29, 2007 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements,
which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of BNS Holding, Inc. for the
year ended October 31, 2006.

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
January 29, 2007
```
EXHIBIT 31.2IEA Income Fund XII, L.P.Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION     I, John Kallas, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income Fund XII, L.P. (the“Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 10, 2007   /s/ JOHN KALLAS John Kallas  Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer of CCC
Appendix A. Rules Establishing State Authority
This page intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing.
Appendix A. Rules Establishing State Authority

IDAPA 58.01.01 Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho

http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/0101.pdf

IDAPA 58.01.23 Rules of Administrative Procedure before the Board of Environmental 

Quality

http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/0123.pdf

Idaho Administrative Code

Title 67 State Government and State Affairs

Chapter 52 Idaho Administrative Procedures Act

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title67/T67CH52.htm
This page intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing.
**Exhibit
      32**





Written
      Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350





Solely
      for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.(the
      “Company”), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the Annual Report on
      Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended May 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/
                Fred R. Adams, Jr.Fred
                R. Adams, Jr.Chief
                Executive Officer





/s/
                Timothy A. DawsonTimothy
                A. DawsonChief
                Financial Officer





Date:
      08/04/2008
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clyde Brent ERICKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14853.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 1, 1977.

*751Sumner J. Hatch, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., William W. Barrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, Noall T. Wootton, Utah County Atty., Provo, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was convicted by a jury of theft of property having a value in excess of $1,000, a second degree felony. On this appeal he challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (2) error in the court’s refusal to give a specific instruction on the value of the property taken.

The claim of insufficiency of the evidence factually must fail. There is sufficient evidence to establish the various elements of theft and this court should not substitute its own judgment for that of the jury unless there is no competent credible evidence to sustain the verdict. This court must assume that the jury believed those aspects of the evidence, and drew inferences that reasonably could be drawn therefrom, in the light favorable to the verdict.1

As to the claim of error in the instructions it should be noted that no written request w?« made therefor as required by Rule 51, U.R.C.P. Furthermore, the word “value” is of common knowledge and usage, and an instruction as to its meaning is not always required. Although Utah Code Annotated, Section 76-6-101(4), does define value under the criminal code, this court has held that “market value” applied only to property which has been totally destroyed.2 Although the trial court might properly have instructed on the value of the property its failure to do so in the absence of a written request does not warrant reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

1

. *State v. Wilson,*Utah, 565 P.2d 66 (1977).

2

. *State v. Logan,*Utah, 563 P.2d 811 (1977).
# L_2004277EN.01001201.xml

| 26.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/12

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 45/2004

of 23 April 2004

amending Annex XVIII (Health and safety at work, labour law, and equal treatment for men and women) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XVIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 122/2003 of 26 September 2003 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XVIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 122/2003 of 26 September 2003 (1).

| (2) | Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 32g (Council Directive 2003/72/EC) of Annex XVIII to the Agreement:

| ‘32h. | 32003 L 0088: Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘32h.

32003 L 0088: Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9).’

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2003/88/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 24 April 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 23 April 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. WESTERLUND

---

(1)  
  OJ L 331, 18.12.2003, p. 48.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9.

2

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# C_2016202EN.01016601.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/166 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/166

---

Article 276

In exercising its powers regarding the provisions of Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of Part Three relating to the area of freedom, security and justice, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law-enforcement services of a Member State or the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 1, 2018

No. 04-18-00461-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.K.K AND H.A.K. CHILDREN,

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-2718-CV

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

This appeal was dismissed on September 5, 2018, because appellant did not respond to 

this court’s order regarding appellant’s failure to pay the filing fee for the appeal. In response to 

a motion for rehearing, we again ordered appellant to show cause in writing by October 5, 2018, 

that either: (1) the filing fee had been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying 

the filing fee.

On October 5, 2018, appellant filed a response addressing the merits of his appeal. 

Although appellant refers to his financial situation, he does not directly address whether he is 

entitled to appeal without paying the filing fee. Although this court may permit a party to 

proceed without payment of costs, appellant must file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment 

of Court Costs in order to establish his indigence. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c).

