alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 24905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10211]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Deletions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Deletions from the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: This action deletes products from the Procurement List that 
were previously furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who 
are blind or have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Effective: 6/1/2015.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-
4149.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 
603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Deletions

    On 3/27/2015 (80 FR 16363-16364), the Committee for Purchase from 
People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed 
deletions from the Procurement List.
    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee 
has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable 
for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 
41 CFR 51-2.4.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors 
considered for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish 
the products to the Government.
    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 
8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement 
List.

End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the 
Procurement List:

Products

Product Name/NSN(s): Tray, Desk, Plastic, 7520-01-466-0483, 7520-01-
094-4310--Side Loading, Stackable, Legal, Beige
Mandatory Source of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC
Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-10211 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7067
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE ANGEL PEREZ, a/k/a Angel, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-26-F) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Angel Perez, Appellant Pro Se. John Douglas McCullough, Assistant United States Atto rney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying Appellant's motion for a reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Perez , No. CR-93-26-F (E.D.N.C. May 23, 1996). 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
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 129447 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 129447 COA: 260889 Van Buren CC: 00-011806-FC GALE LYNN FISHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1121 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.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
#### Potter vs. Brown County.

*November 21*

December *12, 1882.*

Practice: Taxation. *(1) When findings unnecessary. (S) Stay of proceedings for reassessment, when required.*

1. If no issue is joined, in an action triable by the court, formal findings of fact are unnecessary,

2. In an action against a county to set aside tax certificates, on the ground that the assessment was illegal and void, and for other defects in the proceedings going to the groundwork of the tax, if the defendant fails to answer the complaint, final judgment may be entered; and it is unnecessary in such case (under sec. 1210b, R. S.), to stay the proceedings until a reassessment can be had.

APPEAL from the- Circuit Court for *Brown*County.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Chas. E.*Vroman, district attorney.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Tracy <& Bailey,*and oral argument by *Mr. Tracy.*

*273Oetoh, J.

This action was to set aside and cancel certain tax certificates on the plaintiff’s land, and enjoin the issuing of tax deeds thereon, on the ground of the assessment being illegal and void, and other defects in the proceedings going to the groundwork of the tax. There was no appearance or answer. There is no hill of exceptions, and whether the court had any evidence before it or not, we cannot know; but it must be presumed it had, if necessary; but under the second subdivision óf sec. 2891, R. S., no evidence is necessary in such case, except to enable the court to give judgment. There were no findings of fact, and in such case, where there is no issue, none need be made. Sec. 2863, R. S.; *Krause v. Krause,*23 Wis., 354. The main point urged in the brief of the learned counsel of the appellant is that the circuit court should have stayed all proceedings in this casé, without final judgment, until a reassessment could be made, under sec. 12105, R. S. But that section only requires such stay, of proceedings “in actions hereafter *tried upon issue joined*in any of the courts,” etc. Here there was no *issue joined,*and of course there was no *trial,*for “ a trial is a judicial examination of the *issues*between the parties,” etc. Sec., 2842, R. S. It is therefore clear that a stay of proceedings was not necessary in this case, it not being a case within the terms of the above statute, and to extend that statute to such a case would be judicial legislation.

There appear to be no errors in the record.

*By the*Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Iteris, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JamesS. Miele, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|        |   | /s/ JAMES S. MIELE      |   |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   | James S. Miele          |   |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
|   |   |                    |   |   |
|   |   | November 12, 2007       |   |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or any other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
. 

• 

l _~ tJ .L \l l 1 I I \ i.\' I I\ l I \. } t" \.. J t ' I I '.A I .). I 'J I I I ' I l ' I '.J lJ l ' L l l .. ./ I '- / .... I • . • . ' • . 9 "Vl~lf~AID1::M2~~~p- lCATION~. INC . 

·Rl 

LT 

HAGEL INS 

.') 

