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

###### Agricultural Research Service

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of intent.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Innovative Foods, Inc. of South San Francisco, California, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/917,797, “Novel Infrared Dry Blanching (IDB), Infrared Blanching, and Infrared Drying Technologies for Food Processing”, filed on August 13, 2004.

# DATES:

Comments must be received April 10, 2009.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Innovative Foods, Inc. of South San Francisco, California has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,

Assistant Administrator.

 [FR Doc. E9-5235 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF PACIFIC ENERGY GP, INC.**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and inconnection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2004 that is being filed concurrently with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned officer of Pacific Energy GP, Inc., the general partner ofPacific Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) hereby certifies that:

 

1.               The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Partnership.

 
|   | /s/ IRVIN TOOLE, JR.

Irvin  Toole, Jr.

November  2, 2004 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Pacific Energy Partners, L.P., and will be retained by PacificEnergy Partners, L.P., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with Amendment  No.2 to the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB (the
"Report") of XRG, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, each
of the undersigned  Kevin Brennan,  the Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,
and  Stephen  Couture,  the  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that,  to the  best of the  undersigneds'
knowledge and belief:

(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.


Dated:  March 31, 2005                      /s/ Kevin Brennan
                                            -----------------------------
                                                Kevin Brennan
                                                Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  March 31, 2005                     /s/ Stephen Couture
                                           -----------------------------
                                                Stephen Couture
                                                Chief Financial Officer
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1)
    
    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended June 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the three months ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Plumas Bancorp.
 Date:  August  8, 2007
    /s/ D. N. BiddleDouglas N. Biddle, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           32332
<SECURITIES>                                     42887
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6667
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       6742
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 88862
<PP&E>                                            4225
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   91078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           152
<OTHER-SE>                                       79729
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     91078
<SALES>                                          10985
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 16703
<CGS>                                             9749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    17659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14765)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14765)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14765)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.20)
        

</TABLE>
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

_______________________________

No. 95-30103

Summary Calendar

_______________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JEREMIAH JOBE WHITE JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(CR-94-50061-01)

_____________________________________________________

March 12, 1996

Before WISDOM, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeremiah Jobe White Jr., appeals from his jury trial conviction and sentence for attempt to

possess in excess of 500 grams of cocaine with the intent to distribute and conspiracy to commit the

same. He contends that the district court erred by denying him pretrial release, by preventing him

fromfiling pro se motions while represented by counsel, by refusing to order polygraph examinations

of sentencing witnesses, and by enhancing his sentence for obstruction of justice and for his role as

an organizer in the offense. In addition, White asserts that the Government improperly crossexamined him, that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that he received
2

ineffective of counsel. Because the record is not fully developed as to whether the alleged errors

committed by White’s counsel constitute ineffective assistance, we dismiss this claim without

prejudice. With respect to the other errors alleged by White, we have reviewed the record and

perceive no reversible error.

The Government’s motion to strike evidence presented to this Court for the first time on

appeal is DENIED as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
#### State of Florida, ex rel., J. B. Johnson, Attorney General, *Plaintiff,*v. F. W. Eddy, as Mayor, R. C. Tisdale, Jr., J. B. Qualls, J. H. Hughes, L. D. Vining, L. L. Fertic, as Councilmen, A. D. Kemp, as Marshall and Tax Collector, L. R. Higdon, as Tax Assessor and Treasurer of the Town of Bithlo, *Defendants.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed May 30, 1928.

*R. S. Field,*Attorney for Plaintiff;

*H. M. Jcm'vís*and *Maguire & Voorhis,*Attorneys for Defendants.

Terrell, J.

This writ of error was taken to an order dismissing an information in the nature of a *quo warranto*against the defendants, appellees, as officers of the Town of Bithlo, charging them with usurping the powers of a municipal corporation under the corporate name of the Town of Bithlo without warrant or authority of law therefor.

The Town of Bithlo in Orange County, Florida, was incorporated October 9, 1922, under the general law for incorporating cities and towns in this State (Section 1828 Revised General Statutes) and was validated by Chapter 11407,' Acts of 1925, Laws of Florida.

*979The record has been examined carefully and while there may have been irregularities in the proceedings leading up to the incorporation of the said town we think they were all such as could be validated and approved by an Act of the Legislature and we think that Chapter 11407, Acts of 1925, was ample and sufficient for that purpose. Givens v. Hillsborough County, 46 Fla. 502, 35 So. Rep. 88; Cranor v. Volusia County Comm'rs., 54 Fla. 455, 45 So. Rep. 455; Schultz v. State *ex rel.,*Swearington, 80 Fla. 564, 86 So. Rep. 428.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in. the opinion and judgment.
Table 2 Full-time and part-time1 workers: Mean hourly earnings2

for major occupational groups

Occupational group3

Full-time Part-time

Civilian

workers

Private

industry

workers

State and

local

government

workers

Civilian

workers

Private

industry

workers

State and

local

government

workers

All workers ....................... $22.77 $22.02 $26.75 $12.10 $11.78 $16.39

Management,

professional, and

related .......................... 35.02 35.50 33.61 26.63 27.79 22.19

Management,

business, and

financial ................... 38.87 39.48 35.39 35.01 35.75 30.86

Professional and

related ...................... 33.16 33.14 33.19 25.96 27.10 21.70

Service ........................... 13.62 11.69 20.10 8.81 8.65 11.67

Sales and office .............. 17.59 17.57 17.75 10.66 10.59 12.49

Sales and related ........ 19.97 19.99 17.80 9.39 9.38 10.60

Office and

administrative

support ..................... 16.57 16.38 17.74 12.27 12.24 12.67

Natural resources,

construction, and

maintenance ................. 21.39 21.42 21.14 13.97 13.99 13.81

Construction and 

extraction ................. 21.29 21.41 20.26 14.91 15.13 13.29

Installation,

maintenance, and

repair ........................ 21.61 21.54 22.18 13.98 14.10 12.55

Production,

transportation, and

material moving ........... 16.53 16.40 20.14 10.94 10.73 15.17

Production .................. 16.48 16.39 21.68 10.73 10.69 22.09

Transportation and

material moving ....... 16.58 16.41 19.59 11.00 10.75 15.07

1 Employees are classified as working either a full-time or a part-time schedule

based on the definition used by each establishment. Therefore, a worker with a

35-hour-per-week schedule might be considered a full-time employee in one

establishment, but classified as part-time in another firm, where a 40-hour week is the

minimum full-time schedule.

