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 Energy

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328]

                    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to withdraw its August 30, 1999, application for proposed amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Hamilton County, Tennessee. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of this amendment was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 6, 1999 (64 FR 54382).                

The proposed amendments would have revised the facility technical specifications (TS) by adding a Section 3.0.7 to address the use of interim provisions upon the discovery of an unintended TS action.

Subsequently, by letter dated October 17, 2000, TVA withdrew the proposed amendment application on the basis that approval of the amendment was unlikely because of legal concerns on the part of the Commission.

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated August 30, 1999, and the TVA's letter dated October 17, 2000, which withdrew the application for license amendments.

These Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the Commission's Public Document room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ronald W. Hernan, 

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00-28121 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Winfield
Capital Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul A. Perlin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 12, 2004                   By: /s/ PAUL A. PERLIN
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Paul A. Perlin
                                              Chief Executive Officer & Director


                  A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                      -19-
#### EDWARDS v. STATE.

No. 22836.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 12, 1944.

Noah Roark, of Dallas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a ten-year sentence in the penitentiary on a conviction for theft.

There are no hills of exception and no statement of facts in the record. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### The Knollwood Cemetery Co., Appellant, *v.*Cuyahoga County et al.; Village of Mayfield Heights, Appellee. Halliday, Appellee, *v.*Squire, Supt. of Banks, Appellant.

(Nos. 28153 and 28164

Decided December 18, 1940.)

*389*Mr. William T. Arnos,*for appellant, The Knollwood Cemetery Company.

*Messrs. Snyder, Seagrave, Boudebush dt> Adrion,*for appellee, the village of Mayfield Heights.

*Mr. James Bravo*and *Mr. B. W. Halliday,*for appellee, Robert W. Halliday.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, *Mr. E. S, Lindemann*and *Mr. Frank Wilke,*for appellant, S. H. Squire, superintendent of bants.

Weygandt, C. J.

The first question requiring consideration is whether the Court of Appeals entered final orders when it overruled the motions to dismiss the appeals and retained the causes for review on questions of law.

Section 12223-2, General Code, reads in part as follows :

> “An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when in effect it determines the action and prevents a judgment * * * is a final order which may be reviewed, affirmed, modified or reversed * *

Did the orders of the Court of Appeals in effect determine the actions and prevent judgments ? That the answer must be in the negative is apparent when it is observed that the Court of Appeals did nothing to determine the actions or to prevent judgments upon the merits of the controversies. On the contrary, the questions relating thereto were expressly reserved for future consideration. Thus it is possible that the appellants may ultimately prevail in that court.

In the case of *Thatcher*v. *Watson,*51 Ohio St., 561, this court held that the overruling of a motion to dismiss an appeal is not a final order. Fifteen years later in the case of *Home Building & Realty Co.*v. *Blasberg,*81 Ohio St., 482, 91 N. E., 1131, the court adhered to *390the earlier pronouncement. More recently in the case of *Leashley*v. *Rezac,*132 Ohio St., 304, 7 N. E. (2d), 229, the court restated the rule in holding that “the overruling of the motion to dismiss the appeal * # * is not a final order or judgment from which appeal may be prosecuted.”

Therefore, in view of the present posture of the instant cases, the only course open to this court is to remand them to the Court of Appeals for further consideration and final determination.

*Gases remanded.*

Day, Zimmerman, Turner, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32(i)**

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

                In connect with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "'Company"') on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2010 to befiled with Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "'Report"'), I, Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,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 as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

                It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| Date: October 13, 2010        | By: | /s/ Douglas P. Taylor      |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                  |     | Douglas P. Taylor,Chief Executive Officer           |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-24-0000568

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

GYM BIRTHDAYSUIT, III, a.k.a. JAMES PAUL CALZETTA,

Petitioner-Appellant, v.

JEROME D. ADARNA, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

HONOLULU DIVISION

(CIVIL NO. 1DSS-24-0000979)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the document filed on

September 30, 2024 by self-represented Petitioner-Appellant Gym

Birthdaysuit, III, a.k.a. James Paul Calzetta (Appellant), which

the court construes as a Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure

(HRAP) Rule 42(a) motion for dismissal of the appeal before it is

docketed and request for refund of the filing fees, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that the motion is granted as follows:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Within fourteen (14) days of this order, Appellant

shall contact the Supreme Court Clerk to provide

any information necessary to process the refund of

his filing fee for the appeal; 

3. Within twenty-one (21) days of this order, the

Supreme Court Clerk shall refund Appellant's

filing fee paid for the appeal, in accordance with

the information provided by Appellant;

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-24-0000568

03-OCT-2024

08:12 AM

Dkt. 15 OGMD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4. If Appellant did not intend to request dismissal

of the appeal, he may seek reconsideration of this

order in accordance with HRAP Rule 40.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order shall

be served on the clerk of the District Court of the First

Circuit.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, October 3, 2024.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Acting Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 214 (Friday, November 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28242]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-WA-38,072]


Jn Oil and Gas, Incorporated; Billings, MT; Dismissal of 
Application for Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for workers at JN Oil and Gas, Incorporated, 
Billings, Montana. The application contained no new substantial 
information which would bear importantly on the Department's 
determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-38,072; JN Oil and Gas, Incorporated; Billings, Montana 
(October 25, 2000).

    Signed at Washington, DC this 26th day of October, 2000.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-28242 Filed 11-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### TAYLOR v. STATE.