SUNDSVIKSWEDEN 

FELICITATIONS ON FATHER HAGELINS HUNDRED BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY LOVE 

HOPE YOU MAVE 'fl1¥_l_ PLEASANT JOURNEY BACK TO ZUG 

CHG 

WILLIAM F FRIEJJvlAN 

310 2ND ST SE 

WASHINGTON3DC 

01 

' 

==t=t=68520'====================================================== 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 08-05-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
Exhibit24.5

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appointseach of Robert K. Kretzman and Michael T. Sheehan or either of them,each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, withfull power of substitution, for him and his name, place and stead, inany and all capacities, in connection with the REVLON, INC. (the"Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form10-K") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation oron behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of theCorporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument,contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibitsthereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including thispower of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and anyapplicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body,granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thingrequisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fullyto all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents,each acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do orcause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has signed these presents this 8th day of March, 2005.

|  | /s/ PAUL J. BOHAN |
|--|-------------------|

|  |
|--|
|  |  |  |
|  |

|  | PAUL J.BOHAN |
|--|--------------|

----
~:,---~- I) 

.. - --- ·- . ..... . . .--. .. --... 

WAR DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER 

WASHINGTON 

8 

..,. 12, 1936 

.lillll'O re Jo.tat Inventio11 ot a 8¥1t• and Kean• !or !Doipheriq 

and Deo1pherinc llflenetioal~-Becorcled. S1£J'tl\ls. 

1. 'thi• ie to rooord tb• :l':aot that. on this date the undN"-

,.ipod conceivecl the invention deaor1bod in t.'lte accompa~1ni; 

P.•tches,. tb• object o:r which ls to provid• a qata and means 

£or- enci~·1her;l.nc and dec1pherU, amanetioelq-recordad olp.la1 

such ae tel•-1'hon• con-vat"uttona, radiot.leeraph lforae code 

tran-11131.ons and th• lU:a," so •11 U 1nM.ll'~ vriftC)"+ 

i. It la auced that. the prop:rieta.17 hlte:reate of each of 

tho undore1t"lled in suoh :rights .n.n.d benat'l ta aa lllD1' aaoru• troll 

the in•ention an equal, to tho extent of .fi:f't7 percentua (50%) 

tor each. 

lilliaa 1. J'ried•n 

Harrod o. Miller 

Attachedt 

'.?w(t aketohee. 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-11-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

---=--... --._
Order entered October 8, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01168-CR

EX PARTE LARRY JAMES BUDOW

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 9

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MC18-A1502

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of appellant’s notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying 

relief sought by his application for writ of habeas corpus. This is an accelerated appeal and is

governed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.

We ORDER the trial court to prepare a certification of appellant’s right to appeal and

file it with the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d); Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 

803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

We ORDER the D a l l a s County Clerk to file the clerk’s record by October 24, 

2018. We ORDER that the clerk’s record contain copies of the indictment, the trial court’s 

judgment, the application for writ of habeas corpus, the State’s response to the writ application, 

any other documents filed in connection with the application for writ of habeas corpus, the trial 

court’s order adjudicating the writ application, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions 

of law, and the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal.
–2–

After reviewing the notice of appeal, the Court questions whether it has jurisdiction over 

this appeal. Appellant represents that the trial court entered its order denying his writ application 

on May 31, 2018. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on October 4, 2018. Appellant filed a 

motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal on October 1, 2018. Under the rules of 

appellate procedure, both the notice of appeal and the motion to extend are untimely. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.2–3; Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Olivo v. 

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

To assist the Court in making a threshold determination of its jurisdiction, appellant is 

DIRECTED to file, by October 24, 2018, a letter brief addressing the jurisdictional issue. The 

State is DIRECTED to file any response by November 8, 2018. After it has reviewed the 

jurisdictional briefs, the Court will consider appellant’s motion to extend and either dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction or else enter further orders setting additional deadlines.

