alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-9377.

#### Andre Banks, aka Michael Banks, Petitioner v. Illinois.

559 U.S. 1109, 130 S. Ct. 2409,

176 L. Ed. 2d 928,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3681.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 393 Ill. App. 3d 1099, 368 Ill. Dec. 915, 985 N.E.2d 722.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 14, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, April 14, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Patricia Robb. For more information please contact Ms. Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: February 26, 2009.

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E9-4664 Filed 3-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7307

FLETCHER J. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, for the City of Virginia Beach; BEN PAVEK, III, Esquire, Senior Assistant Public Defender, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-378-2) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 2, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fletcher J. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Fletcher J. Mitchell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Mitchell’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mitchell v. Public Defender’s Office , No. CA-04-378-2 (E.D. Va. June 29, 2004). 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
No. 11-7378.

#### Willie Dorsey Cantrell, Petitioner v. L.S. McEwen, Acting Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 1164, 132 S. Ct. 1106,

181 L. Ed. 2d 990,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 778.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 449 Fed. Appx. 698.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, E. Wayne Jackson, III, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Sourcefire, Inc. for the period ended June 30,2007;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:      August 3, 2007 By:  /s/ E. Wayne Jackson, III       Name:  E. Wayne Jackson, III   Title:  Chief Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RANDALL GAYLE McCOY, )

DOC #X04120, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2055

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed March 8, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Polk County; William D. Sites, Judge.

Randall Gayle McCoy, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, BADALAMENTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
No. 09-655.

#### Stanley L. Wade, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1032, 130 S. Ct. 1943,

176 L. Ed. 2d 406,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2452.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1150, 130 S. Ct. 1158, 175 L. Ed. 2d 976, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 611.
No. 09-9221.

#### Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.; Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Legislation Upon Virginia Department of Corrections; Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Keeffee Commissaries at Virginia Department of Corrections; Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Virginia Department of Corrections; Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Virginia Department of Corrections; Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Virginia Department of Corrections; Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.; Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.; Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Virginia Department of Corrections; and Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Representative of the Persons Assistant Warden Harvey.

559 U.S. 1076, 130 S. Ct. 2140,

176 L. Ed. 2d 738,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3412,

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM SUTHERLAND,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

M. UNDERWOOD,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-15926

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01767-LJOGBC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner William Sutherland appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to medical needs in connection with degenerative disk problems in

Sutherland’s neck and back. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

FILED

APR 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-15926

review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of the action as barred by

res judicata. Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.

2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sutherland’s action as barred by the

doctrine of res judicata because Sutherland could have litigated his claim against

Underwood in a prior action, where he also alleged that prison officials were

deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in connection with degenerative

problems in his neck and back and, as a result, he fell from his upper bunk and

injured his shoulder. See id. at 1052 (setting out the elements of res judicata); FTC

v. Garvey, 383 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Res judicata, or claim preclusion,

‘bars any lawsuits on any claims that were raised or could have been raised in a

prior action.’” (citation omitted)). 

AFFIRMED.
China Green Energy Industries, Inc.: Exhibit 10.50 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.50

Guaranty Obligations Pre-maturity Covenants between the Parties
Dispute Resolution Validity Acknowledgments by the Guarantors Summary of
Guaranty Contract of RMB 16,500,000 with a term from January 18, 2011 to
December 31, 2012, between Jiangsu Fengshun Packaging&Container Co., Ltd,
and Wujin Branch, Agricultural Bank of China, guaranteed by Changzhou City Wujin
Best Electronic Cables Co., Ltd.
No. 09-7257.

#### Billy R. Irick, Petitioner v. Ricky Bell, Warden.

559 U.S. 1088, 130 S. Ct. 2142,

176 L. Ed. 2d 759,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3167.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 942, 130 S. Ct. 1504, 176 L. Ed. 2d 118, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1279.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 38 (Friday, February 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 8963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4195]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Extension of the World Trade Center Registry 
(U50), Request for Applications (RFA) OH-09-002

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned 
committee:
    Time and Date: 8 a.m.-5 p.m., March 31, 2009 (Closed).
    Place: Embassy Suites Hotel, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, 
Virginia 22314.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 
provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and 
the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services 
Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of ``Extension of the World Trade Center 
Registry (U50), RFA OH-09-002.''
    For Further Information Contact: M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Office of Extramural Programs, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, 
NE., Mailstop E74, Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone: (404)498-2543.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: February 19, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-4195 Filed 2-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
No. 09-9194.

#### Lamarr Rowell, Petitioner v. Nevada.

559 U.S. 1095, 130 S. Ct. 2375,

176 L. Ed. 2d 772,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3488.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
# C_2017396EN.01000101.xml

| 23.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 396/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 396/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8414 — DNB/Nordea/Luminor Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 396/01)

On 14 September 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8414. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8414. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Mary Jane Robertson, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Crum &Forster Holdings Corp., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       Date: May 2, 2006 By: /s/ *Mary Jane Robertson*     Mary Jane Robertson    Executive Vice President,    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 
 
 **Certification
        of Chief Financial Officer of ULURU Inc.**
 **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 ULURU Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
        10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the
        “Report”), the undersigned officer of ULURU Inc. does hereby certify, pursuant
        to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
        (18 U.S.C. 1350), 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.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
        Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon request.
 
 
 
 Date:
                  July 13, 2006
              
              /s/
                  Terrance K. WallbergTerrance
                  K. WallbergVice
                  President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 09-9358.

#### Charmar Brown, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1054, 130 S. Ct. 2356,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3006.

176 L. Ed. 2d 571,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 560 F.3d 754.
No. 09-8206.

#### Gregory Shawn Mercer, Petitioner v. Virginia.

559 U.S. 1072, 130 S. Ct. 2094,

176 L. Ed. 2d 729,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3308,

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
EHS &S Regulatory Affairs

P.O. Box 9777 Federal Way, WA 98063

- 9777

June 26, 2013

Robert (Bob) Perciasepe EPA Acting Administrator 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

cc: Dr. Kel ley Spence

, Sector Policies and Program Division, O AQPS / E PA , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 ( by e

- mail to :) spence.kelley@epa.gov.

re: Comment Period extension Request for Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review ; 7 8 FR 31316

, May 23 , 20 1 3 ; Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

- 20 1 2

- 0640

Letter/ I ntroduction Weyerhaeuser Company appreciates the opportunity to provide comments in response to EPA’s

data

- intensive review of the existing NSPS

- subject Kraft pulp mills and the proposed rule that

would establish a new NSPS Subpart for modified, reconstruc ted or new Kraft pulp mills. Headquartered in Federal Way, Washington, Weyerhaeuser owns and operates across the U.S. five Kraft process pulp mills. Any future projects at any of these mills could make the proposed rule applicable, and therefore Weye rhaeuser is very interested in this rulemaking and intends to provide comment.

However, our staff has recently been able to access some of the very large datasets involving our

mills EPA has analy z ed for this rulemaking . They now foresee needing more time to evaluate

this information to provide meaningful comment. We request a 30 day extension of the current comment period ending July 8, 2013, to August 7, 2013.

Weyerhaeuser sincerely appreciates EPA’s consideration of our request

.

Please contact Mr. Stephen Woock at steve.woock@weyerhaeuser.com or 919

- 538

- 2401 with any questions you may have regarding th is request

.

Sincerely,

Shari Brown Director of Environment & Sustainability Weyerhaeuse r