alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Carter Acquisition Corp. III (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, John C. Lipman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/
                  John C. LipmanJohn
                  C. LipmanPrincipal
                  Executive Officer
                Principal
                  Financial Officer
                December
                  31, 2007
#### Pauline C. Coster, Appellant, *v.*O. Delancey Coster, Respondent.

Submitted February 23, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 289 N. Y. 438.)
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                      | 
|Dated: August 8, 2005 |  | /s/ Michael A. Baker                 
|                      |  | Michael A. Baker                     
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of the written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
-78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

 40.0

▲★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/22

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 22 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
**EXHIBIT 10**

----

Consent of Independent Registered    Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation      by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-11728)      pertaining to the Employees Stock Options Plan, Founders Warrants and other      Warrants of Wavecom S.A., of our report dated February 10, 2005, with      respect to the consolidated financial statements of Wavecom, included in      its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2004      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

ERNST & YOUNG Audit

Represented by Jean-Yves Jégourel

Paris-La Défense, France  April 7, 2005

----
#### McLINDON VS. KING, McRAE & CO.

Appeal from Robertson county.

*Assignment.*— A provision that when the assignee has paid off *442and discharged all of the claims of the consenting creditors, he shall pay over the surplus to the assignor,” in a deed of assignment under the act of March 24, 1879, does not render the deed void, or in any way affects its validity or operation. The statute controls the matter.

*Case Approved.*— Keating vs. Vaughn, supreme court of Texas? opinion delivered May 9,1884.

The case of Lawrence vs. Norton, decided by the circuit court of the United States at Dallas, 1883, in which a contrary opinion is expressed, is not regarded as authority.

Opinion by

Wilson, J.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

*Name and Committee Code:*                     Advisory Committee for Engineering #1170.                

*Date and Time:*                     April 6, 2022: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; April 7, 2022: 10:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.                

*Place:*                     National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 | Virtual.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Open.                

*Contact Person:*                     Evette Rollins,                     *erollins@nsf.gov;*                     703-292-8300; NSF 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.                

                    The forthcoming virtual meeting information and an updated agenda will be posted at                     *https://www.nsf.gov/​eng/​advisory.jsp*.                

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering programs and activities.

## Agenda

### Wednesday, April 6, 2022

    - Directorate for Engineering Report
    - NSF Budget Update
    - NSF Strategic Plan
    - ENG Strategic Planning
    - Reports from Advisory Committee Liaisons

### Thursday, April 7, 2022

    - Diversity in Engineering: Current Data Trends
    - Panel and Discussion on Diversity in Engineering
    - Preparation for Discussion with the Director's Office
    - Prospective from the Director's Office
    - Strategic Recommendations for ENG

Dated: March 1, 2022.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-04700 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray Eugene COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10595 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 8, 2017)

Jason Sterling Beaton, Christopher P. Canova, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Joseph F. DeBelder, Randolph Patterson Murrell, Richard Michael Summa, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

*653PER CURIAM:

Ray Collins appeals his convictions for receiving child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1), distributing child pornography, *id.,*and possessing child pornography involving a prepubescent minor and a minor under the age of 12, *id,*§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). Collins challenges the admission of short segments of two child pornography videos discovered on his computer. We affirm.

We review the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Dodds,*347 F.3d 893, 897 (11th Cir. 2003).

The district court did not abuse its discretion. Collins argues that the prejudicial effect of the explicit video segments outweighed their probative value based on his stipulation that they contained child pornography, but the government was not required to accept a stipulation that was “no match for the robust evidence that would be used to prove” Collins’s crimes, *Old Chief v. United States,*519 U.S. 172, 189, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997), particularly when he contested the issues of identity and mens rea. *See Parr v. United States,*255 F.2d 86, 88 (5th Cir. 1958). In recognition that all incriminating evidence is inherently prejudicial, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 “permits a district court to exclude relevant evidence [only] when its probative value is substantially outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial nature.” *United States v. Alfaro-Moncada,*607 F.3d 720, 734 (11th Cir. 2010). The video segments, each of which depicted a girl between four and eight performing oral sex on a man, were probative of identity—that is, whether the videos would appeal to the prurient interest of and be downloaded by Collins or, as he suggested, by his female roommate. The video segments also were probative of whether Collins, a computer programmer, knew of and intended to collect child pornography on his computer. *See id.*And the government, as requested by the district court, limited the amount of footage shown to the jury. Of the dozens of videos discovered on Collins’s computer, the government played 10 seconds of one video and 14 seconds of a second video. *See Dodds,*347 F.3d at 899. “Even if showing the imagbs to the jury created some risk of injecting emotions into the jury’s decision-making, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to decide that the risk did not substantially outweigh the ... probative value” of the video segments. *Alfaro-Moncada,*607 F.3d at 734 (citation omitted).

We AFFIRM Collins’s conviction.
#### The State v. King.

Criminal Case : no arguments : no error found : affirmed.

*Appeal from Folk District Court.*— Hon’. Josiah Given, Judge.

Filed, June 9, 1888.

Defendant was tried in justice’s court, for the offense of keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same in violation of law He was convicted and thereupon appealed to the district court of Polk county. He was again tried, found guilty and adjudged to pay a fine of fifty dollars and costs. He now appeals from that judgment.

Robinson, J.