Until the Court makes a determination of its jurisdiction, the Court will not order the 

court reporter to prepare the reporter’s record, if any.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Peggy Hoffman, 

Presiding Judge, County Criminal Court No. 9; Sandi Morelan, official court reporter, County 

Criminal Court No. 9; John F. Warren, Dallas County Clerk; Larry James Budow, pro se 

appellant; and counsel for the State.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>


                                                                     Exhibit 1.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Rory Nealon, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Trinity Biotech plc;


2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;


3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;


4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 15(d)-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:


a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;


b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this annual report based on such evaluation; and


c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.


5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):


a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and


b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  March 31, 2004

RORY NEALON *
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rory Nealon
Chief Financial Officer

*        The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained
         at the Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon
         request.
APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Page 1

Cause No. 05-17-01439-CV

__________________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

IN DALLAS 

__________________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF C.J.M. AND S.C.M., CHILDREN

__________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

__________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), Appellant Michael Minces

(“Appellant”) files this Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal as follows:

1. Appellant requests that the Court dismiss this appeal on motion of 

Appellant.

2. This Court has authority to dismiss this appeal pursuant to Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). See Production Drilling Co. v. Kirkwood & 

Morgan, Inc., 406 S.W.2d 792, 793 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1966, no writ)

(appellant ordinarily has right to seek dismissal of appeal at any time before it has 

been heard and determined).

3. There is no cross-appeal pending in this matter.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant Michael Minces 

respectfully requests that this Court dismiss this appeal.

ACCEPTED

05-17-01439-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

6/4/2018 1:34 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 06/04/2018 1:34:40 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Page 2

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Jeremy C. Martin

Jeremy C. Martin

Texas Bar Number 24033611

MALOUF & NOCKELS LLP

6688 N. Central Expy., Suite 1050

Dallas, Texas 75206

214-969-7373 (Telephone)

214-969-7648 (Facsimile)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I conferred with counsel for Appellee, and Appellee is unopposed 

to the relief requested herein. 

 /s/ Jeremy C. Martin

Jeremy C. Martin

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record 

or party in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on June 4, 2018.

 

/s/ Jeremy C. Martin

Jeremy C. Martin
II 

Calendar No. 305 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2128 

[Report No. 114–171] 

To require the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency 

to submit to Congress a report on Inspector General mandates. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2015 

Mr. SASSE (for himself and Mrs. MCCASKILL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 30, 2015 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, with amendment 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To require the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity 

and Efficiency to submit to Congress a report on Inspector General mandates. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Inspector General 

5 Mandates Reporting Act of 2015’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 2128 RS

1 SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF INSPECTORS GEN2 ERAL. 

3 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘report4 ing requirement’’ means a report that an Office of Inspec5 tor General is required to complete under the Inspector 

6 General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) or any other provi7 sion of law. 

8 (b) REPORT BY INSPECTORS GENERAL TO CIGIE.— 

9 Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 

10 Act, each Office of Inspector General shall submit to the 

11 Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency 

12 a report, which— 

13 (1) shall include a list of each reporting re14 quirement for the Office of Inspector General; and 

15 (2) may include a list of each reporting require16 ment that the Office of Inspector General rec17 ommends should be modified or repealed. 

18 (c) REPORT BY CIGIE TO CONGRESS.—Not later 

19 than 60 days after the date on which the Council of In20 spectors General on Integrity and Efficiency receives the 

21 reports required to be submitted under subsection (a) (b), 

22 the Council shall submit to Congress a report, which— 

23 (1) shall include— 

24 (A) a list of each reporting requirement 

25 that is common to more than 1 Office of In26 spector General; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 2128 RS

1 (B) a list, by Office of Inspector General, 

2 of each reporting requirement that is unique to 

3 that Office of Inspector General; and 

4 (2) may include recommendations for reporting 

5 requirements that should be modified or repealed. 

6 (d) FORM.—Each report submitted under this section 

7 shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified 

8 annex. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Calendar No. 305 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2128 

[Report No. 114–171] 

A BILL 

To require the Council of Inspectors General on Inreport on Inspector General mandates. tegrity and Efficiency to submit to Congress a 

NOVEMBER 30, 2015 

Reported with amendment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS