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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         February 8, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 179 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-172, CP2024-178.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-02532 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Kenneth Andrew HAYS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27879.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving a motor vehicle upon the public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7709

RONALD CLIFFORD JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

KIM MCBRIDE; LEON DUJOUN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

ALGER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DUSING;

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JONES,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 and

CLARKE-FAUQUIER-FREDERICK-WINCHESTER REGIONAL

ADULT DETENTION CENTER; RONALD WERDEBAUGH;

FRED D. HILDEBRAND; LARRY T. OMPS; NANCY

RHODES OMPS,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:04-cv-00050-gec)

Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 24, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGROY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Ronald Clifford Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Pemberton

Fessier, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, PC, Staunton, Virginia,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Clifford Johnson appeals the district court’s

order entering judgment on the jury verdict and denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s order. Johnson v. Clarke-Fauquier, No. 7:04-cv-00050-gec

(W.D. Va. Sept. 27, 2006). We further deny Johnson’s motion for

the preparation of trial transcripts at government expense. 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The financial statements as of June 30, 2000 and for the six months then ended.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         885,658
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  930,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (48,794)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,739,609
<PP&E>                                       3,963,110
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,043,927)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,658,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,714,207
<BONDS>                                        804,152
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,935,365
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    59,516,562
<OTHER-SE>                                (25,022,961)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,658,792
<SALES>                                      3,550,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,550,982
<CGS>                                        2,174,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,174,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,415,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (21,831)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,029,292)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,029,292)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,029,292)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.86)


</TABLE>
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 this annual report on
Form 10-K of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended April 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nicholas Konidaris, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



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

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Nicholas Konidaris               
|Nicholas Konidaris                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer

June 14, 2011

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7273

THOMAS MITCHELL STUTTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden of Broad River Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, 

Magistrate Judge. (8:11-cv-00191-SB-JDA)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Mitchell Stutts, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Mitchell Stutts seeks to appeal the magistrate 

judge’s order denying Stutts’s motion for an extension of time.∗

 

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

order Stutts seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

 ∗ It appears that the notice of appeal was incorrectly 

forwarded to this court as it was directed specifically to the 

district court judge who presided over the case when the notice 

of appeal was filed.
#### James W. HILL, Appellant, v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF CASTLE HILLS, Appellee.

No. 13136.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 10, 1957.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1957.

Ronald Smallwood, San Antonio, for appellant.

Bobbitt, Brite & Bobbitt, San Antonio, for appellee.

POPE, Justice,

The Building inspector of the City of Castle Hills, Bexar County, Texas, denied a permit to James W. Hill to construct a ten unit garage in a residential area. The Board of Adjustment and the District Court sustained that decision and Hill appeals.

Article lOllg, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Stats., grants the right of appeal to the Board of Adjustment, which in turn may grant exceptions or variances from the zoning ordinance. Courts in reviewing the Board’s decision do not substitute their judgment, but determine whether the Board acted legally and in a proper exercise of discretion. City of San Angelo v. Boehme Bakery, 144 Tex. 281, 190 S.W.2d 67; Board of Adjustment of City of Fort Worth v. Stovall, 147 Tex. 366, 216 S.W.2d 171. Hill’s application requested a permit to build a ten unit garage. The garage would provide shelter for six of his dump trucks, three family automobiles and a boat. Hill is in the business of hauling dirt and gravel. The trucks would be dispatched from the garage in the morning and would return at night. On those facts the denial of the permit was a sound exercise of discretion.

Hill claims that he has been discriminated against because other persons in the city are violating the ordinance. The implications from the judgment are that, factually, discrimination was not proved, and that the uses complained about were either non-conforming uses which *491antedated the zoning ordinance, or usual residence uses. Such, findings have support in the evidence. Moreover, the fact that a zoning regulation has not been enforced does not work its repeal. 58 Am.Jur., Zoning, § 192; 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 226(13).