2 Earnings are the straight-time hourly wages or salaries paid to employees.

They include incentive pay, cost-of-living adjustments, and hazard pay. Excluded are

premium pay for overtime, vacations, and holidays; nonproduction bonuses; and tips.

The mean is computed by totaling the pay of all workers and dividing by the number

of workers, weighted by hours. 3 The NCS uses the 2000 Standard Occupational Classification coding structure,

which defines more than 800 unique occupations, to match jobs sampled by the

survey. Military occupations are excluded from the survey.

NOTE: Dashes indicate that data did not meet publication criteria.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey.

NATIONAL COMPENSATION SURVEY

All United States 2-1 December 2009 - January 2011
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00563-CV

Laszlo Elias

v.

Teresa Espinosa

On Appeal from the

2nd 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 25,927

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant, Laszlo Elias. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 26, 2019
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOHN ZACHARY KATSU TOYOFUKU,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 10263

D.C. No.

1:14

- cr

- 00032

- DKW

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 11, 2018

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

John Toyofuku appeals the district court’s denial s of his motion to suppress

and renewed motion to suppress

. We affirm.

The district court denied the motions to suppress because it found that

private citizen members of a Hawaiian sovereignty group were not acting as

instruments or agents of the government for purposes of the Fourth Amendment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

OCT 26 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

when one or more of the members opened a shipping crate and found marijuana,

ultimately l eading to the arrest and conviction of Toyofuku.

As to the first motion, the district court did not err in holding that FBI

Special Agent Judah Pent’s meeting with Samson Kama and Kimokeo Kahalewai

the morning of the search was insufficient under our case law to establish that the

government knew of and acquiesced in the subsequent search. See United States v.

Walther

, 652 F.2d 788 , 7 92

– 93 (9th Cir. 1981)

.

As to the second motion, the district court did not err in finding that

someone searched the crate before Kama spoke to Sergeant Apollo Chang

. The

district court’s factual findings must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous. See

United States v. Peterson , 902 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2018) . This is a highly

deferential standard, particularly with respect to credibility determinations. See

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985)

. I t was not clearly

erroneous for the district court to discredit Kama’s testimony and credit the

testimon y of law enforcement officers regarding whether Kama indicated that he

knew the crate contained marijuana when he first spoke to Sergeant Chang and

whether Sergeant Chang directed Kama to open the crate, which was the critical

question. Precisely when the crate was opened does not matter

. Also

, the record

support s the district court’s finding that Kama called law enforcement several

times before speaking with Sergeant Chang

, which is consistent with the3

conclusion that , by then, he already knew t hat the crate contained marijuana

.

Because the district court did no t clearly err in finding that someone

searched the crate before Kama spoke to Sergeant Chang , it follows that the district

court did not err in holding that Kama’s subsequent conversati ons with law

enforcement officers did not retroactively convert the search into a government

search. See , e.g. , United States v. Young , 153 F.3d 1079 , 1080 (9th Cir. 1998) (per

curiam)

.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      1,230
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                               2,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                   43
<INVENTORY>                                   200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,593
<PP&E>                                    112,740
<DEPRECIATION>                             53,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             65,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       6,271
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       74
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       1,341
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                 19,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               65,426
<SALES>                                    13,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           13,298
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              12,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          3,101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,672)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,672)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (105)
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,013)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.41)




</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 3, 2009 

0331 

Order 

 

April 3, 2009 

136336 

BRIAN POTTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136336 

 COA: 262529 

Washtenaw CC: 03-001226-NH 

KRISTYN H. MURRY, M.D. and 

HURON VALLEY RADIOLOGY, 

P.C., 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL 

ANN ARBOR, d/b/a TRINITY HEALTHMICHIGAN, RICHARD C. McLEARY, 

M.D., GARY AUGUSTYN, M.D., 

ROBERT DOMEIER, D.O., and 

EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL 

GROUP, P.C., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, oral argument having been heard on March 4, 2009, the 

parties are DIRECTED to submit supplemental briefs addressing the issue whether, if a 

defendant professional corporation is not an entity to whom notice is required to be 

provided under MCL 600.2912b, the applicable statute of limitations, MCL 600.5805(6), 

was nonetheless subject to statutory tolling provided in former MCL 600.5856(d). 

Plaintiff’s supplemental brief is due April 17, 2009. The defense brief is due April 24, 

2009.
Jonathan BRUNSON, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF the TWELFTH JUDICIARY, Defendant.

No. COA18-838

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 16, 2019

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Loveless Decarlos HOSKINS

No. COA18-1181

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 4, 2019

NO ERROR.
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>c03925exv32.txt
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
        OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Peter Lamoureux,
President of Everest Asset Management, Inc. , the general partner of the Everest
Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Fund.


                                        By: /s/ Peter Lamoureux
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Peter Lamoureux
                                        Title: Director, President and Treasurer
                                        October 25, 2010
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Genus, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-28394, 33-38657 and
33-56192) of our reports dated January 27, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Genus,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 1996, which reports are included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
San Jose, California
March 25, 1997