By order dated October 8, 2018, we again ordered appellant to show cause in writing by 

October 23, 2018 that either (1) the filing fee had been paid; or (2) appellant is claiming an 

inability to pay the filing fee and other costs of appeal by filing a Statement of Inability to Afford 

Payment of Court Costs in the form enclosed with the order. Our order cautioned that if 

appellant failed to respond within the time provided, the motion for rehearing would be denied.

Appellant did not respond to this court’s order. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is 

DENIED. The motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s attorney is GRANTED.
It is so ORDERED on November 1, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:___________________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
# C_2016202EN.01019501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/195 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/195

---

Article 350

(ex Article 306 TEC)

(ex Article 306 TEC)

The provisions of the Treaties shall not preclude the existence or completion of regional unions between Belgium and Luxembourg, or between Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, to the extent that the objectives of these regional unions are not attained by application of the Treaties.

---
#### State v. Kossman

24245

02/27/2003

Denied
EXHIBIT 31.2
IEA Income Fund XII, L.P.
Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION
     I, John Kallas, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income Fund XII, L.P. (the“Partnership”);
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:
          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and
          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and
          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.
     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2005   /s/ JOHN KALLAS    John Kallas  Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer of CCC
#### UNION TRUST COMPANY *v.*BARBARA ROTH ET AL.

(AC 18499)

Schaller, Mihalakos and Dupont, Js.

Submitted on briefs April 25

officially released June 27, 2000

*Howard A. Lawrence*and *W. Bradley Morehouse*filed a brief for the appellant (named defendant).

*Matthew B. Woods*filed a brief for the appellee (substitute plaintiff).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the owner of the equity of redemption appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion to reopen the judgment and to extend the sale date. Whether to grant a motion to open rests in the discretion of the trial court. *Hartford Federal Savings & Loan Assn.*v. *Stage Harbor Corp.,*181 Conn. 141, 143, 434 A.2d 341 (1980). The court did not abuse its discretion in this case.

The judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of setting a new sale date.
#### ART METAL WORKS, Inc., v. ABRAHAM & STRAUS, Inc.

No. 2.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 20, 1939.

Writ of Certiorari Denied Dee. 11, 1939.

See 60 S.Ct. 293, 84 L.Ed.-.

Haaren & Barrett, of New York City (David S. Kane, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Ward, Crosby & Neal, of New York City (Kenneth S. Neal and Joseph Lorenz, both of New York City, of counsel), for complainant-appellee.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This suit- to obtain an injunction and recover damages for infringement by the defendant of Claims 7, 12, 13 and 14 of United States Patent No. 1,673,727 to one Aronson through the sale of cigar lightets came before this court in 1932 and the patent was held valid and the claims infringed. Art Metal Works v. Abraham & Straus, 2 Cir., 61 F.2d 122. Thereafter the defendant was allowed to amend its answer in order to set forth alleged inequitable conduct on the part of the complainant in misrepresenting to the trade the scope and effect of the decision which had been rendered by this court.

An amended answer was thereupon filed praying that all relief, benefits and advantages which the complainant might be entitled to in view of the decree adjudging its patent valid and infringed should be denied because of its alleged inequitable conduct. After a hearing upon thé • issues raised by the amended answer a decree was entered in the District Court, 4 F.Supp. 298, holding that the defendant had failed to establish any inequitable conduct of the complainant and denying the relief prayed for' in such amended answer. An appeal taken from that decree to this court resulted in the reversal of- the decree and in the granting to the defendant of the relief prayed for. One of the judges dissented holding that no inequitable conduct on the part of the complainant had been shown and that the decree of the District Court should be affirmed. Art Metal Works v. Abraham & Straus, 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 641, at page 645. We have since sustained a petition for review and the cause now comes before us for a rehearing upon the original record. We are satisfied that an incorrect result was reáched by the majority of the court on the former appeal and that the decree of the District Court should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge L. Hand.

Decree affirmed upon the opinion of Judge L. Hand, 70 F.2d at page 645.