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:




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




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







/s/Renyi Hou


Renyi
Hou


Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman


April 14,
2009





/s/
Heung Sang Fong


Heung
Sang Fong


Chief
Financial Officer


April 14,
2009







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Apollo Solar Energy Inc. and will be retained by Apollo Solar
Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Bruker Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe three months ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Frank H. Laukien,as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors ofthe Company, and William J. Knight, as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 
| Date: August 10,  2009 | By:    | /s/ FRANK H.  LAUKIEN, PH.D.                                                                            |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   | Frank H. Laukien, Ph.D.  President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman  (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                        |   |                                                                                                    |
| Date: August 10,  2009 | By:    | /s/  WILLIAM J. KNIGHT                                                                                  |
|                        |   | William J. Knight

Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)                               |

 

----
SAFEGUARD HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC.

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY




The  subsidiaries of Safeguard Health Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
are  as  follows:


1.     Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  an  Arizona  corporation
2.     Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  California  corporation
3.     Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Colorado  corporation
4.     Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Florida  corporation
5.     Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Kansas  corporation
6.     Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Missouri  corporation
7.     Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Nevada  corporation
8.     Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  an  Ohio  corporation
9.     Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  an  Oklahoma  corporation
10.    Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Texas  corporation
11.    Safeguard  Health  Plans,  Inc.,  a  Utah  corporation
12.    Guards  Dental,  Inc.,  a  California  corporation
       (A wholly owned subsidiary of Safeguard Health Plans, Inc., a California
       corporation)
13.    SafeHealth  Life  Insurance  Company,  a  California  corporation


                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
<PAGE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10160-10161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02857]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of a person whose property and 
interests in property have been unblocked and who have been removed 
from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN 
List).

DATES: OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on 
February 7, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, Director, 
tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-
622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; 
Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the 
Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-
622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Action(s)

    On February 7, 2024, OFAC removed from the SDN List the person 
listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked 
pursuant to section 1(a) of Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, 
``Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign 
Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation,'' 86 FR 20249, 
3 CFR, 2021 Comp., p. 542 (Apr. 15, 2021) (E.O. 14024). On February 7, 
2024, OFAC determined that circumstances no longer warrant the 
inclusion of the following person on the SDN List under this authority. 
This person is no longer subject to the blocking provisions of section 
1(a) of E.O. 14024.

Entity:

    1. SM DISTRIBUTION INC FZCO, Dubai Silicon Oasis, DDP Building 
A1, Unit 001, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; License 17750

[[Page 10161]]

(United Arab Emirates); Economic Register Number (CBLS) 11902588 
(United Arab Emirates) [RUSSIA-EO14024].

    Dated: February 7, 2024.
Lisa M. Palluconi,
Deputy Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of 
the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2024-02857 Filed 2-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
```
#### Kenneth A. JORDAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28300.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 30, 1956.

Robert K. Ramsey, Terrell, for appellant,

Wayne Pearson, County Atty., Kaufman,. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.

In view of our disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts will not be deemed necessary.

Appellant’s confession was introduced in evidence. The appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he signed the paper, which was introduced in evidence, without reading it when it was handed him by the assistant county attorney; that he was given no warning; that he had never before been arrested and thought that the requirement that he sign something was part of tire procedure of getting out of jail.

In his charge to the jury the court required them to find that the appellant had been warned but did not mention the other defensive matters raised by the appellant’s testimony.

By requested charges the appellant called this omission to the court’s attention.

We have concluded that the case of Cordes v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 529, 257 S.W.2d 704, 705, is here controlling. There we said, “He was entitled to a distinct submission of each defensive issue raised by the testimony.”

Another ground of reversal is reflected by the answer of a member of the Highway Patrol who, when being asked to describe the appellant’s appearance, said:

> “Yes sir, when you would try to talk to him it seemed like he didn’t realize that anybody was talking to him. He would just look at you. I asked him three or four times if he would give us a blood test. He never did answer * * **»*

While it is true that the jury were instructed not to consider the answer, we have *667concluded that this answer got before the jury the inadmissible evidence that the appellant had been offered a blood test and had refused to take it. See Cardwell v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 457, 243 S.W.2d 702, and cases there cited.

Upon another trial the witnesses from Dallas, where the appellant worked, should be permitted to testify as to his good reputation, even though they did not claim to know his reputation in Richardson, where he lived. The record discloses that Richardson is an adjacent community to Dallas and that a great many of its residents, just as the appellant, commute to Dallas where they are employed.

We trust that the argument complained of will be avoided upon another trial.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 25, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21A1338. DEWAYNE THOMAS v. THE STATE .

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On May 13, 2021, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a 

brief no later than May 24, 2021. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 25, 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.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.