No. 24579.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 23, 1949.

None on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with burglary. He pleaded guilty and waived the right of trial by jury. The court -found him guilty and assessed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.

The record before us contains no statement of facts and no bills of -exception. The proceedings being regular, nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.3(a)


                   SECOND AMENDMENT TO GENOMIC SOLUTIONS INC.
                             1998 STOCK OPTION PLAN

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT to the GENOMIC SOLUTIONS INC. 1998 STOCK OPTION PLAN (the
"Plan") is made on March 8, 2001, but effective as of May 5, 2000.

         WHEREAS, the Plan provides that option grants to officers of Genomic
         Solutions Inc. (the "Company") shall not be exercisable for a period of
         six months from the date of grant;

         WHEREAS, this provision was included in the original version of the
         Plan as a safeguard to ensure compliance with Rule 16b-3 of the Rules
         and Regulations promulgated under the Securities and Exchange Act of
         1934, as amended;

         WHEREAS, it is not necessary for option grants to officers to not be
         exercisable for six months, so long as the option grant is otherwise
         exempt under Rule 16b-3.

         WHEREAS, all option grants made by the Company are approved by a
         committee of solely non-employee directors and also approved and
         ratified by the entire board of directors, making such grants exempt
         from Rule 16b-3.

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to provide greater
         flexibility in granting options while ensuring compliance with
         applicable securities laws.

         WHEREAS, the Board has the power and authority to amend the Plan
         without shareholder approval so long as shareholder approval is not
         required under any applicable law, including Rule 16b-3; and

         WHEREAS, shareholder approval is not required to authorize this
         proposed amendment.

1.       Section 6.01 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following Section 6.01:

              6.01    POWER TO GRANT OPTIONS.  The Administrator may grant, to
such Participants as the Administrator may select, Options entitling the
Participant to purchase Common Stock from the Company at such price, in such
quantity and on such terms and subject to such conditions, not inconsistent with
the terms of this Plan, as may be established by the Administrator. The terms of
any Option granted under this Plan shall be set forth in an Award Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Options granted to Officers shall not be
exercisable for a period of at least six months from the Date of Grant; provided
however, that the Administrator may grant Options to Officers that vest
immediately if the Grant otherwise qualifies as an exempt transaction under Rule
16b-3.

2.       The terms and provisions of the Plan shall in all other regards remain
in full force and effect.
Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 1 

Statement of STEVENS, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

JAMES FRAZIER v. OHIO 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
 

COURT OF OHIO
 

No. 07–9052. Decided April 21, 2008 

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. 

 Statement of JUSTICE STEVENS respecting the denial of 

the petition for writ of certiorari. 

While I agree with the Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case, it is appropriate to emphasize, as I have 

in the past, see, e.g., Knight v. Florida, 528 U. S. 990 

(1999) (opinion respecting denial of certiorari); Singleton 

v. Commissioner, 439 U. S. 940, 942 (1978) (same), that 

the denial of certiorari expresses no opinion on the merits 

of the underlying claim.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 22-0439 

MAYNARD WHITEMAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

GRANT OF MOTION TO 

PROCEED WITHOUT 

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE 

JASON VALDEZ, Yellowstone County 

Correction Center, 

Respondent. 

Motion to proceed without payment of the filing fee in this matter is 

GRANTED. 

DATED: August l lth, 2022. 

BOWEN GREENWOOD 

Clerk of the Supreme Court
Exhibit 31.2 CFO CertificationI, Egbert Ratering, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Sutura, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have   disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small business
Exhibit 32(ii) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connect with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2008 to be filed with Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark V.
McDonough, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
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 as of
the dates and for the periods covered by the Report. It is
not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Date:    January 4,
      2009
    By:
    /s/ Mark V.
      McDonoughMark V. McDonough,Chief
      Financial Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00017
- CR

Yordanys Avila
- Trujillo, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 274TH DISTR ICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. CR
- 17
- 0881, THE HONORABLE GARY L. ST EEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

This appeal was pre viously abated on May 16, 2019, because appe llant ’ s initial appellate counsel had not filed status reports requested by th is Court or responded t o our notices, resulting in a delay in filing of the clerk ’ s record and reporter ’ s record. After the trial court
conducted the required hearing under Rule 38. 8 (b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure , new appellate counsel was appointed.

T he clerk ’ s record and repor ter ’ s record were subsequ en tly filed, making

a ppellant’s brief originally due on July 26, 2019

. On August 15, 2019 , this Court sent a notice to appellant ’ s new appointe d counsel informing him that appellant ’ s brief was overdue and that a failure to file a satisfactory response by A ugust 26, 2019 , would result in the referral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Ru le 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. No response has been filed.2 The appeal is abated and r emanded to the trial court. T he trial c ourt shall conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal and, if so, whether
counsel has abandone d this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). The court shall make appropri ate written findings and recom mendations

. Se e id. R. 38.8(b)(2), (3). If necessary, the court shall appoint substitute counsel who will effectively represent appellant in this appeal

. Following the hearing, which shall be transcribed, the trial court sha ll order the appropriate

supp lemental c lerk’s and reporter’s records

— including all findings and orders

— to be prepared
and forwarded to this Court no later than October 14, 2019. See id. R. 38.8(b) (3)

.

It is so ordered September 13, 2019

.

Before Justice s Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Abated a nd Remand ed
Filed: September 13 , 2019
Do Not Publish