alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18438]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development; Notice of 
Meeting

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

    Name and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in Human 
Resource Development.
    Date and Time: July 20-21, 1998, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
880, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Jesse Lewis, Program Director, Human 
Resource Development Division, Room 815, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: 
(703) 306-1633.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning requests submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: Review of the Historically Black Colleges & Universities 
Supplemental Requests.
    Reasonf or Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
    Reason for Late Notice: Need for the panel not determined until 
this week.

    Dated: July 6, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-18438 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
No. 10-480.

#### Vincent James Krocka, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1030, 131 S. Ct. 584,

178 L. Ed. 2d 415,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8728.

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 983.
EXHIBIT 32




Section 1350 Certifications





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Shearson American REIT, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:





To my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Dated: August 22, 2013

/s/ John WilliamsJohn WilliamsChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





Dated: August 22, 2013

/s/ John WilliamsJohn WilliamsChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
No. 10-7503.

#### Roberto Sepulveda, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1118, 131 S. Ct. 844,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9743.

178 L. Ed. 2d 573,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 529.
# C_2016068EN.01000401.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14) (1)

1

((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 - Directive 2013/62/EU - Directive 2013/64/EU - Legal basis - Article 349 TFEU - Outermost regions of the European Union - Amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union))

(2016/C 068/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen, L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, D. Bianchi and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, E. Karlsson, F. Florindo Gijón and J. Czuczai, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, F. Fize, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, B. Andrade Correia, M. Duarte and S. Marques, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions in Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions in Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union relating to Cases C-132/14 and C-136/14; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union relating to Cases C-132/14 and C-136/14;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union relating to Cases C-133/14 to C-135/14; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union relating to Cases C-133/14 to C-135/14;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

1

---
#### *State, Respondent, v. Chenoweth, Petitioner,*

No. 91988-7.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71520-8-I, June 22, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 521. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
Order entered September 22, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-21-00410-CV

IN RE THRESHER AND THRESHER, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-05644

ORDER Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relators’ petition for

writ of mandamus.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Superior Bancorp;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and 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 report is being
prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c.
    
    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 report based on such evaluation;
andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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:
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    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.
  By:
    /s/ James A. WhiteJames A. WhiteChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
No. 10-6453.

#### Luis Razo, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 432,

178 L. Ed. 2d 336,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8285.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
H. R. 2940 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen 

An Act 

To extend the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for 

needy families and related programs through September 30, 2019. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY 

FAMILIES PROGRAM AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019. 

Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section 1108(b) 

of the Social Security Act shall continue through September 30, 

2019, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2018, and out of 

any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 

appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may 

be necessary for such purpose. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
No. 10-268.

#### IAC/InterActiveCorp, et al., Petitioners v. Cosmetic Ideas, Inc., dba Sweet Romance Jewelry Manufacturing.

562 U.S. 1062, 131 S. Ct. 686,

178 L. Ed. 2d 479,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9438.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 606 F.3d 612.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Wilhelm, Petitioner,*

No. 92100-8.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 70704-3-I, July 13, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1047. *Denied*January 6, 2016.
# C_2013207EN.01003902.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/39

---

Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Naazneen Investments/OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER)

(Case T-250/13)

2013/C 207/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and T. Melchert, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1101/2011-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1101/2011-2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘SMART WATER’, Community trade mark registration No 781 153

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17226]



[[Page 35307]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Noise 
Certification Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee to discuss noise certification issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on July 15 at 1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the General Aviation 
Manufacturers Association, 1400 K Street NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Angela O. Anderson, (202) 267-9681, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-200), 
800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC) to discuss noise certification issues. This meeting will be held 
July 15, 1998, at 1:00 p.m., at the General Aviation Manufacturers 
Association. The agenda for this meeting will include progress reports 
from the FAR/JAR Harmonization Working Group for Helicopters and the 
FAR/JAR Harmonization Working Group for Subsonic Transport Airplanes. 
It will also include the presentation and vote on the NPRM from the 
FAR/JAR Harmonization Working Group for Propeller-Driven Small 
Airplanes. Members of the public may obtain copies of this NPRM by 
contacting the person listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but may be limited to 
the space available. The public must make arrangements in advance to 
present oral statements at the meeting or may present statements to the 
committee at any time. In addition, sign and oral interpretation can be 
made available at the meeting, as well as an assistive listening 
device, if requested 10 calendar days before the meeting. Arrangements 
may be made by contacting the person listed under the heading FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 1996.
Paul Dykeman,
Assistant Executive Director for Noise Certification Issues, Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 98-17226 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2677 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide training in the 

use of medical cannabis for all Department of Veterans Affairs primary 

care providers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2019 

Mr. MOULTON (for himself, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. SOTO, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, 

and Mr. CRIST) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide training in the use of medical cannabis for all Department 

of Veterans Affairs primary care providers, 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. TRAINING IN USE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PRI5 MARY CARE PROVIDERS. 

6 (a) TRAINING.—Not later than one year after the 

7 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Vet8 erans Affairs shall provide for all primary care providers 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2677 IH

1 of the Department of Veterans Affairs an initial training 

2 in the use of medical cannabis. The Secretary shall provide 

3 supplemental training as necessary. 

4 (b) PARTNERSHIPS WITH MEDICAL SCHOOLS.—In 

5 developing and providing the training to be provided under 

6 subsection (a), the Secretary shall enter into partnerships 

7 with medical schools that have incorporated education on 

8 medical cannabis into their curricula. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2015205EN.01002701.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (SKYPE)

(Case T-183/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SKYPE - Earlier Community word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 205/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Skype Ultd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented: initially by I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor QC, and subsequently by A. Carboni and M. Browne, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom); and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth) (represented by: R. Guthrie, D. Rose, V. Baxter, Solicitors, and T. Moody-Stuart, Barrister, and subsequently by R. Guthrie, D. Rose, Solicitors, T. Moody-Stuart, Barrister, and J. Curry, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 (Case R 2398/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one side, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd and, on the other, Skype Ultd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Skype Ultd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc and Sky IP International Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Skype Ultd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc and Sky IP International Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
#### Weisman v. Weisman 40

05/03/2016

831-834 MAL (2015)

40

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 448
LOCAL AGREEMENT - ARTICLE 49
WELLNESS/FITNESS PROGRAM
BETWEEN
DLA DISPOSITION SERVICES
FIELD SITES (NOT CO-LOCATED WITH OTHER DLA ACTIVITIES)
AND
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFGE), LOCAL 1626

Section 1: General

MLA Article 49, Section 2.E. states that alternate arrangements for off-site facilities are subject
to negotiations between parties at the local level and are authorized to be included in Local
Agreements.

Section 2: Alternate Arrangements for Off-site facilities
A. Employees will be encouraged to use the fitness facility and or outdoor activities such as

running, walking, biking in the vicinity of the workplace.

B. Employees may request approval to use an off-site facility, provided it meets the requirements
of the Wellness/Fitness Program. A minimum of thirty (30) minutes of one (1) hour of
administrative leave must be dedicated to the approved fitness activity.

C. Employees requesting an alternate location for fitness activities will provide location(s) on
required form (e.g., DLA Form 1939) for supervisory approval.

For the Union: For Agency:
EX this ASL. satan LEE 03
Robin L. Nichols, President Andre Toussaint, COL. USA

American Federation of Government Employees DLA, Disposition Services-Battle Creek MI
AFGE Local 1626 HDI Federal Center
No. 10-7300.

#### Corey Tolbert, Petitioner v. David Wise, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1150, 131 S. Ct. 932,

178 L. Ed. 2d 775,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 356.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 135849 (23) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices KENNETH GILBERT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 135849 CoA: 279409 OAKLAND CIRCUIT JUDGE,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $46.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $329.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

jm 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.

March 26, 2008
Clerk
No. 10-5586.

#### Frank C. Johnson, Jr., Petitioner v. John H. Wilbur, et al.

562 U.S. 1028, 131 S. Ct. 588,

178 L. Ed. 2d 413,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8749.

November 8, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
# Schedule B15

&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12SPE4A6-15-R-0340		&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12Schedule B15