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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

          - [C-508-605] 

# AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the time limit for the final results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on industrial phosphoric acid from Israel, covering the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

November 14, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Carey, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3964. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), the Department may extend the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit of 120 days after the date on which the notice of preliminary results was published in the                     **Federal Register**                    . In the instant case, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit.                     *See*                     Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman to Joseph A. Spetrini (November 1, 2000). Therefore, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for the final results to no later than March 5, 2001, which is 180 days after the publication date in the                     **Federal Register**                     of the notice of preliminary results for this review. The preliminary results were published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 6, 2000 (65 FR 53984).                 

Dated: November 1, 2000. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement Group III. 

[FR Doc. 00-29081 Filed 11-13-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

                             AMENDED AND RESTATED

                        CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF

                              CLARUS CORPORATION

          The undersigned, being the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President of CLARUS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, hereby certifies that:

                                      1.

          (a)  The name of the Corporation is CLARUS CORPORATION (the
"Corporation").

          (b)  The date of filing the original Certificate of Incorporation of
the Corporation with the Secretary of State of Delaware was November 20, 1991.

                                      2.

          The following amendment to the Corporation's Certificate of
Incorporation was duly adopted by stockholders of the Corporation at the 2000
annual meeting of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of Section
242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Code"), and
written notice of such meeting was given to all stockholders in accordance with
Section 222 of the Code.

                                      3.

          Article 4 of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
the Corporation shall be amended by striking paragraph (a) of Article 4 in its
entirety and replacing said paragraph with the following:

     This Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock to be
     designated, respectively, "Common Stock" and "Preferred Stock." The
     total number of shares which the Corporation is authorized to issue
     is 105,000,000 shares, of which 100,000,000 shares are Common Stock,
     $.0001 par value per share, and 5,000,000 shares are Preferred Stock,
     $.0001 par value per share. The rights and preferences of all
     outstanding shares of Common Stock shall be identical. The holders of
     outstanding shares of Common Stock shall have the right to vote on
     all matters submitted to a vote of the stockholders of the
     Corporation, on the basis of one vote per share of Common Stock
     owned.
<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CLARUS CORPORATION, has caused this Certificate to
be signed and attested by its duly authorized officers, this 13th day of June,
2000.

                                         CLARUS CORPORATION

                                         By: /s/ Stephen P. Jeffery
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Stephen P. Jeffery, Chairman, Chief
                                             Executive Officer and President
ATTEST:

/s/ Mark Gagne
--------------------------------
Mark Gagne, Secretary

[CORPORATE SEAL]

                                       2
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Moro Corporation,
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the
"Report"), I, David W. Menard, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to 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/ David W. Menard
                                          ------------------
                                             David W. Menard
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                               Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 14, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

AMANDA P., §

PLAINTIFF, §

 §

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1018-X-BK

 §

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE §

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, §

DEFENDANT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, Plaintiff’s Unopposed Application 

for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, Doc. 32, Petition and Brief for Award 

of Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, Doc. 33, is before the Court for the 

issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. For the reasons that follow, the application 

should be GRANTED.

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), a court must award attorneys’ fees and 

expenses if: (1) the claimant is a “prevailing party,” (2) the position of the United States was not 

“substantially justified,” and (3) there are no special circumstances that make an award unjust. 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2001). The award of 

attorneys’ fees must be reasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b).

Plaintiff seeks $9,409.04 in attorneys’ fees. Doc. 32 at 7. Having considered Plaintiff’s 

unopposed application and the applicable law, the Court finds the request reasonable. Thus, 

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, Doc. 

32, should be GRANTED in the amount of $9,409.04.

Case 3:22-cv-01018-X-BK Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1975
2

EAJA awards are payable directly to the prevailing party, not the attorney. Astrue v. 

Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 592-93 (2010). Accordingly, the award here should be made payable 

directly to Plaintiff but sent in care of her attorney. Jackson v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 527, 531 n.11 

(5th Cir. 2013).

SO RECOMMENDED on December 21, 2023.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by 

law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific 

written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. 

R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate where in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon 

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 

1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file 

objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-01018-X-BK Document 33 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1976
#### Robert Gus PEMBERTON, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 6, 1953.

Motion to Set Aside Order Denied May 1, 1953.

P. H. Vincent and J. W. McKenzie, Ash-land, for movant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Boyd Circuit Court. Judgment of conviction for unlawfully selling spirituous, vinous and malt intoxicating liquors in local option territory. $100 fine and 60 days in jail. The facts, questions raised, authorities cited and applicable law have been carefully considered by the Court.

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Department of Mental Hygiene of the State of California, Appellant, *v.*Samuel Renel et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March 20, 1958.

*Norman Moloshok*for appellant.