This cause was submitted on a transcript of the information and amendment thereto, and of the other papers and proceedings in the case, excepting the evidence. No argument has been made for either party and no errors have 'been assigned. We have examined so much of the record as has been submitted to us, but discover no error. The judgment of the district court is therefore

Affirmed.
#### David R. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17232

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

David R. Smith, Pro Se

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David R. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from a special assessment lien. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). *Crum v. Circus Circus Enters.,*231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed Smith’s claims as barred by the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1341, based on the determination that the special assessment lien recorded against Smith’s property was a tax under the TIA. However, the district court did not consider all of the applicable factors in reaching its determination, including (1) the entity that imposes the charge; (2) the parties upon whom the charge is imposed; and (3) “whether the assessment is expended for general public purposes, or used for the regulation or benefit of the parties upon whom the assessment is imposed.” *Bidart Bros. v. Cal. Apple Com’n,*73 F.3d 925, 931-32 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth three-factor test for determining whether an assessment is a tax under the TIA). We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for the district court to apply the *Bidart*test in the first instance.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider any other contentions raised on appeal.

Smith’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-970]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Siegfried USA, LLC has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
                        **Supplementary Information**
                         listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 7, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 7, 2022.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 8, 2021, Siegfried USA, LLC, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
SchedulePhenylacetone
8501
IIOpium, raw
9600
IIPoppy Straw Concentrate
9670
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture bulk active pharmaceuticals ingredients (API) for distribution to its customers. Phenylacetone will be used to manufacture Amphetamine. No other 
                    ( print page 12982)
                    activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale. Matthew J. Strait, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-04806 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
#### Terell MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Valerie PARHAM, Laundry Supervisor; Diane Dale, Counselor; T. Barrett, Registered Nurse; Wendell W. Pixley, Warden; Lt. West, Lieutenant; Tracy S. Ray, Warden; Dr. Wyatt Ruffin, DDS, Dentist; Mayhue, Dental Assistant, Defendants-Appellees, and R. Clayton, Registered Nurse; O. Jones, Correctional Officer, Defendants.

No. 17-6531

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 29, 2017

Terell Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*662Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terell Moore appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2012) for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Moore v. Parham,*No. 1:16-cv-01519-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 23, 2017 & entered Mar. 24, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6808 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

develop a risk-communication strategy to inform the public about the 

hazards or potential hazards of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mrs. FLETCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a risk-communication strategy 

to inform the public about the hazards or potential hazards of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘PFAS Risk-Commu5 nication Strategy Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6808 IH

1 SEC. 2. RISK-COMMUNICATION STRATEGY. 

2 The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

3 Agency shall develop a risk-communication strategy to in4 form the public about the hazards or potential hazards 

5 of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or cat6 egories of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, 

7 by— 

8 (1) disseminating information about the risks 

9 or potential risks posed by such substances or cat10 egories in land, air, water (including drinking water 

11 and water used for agricultural purposes), and prod12 ucts; 

13 (2) notifying the public about exposure path14 ways and mitigation measures through outreach and 

15 educational resources; and 

16 (3) consulting with States that have dem17 onstrated effective risk-communication strategies for 

18 best practices in developing a national risk-commu19 nication strategy. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00352-CV

CHICO AUTO PARTS & SERVICE, INC.,

Appellant

V.

MARY MAXEY, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 342nd District 

Court

of Tarrant County (342-269821-13)

July 3, 2019

Opinion by Justice Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that appellant Chico Auto Parts & Service, Inc., shall pay 

all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Dabney Bassel__________________

 Justice Dabney Bassel
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0920 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0920

**2002/920/EC: Commission Decision of 25 November 2002 amending Decision 1999/710/EC, with respect to Australia, Lithuania and Slovenia for minced meat and meat preparations (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 4536) **

*
Official Journal L 321 , 26/11/2002 P. 0049 - 0050 *

Commission Decision

of 25 November 2002

amending Decision 1999/710/EC, with respect to Australia, Lithuania and Slovenia for minced meat and meat preparations

(notified under document number C(2002) 4536)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/920/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Decision 2001/4/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Provisional lists of establishments in third countries producing minced meat and meat preparations consumption have been drawn up by Commission Decision 1999/710/EC, of 15 October 1999 drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States authorise imports of minced meat and meat preparations(3).

(2) Australia, Lithuania and Slovenia have provided lists of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations for which the competent authorities certify that the establishments are in accordance with the Community rules.

(3) Provisional listing of these establishments can thus be drawn up for Australia, Lithuania and Slovenia. Decision 1999/710/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Decision 1999/710/EC, the following rows are added:

"País: Australia/Land: Australien/Land: Australien/Χώρα: Αυστραλία/Country: Australia/Pays: Australie/Paese: Australia/Land: Australië/País: Austrália/Maa: Australia/Land: Australien

País: Lituania/Land: Litauen/Land: Litauen/Χώρα: Λιθουανία/Country: Lithuania/Pays: Lituanie/Paese: Lituania/Land: Litouwen/País: Lituânia/Maa: Liettua/Land: Litauen

País: Eslovenia/Land: Slovenien/Land: Slowenien/Χώρα: Σλοβενία/Country: Slovenia/Pays: Slovénie/Paese: Slovenia/Land: Slovenië/País: Eslovénia/Maa: Slovenia/Land: Slovenien"

Article 2

This Decision shall apply as from the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 November 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 281, 4.11.1999, p. 82.