alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 203 (Monday, October 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24253]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships; 
Cancellation of Meeting

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice; Cancellation of meeting date.

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

    The National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal 
Register October 1, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-22538 at 89 FR 79968, 
concerning a meeting of the Advisory Committee for Technology, 
Innovation and Partnerships. The meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 
October 30, 2024, at 12 p.m. (ET) is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Crystal Robinson 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#711203031e13181f02311f02175f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2744555548454e49546749544109404851">[email protected]</span></a> or 703-292-8687.

    Dated: October 16, 2024.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2024-24253 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### George W. McLuen, Appellant, v. District Township of Bear Grove *et al.,*Appellees.

Practice in Supreme Court; assignment of errors filed after STATUTORY TIME.'

*743*Appeal from Guthrie District Court.*— Hon. O. B. Ayers, Judge.

Saturday, February 7, 1891.

This is a suit in equity, by which the plaintiff seeks to-enjoin the 'defendants from removing the schoolhouse. A temporary injunction was granted. The defendants filed an answer, and a motion to dissolve the injunction. The motion was submitted to the court upon the petition and answer and certain affidavits, and the injunction was dissolved. The plaintiff *appeals.*

Dismissed.

*E. W. Weeks*and *Kauffman & Guernsey,*for appellant.

*F. 0. Hinlcson*and *Applegate & Brown,*for appellees.

BothrocK, J.

The motion to dissolve the injunction contained some eight different grounds therefor. Some five or six of these alleged causes for dissolving the injunction appear to be material, and are argued by counsel for appellant. The abstract of the appellant was served upon counsel for the appellee on the thirty-first day of March, 1890, and filed in this court on the fourteenth day of April of the same year. The abstract contained no assignment of errors. After the cause was argued by the appellant and appellees, the appellant filed an assignment of errors under the name of an “ amendment to the abstract.” This assignment of errors was served upon appellees’ counsel on the thirteenth day of May, 1890, during the term of this court, and two days before the day assigned for causes appealed from the judicial district from which the appeal was taken. The cause was submitted on the sixteenth day of May, and at the same time a motion to strike the assignment of errors was submitted with the case.

It is not claimed by the appellants that an assignment of errors was not necessary. It was determined by this court several years ago that an assignment of errors is necessary in a case like this. *Powers v. O’Brien Co.,*54 Iowa, 501 ; *Patterson v. Jack,*59 Iowa, 632. And we have held that, where .an assignment of errors was not served upon the appellee ten days before the first day of the trial term, the appeal will be dismissed on motion; and that an assignnient of errors not filed ten days before the first day of the term, and not until after the appellee’s argument was filed, cannot be considered. *Russell v. Johnston,*67 Iowa, 379. Section 3183 of the Code expressly provides that for a failure to serve and file an assignment of errors ten days before the first day of the trial term the appellee may have the appeal dismissed, or the judgment or order affirmed, unless good cause be shown for the failure by affidavit. Counsel for' appellees raise .the question in their argument. The appellant after that and without any showing whatever, and without leave, filed the assignment of errors, and afterwards the appellees moved to dismiss. There is an affidavit in resistance of the motion, but it is founded on hearsay ; and even if the facts were verified by the party having knowledge thereof, they show no “ good cause for the failure.” The appeal will be dismissed.
# L_2012294EN.01000801.xml

| 24.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 294/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 294/8

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 22 October 2012

appointing an Austrian member and an Austrian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2012/657/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Markus LINHART. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Markus LINHART.

| (3) | An alternate member’s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Hannes WENINGER as member of the Committee of the Regions, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

An alternate member’s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Hannes WENINGER as member of the Committee of the Regions,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| (a) | as member:






  — | Mr Hannes WENINGER, Geschäftsführender Gemeinderat und Abgeordneter zum Nationalrat; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

as member:

—

Mr Hannes WENINGER, Geschäftsführender Gemeinderat und Abgeordneter zum Nationalrat;

and

| (b) | as alternate member:






  — | Mr Markus LINHART, Bürgermeister. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

as alternate member:

—

Mr Markus LINHART, Bürgermeister.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 22 October 2012.

For the Council

The President

S. ALETRARIS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Additional Information 1. Economic Evaluation 2. NPRM Grid
#### Moody v. Edwards et al.

1. Appeal: practice: CERTipyiNS evidence: time. In order to a trial *de novo*in this court, appellant must show affirmatively that the transcript of the short-hand reporter’s notes was properly certified within six months after the entry of the judgment appealed from. *(Merrill v. Bowe,*69 Iowa, 653, followed.;

*Appeal from Guthrie Circuit Court.*

Friday, October 7.

ActioN in equity. From the judgment S. R. Moody and others, intervenors, appeal.

*Chas. S. Fogg*and *Howard M.*Kellogg, for appellants.

*Willard da Fletcher*and *C. A. dh J. G.*Berry, for appellees.

Servers, J.

No errors are assigned, and counsel for the appellees insist that this cause cannot be tried *de novo*in this court, for the reason that the evidence was not properly certified and filed within six months after the j udgment. The evidence, or a portion of it, was introduced and heard in open court, and the same taken in short-hand by the reporter.

,The judgment was rendered and entered of record in December, 1S86; and the judge indorsed upon the short-hand notes a proper certificate, but it does not appear when such certificate was made. Such notes were filed in the clerk’s office in July, 1887, being more than six months after judgment was entered. A transcript thereof was not filed in the clerk’s office until October, 1887, being ten months after the entry of judgment. This transcript was certified to by the reporter, but the certificate is not dated. The burden is on the appellants to show that the transcript of the short-hand notes was properly certified within six months after the entry of judgment. As appellants have failed to do this, it follows that, following *Merrill v.*Bowe, 69 Iowa, 653, this cause cannot be tried anew; and therefore the judgment of the circuit court must be Aeeirhep.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          15,367
<SECURITIES>                                     5,475
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,138
<PP&E>                                          13,279
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,336
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,465
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,338
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,073
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (921)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,291)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,291)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.61)


</TABLE>
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 14 ) ll-K - (B ) - 2 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:48 AM Sheet 14 of 325P. 2 

# m 

# Pi i 'i=z\ a

II-K-(B)- 2

PROPOSE D LIS T O F COAL TYPE S FORINDUSTRIAL BOILER S ALTERNATIV E REGULATOR YOPTION S ANALYSIS . Lette r fro

m E . Medine , EE

A t o Dr . A . Wehe , EPArSASD . Apri l 20 , 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUN DI N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)- 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 4112** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. STACY ERWIN JONES , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston

. Thomas E. Johnston , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cr - 00080

- 1 )

Submitted : September 18, 2015 Decided: September 29, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, f or Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stacy Erwin Jones appeals the district court’s judgment sentencing him to 30 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release after the jury convicted him of aidi ng and abetting the distribution of heroin. In the district court, Jones objected to the probation officer’s calculation of his relevant conduct, but his attorney withdrew the objection in an agreement with the Government resulting in a lower Guidelines r ange. On appeal, he raises the issue of whether the district court erred in accepting defense counsel’s withdrawal of his objections and determining his relevant conduct pursuant to the agreement between defense counsel and the Government. We affirm.
Jo nes did not challenge the district court’s acceptance of counsel’s withdrawal in the district court. We thus review this issue for plain error. See United States v. Obey , 790 F.3d 545, 547 (4th Cir. 2015). Jones “must show that an error occurred, that i t was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights.” Id. (citation omitted). Even if he makes this showing, “we will correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citat ion and internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and Jones’ brief, and we conclude that he fails to show plain error affecting his substantial rights.3 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argum ent because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 23.1


                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-83285) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Option/Stock Issuance
Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated January 22, 2001,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Inet
Technologies, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2000 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                                           ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 22, 2001
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20986 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. AMIN ALI NAZARALLY, also known as Antonio Villareal Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-35-ALL
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Amin Ali Nazarally appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence is unreasonable as a matter of law because this court’s use of a presumption of reasonableness for sentences imposed within the properly calculated guidelines range effectively reinstates the mandatory guidelines regime struck down in United Statesv. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He concedesNo. 06-20986

2 that the argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but he raises it to preserve it for further re

view. The argument fails as the Supreme Court has since affirmed the use of a presumption of reasonableness. R ita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-66 (2007). Nazarally’s constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Nazarally contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule A lmendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Rangel-Reyes
v. United States, 126S. Ct. 2873 (2006); United Statesv. Pineda-Arrellano, 2007 U.S. A pp. LEXIS 16925 (5th Cir. July 17, 2007). Nazarally properly concedes that his argument is forecl osed in light of A lmendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1:

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kevin J. Zugibe, as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Company.





|/s/ Kevin J. Zugibe        
|---------------------------
|Kevin J. Zugibe            
|Chief Executive Officer and
|Chairman of the Board      
|                           
|May 8, 2007
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25296]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

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: October 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 22, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
405 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-133, K2025-131.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25296 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND>
                                   Quarterly Report for Goran Capital Inc.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                              0000925600
<NAME>                             Goran Capital Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           144,644,000
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     20,324,000
<MORTGAGE>                                     1,930,000
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  1,185,000
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 168,083,000
<CASH>                                         21,948,000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             71,418,000
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         10,151,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 662,311,000
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                168,577,000
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            192,150,000
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                4,582,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          112,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       19,132,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (19,439,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   662,311,000
<PREMIUMS>                                     92,384,000
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            5,898,000
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (1,316,000)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 7,646,000
<BENEFITS>                                     74,494,000
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    3,769,000
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           28,353,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,004,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   487,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,738,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,738,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.49)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 219,918,000
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            78,559,000
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              90,018,000
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             37,979,000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               66,290,000
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                168,577,000
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        (4,285,000)



</TABLE>
*October 7, 1941.*

#### Schaefer, Respondent, vs. Schaefer, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Lilian M. Kohlmets*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Michael Klein*of Milwaukee.

*By the Co%irt.*

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of Fantatech Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for  the  quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carl
Yuen,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to Rule
13a-14(b)  and  18  U.S.C.  Sec.  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.


Date: May 24, 2005                          BY: /s/ Carl Yuen
                                            -------------------------
                                            Carl  Yuen
                                            Chief  Financial  Officer