*Benedict A. Leerburger*and *Lee Hazen*for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment and order should be affirmed.

Steuer, J. P., Hofstadter and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of TELEFÓNICA
HOLDING DE ARGENTINA S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Juan Ignacio López
Basavilbaso, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|    | 
|--- | 
|By: | 
|    | 
|    | 



June
27, 2003
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 15, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128356 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128356 COA: 259678 Gogebic CC: 03-000168-FH GRANT MONROE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to a ppeal the February 22, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1 ), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

d1208 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 15, 2005

Clerk
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Terry L. Stevens, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the Operating Partnership, 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 results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ TERRY L. STEVENS                                                        
|Terry L. Stevens                                                            
|Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
the General Partner



January 19, 2005
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ OMRAN HOLDING GROUP, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________
2018

- 1226

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No s . 1:16

- cv

- 00446

- MCW, 1:16

- cv

- 00447

- MCW, 1:16

- cv

- 00448

- MCW, Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
A LEXA S ANTORA , Fox Rothschild, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by D IRK D ENSFORD H AIRE , K ELSEY M ARYHELEN O'B RIEN , Washin gton, DC.

P. D AVIS O LIVER , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washin gton, DC, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN , J R ., D OUGLAS K. M ICKLE , C HAD A. R EADLER ; J AMES D. S TEPHENS , Middle EastDistrict , United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wi nchester, VA.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (O’M ALLEY , R EYNA , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

August 8, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20997 Summary Calendar

MR MANUEL GAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DISTRICT COURT, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division; IRVIN, Federal DEA Agent; DAVID WOMACK, Montgomery County Task Force, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:06-CV-3661 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-20997

* Pursuant to 5

TH C IR
. R. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

2 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Manuel Gay, Texas prisoner # 597893, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The suit challenges a federal forfeiture order for his pickup truck that was seized after Gay was convicted of a federal drug offense. Gay does not address the findings that thejudgewho presided over theforfeiture proceeding is absolutely immune from suit and that Gay’s claim regarding the forfeiture is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed. B rinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy SheriffAbner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed,
even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Gay has failed to contest the district court’s reasons for dismissing, he has waived appellate review of those issues. See id. Gay argues that the district court erred in not allowing him to amend his complaint to include facts and defendants that would state a cause of action relating to the forfeiture ofhis truck. The proposed amendments to the complaint, however, would not have overcome the finding that any claim relating to the forfeiture is barred by Heck. Accordingly, Gay has not shown that the court erred in not allowing him to amend his complaint. SeeJacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986); J ones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326-27 (5th Cir. 1999). The appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. SeeNo. 06-20997

3 Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983 ); 5TH C IR
. R

. 42.2. Gay is warned that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint and the dismissal of this appeal count asstrikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that ifhe accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action
or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 285

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical corrections in the

enrollment of S. 2182.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 17, 1994

Mr. DELLUMS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical

corrections in the enrollment of S. 2182.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 2182)

3 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for mili4 tary activities of the Department of Defense, for military

5 construction, and for defense programs of the Department

6 of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal

7 year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, the

8 Secretary of the Senate shall make the following correc9 tions:
2

HCON 285 ATH

1 (1) In section 3136, strike out ‘‘20 percent’’

2 and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘80 percent’’.

3 (2) Amend the title so as to read; ‘‘An Act to

4 authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for

5 military activities of the Department of Defense, for

6 military construction, and for defense activities of

7 the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel

8 strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces,

9 and for other purposes.’’.

Æ
To: Project Files From: Nick Swanson

Date: May 9, 2011

Re: Notes from Linwood Furniture Site Visit

Plant manager: Bill Nebrich

President: Bryan Starnes

Environmental Consultant: Jeff Gerlock (Blue Ridge Geological Services, Inc.)

Established in 2006 after Lexington Furniture closed and moved overseas

o Utilizes one of old Lexington facilities

100% US made product

550,000 sq ft facility

70 employees

o Finish coatings done by three employees in batches

Fine furniture manufacturer (Bedroom, dining, and occasional)

Manufacture furniture from cutting of wood (design of furniture) to finished product

o Does basic construction of imported products

Do not dry own wood because the drying batches are too large for facility’s current 

usage

o Does do contract drying for others

Use “no formaldehyde” coatings

o Nitro-cellulose base

Use 4 types of spray guns to apply coatings

o Air assisted

o Air-less

o High volume Low pressure (HVLP)

o Conventional cup – for touch-ups

16 total types of finishing coats

Coatings are air dried with time (drying occurs in time between moving batches from 

one coating station to the next)

o Ovens are rarely used (occasionally depending on season)

o Steam powered

Wood debris is sole source of fuel for boilers