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 Commerce

###### Economics and Statistics Administration

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended by Pub. L. 94-409, Pub. L. 96-523, Pub. L. 97-375 and Pub. L. 105-153), we are announcing a meeting of the Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee. The meeting will address ways in which the national economic accounts can be presented more effectively for current economic analysis and recent statistical developments in national accounting.

# DATES:

Friday, May 1, 2009, the meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 3:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will take place at the Bureau of Economic Analysis at 1441 L St. NW., Washington, DC.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Newman, Media and Outreach Lead, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone number: (202) 606-9265.

*Public Participation:*                         This meeting is open to the public. Because of security procedures, anyone planning to attend the meeting must contact Jeffrey Newman of BEA at (202) 606-9265 in advance. The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for foreign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jeffrey Newman at (202) 606-9265.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Committee was established September 2, 1999. The Committee advises the Director of BEA on matters related to the development and improvement of BEA's national, regional, industry, and international economic accounts, especially in areas of new and rapidly growing economic activities arising from innovative and advancing technologies, and provides recommendations from the perspectives of the economics profession, business, and government. This will be the Committee's eighteenth meeting.

Dated: March 13, 2009.

Rosemary D. Marcuss,

Deputy Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

 [FR Doc. E9-6248 Filed 3-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5425 

To amend the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 

relating to air transportation to and from Love Field, Texas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2006 

Mr. TERRY (for himself, Mr. FORTENBERRY, and Mr. OSBORNE) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the International Air Transportation Competition 

Act of 1979 relating to air transportation to and from 

Love Field, Texas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL DESIGNATED STATE; THROUGH 

4 TICKETING AND SERVICE. 

5 The first sentence of section 29(c) of the Inter6 national Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 (94 

7 Stat. 35) is amended— 

8 (1) by inserting ‘‘Nebraska,’’ before ‘‘and 

9 Texas’’; and 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5425 IH

1 (2) by striking ‘‘, if (1)’’ and all that follows 

2 through the period at the end and inserting a period 

3 and the following: ‘‘Such air carrier may offer to 

4 provide or provide through or connecting service or 

5 ticketing with another air carrier or foreign carrier 

6 and may itself offer for sale transportation between 

7 Love Field and any point outside of such States on 

8 a through or connecting basis.’’. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
Elbert A. WALTON, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NORTHEAST AMBULANCE AND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Defendant/Respondent, and Anthony D. Gray and Johnson Gray, LLC, Third-Party Defendants/Respondents.

No. ED 105728

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: April 24, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 30, 2018. Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 21, 2018

Dedra M. Brock-Moore, 4601 State Street, Suite 100B-1, East St. Louis, IL 62205, For Appellant.

Richard K. Johnson, 319 N. Fourth Street, Suite 212, St. Louis, MO 63102, For Respondent Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District.

Gino F. Battisti, William S. Clark, 101 S. Hanley Road, Suite 600, St. Louis, MO 63105, For Respondents Anthony D. Gray and Johnson Gray, LLC.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

*719Elbert A. Walton, Jr. (Appellant) appeals the trial court's summary judgment against him and in favor of Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District (the District), Anthony D. Gray (Gray), and Johnson Gray, LLC (Johnson Gray). Appellant also appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to compel the District to arbitrate the parties' contract dispute and motion to disqualify Gray and Johnson Gray as defense counsel for the District. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court committed no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).1

1

The District's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is denied. Appellant's request for an award of attorney's fees for responding to the District's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00322

- CR

Jonathan David FLOYD

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 11

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 619928 Honorable Timothy Johnson , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 17, 2022, appellant filed an amended motion to suspend briefing, asserting that the reporter’s record is missing several items and that appellant filed a formal request to supplement the record on November 11, 2022. Appellant’s motion is GRANT ED. Accordingly,

it is ORDERED that the court reporter must supplement the reporter’s record by December 2,

2022 . It is ORDERED that appellant’s brief must be filed no later than fourteen days after the date the appellate record is complete.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard P. Kundrat,  Chief  Financial  Officer of NuVim,  Inc, Inc.,  certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of NuVim,  Inc. for the
period ended September 30, 2006;

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  officers  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)) 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) 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; and

(c)  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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

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

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

Date: November __, 2006

/s/ Richard P. Kundrat
-----------------------
Richard P. Kundrat
Chief Financial Officer
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 19, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1247

Lower Tribunal No. 17-2158

________________

Richard Namon, Jr., 

Appellant,

vs.

Barbara Namon,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna 

Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.

Richard Namon, in proper person.

Muir Law, PLLC, and William Douglas Muir, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr., 81 So. 3d 

556, 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“Where there is no record of the testimony of 

witnesses or of evidentiary rulings, and where a statement of the record has 

not been prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.200(a)(3) or (b)(3), a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its 

face must be affirmed.”); Johnson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. Americas, 

248 So. 3d 1205, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“[P]resenting an adequate 

record—one that demonstrates not only what evidence was presented below 

but also which arguments were preserved—remains the appellant’s burden 

in an appeal of a summary judgment.”); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of 

Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the 

trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying 

factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not 

supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the 

factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the 

trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”); Kohn v. City of 

Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“We conclude that 

it is a mistake to hold a pro se litigant to a lesser standard than a reasonably 

competent attorney.”).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1432

WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AUSA GREGORY K. HARRIS; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cv-00024-MFU)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 22, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Grant, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Lee Grant, II, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the 

record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Grant v. Harris, No. 5:19-cv-00024-MFU (W.D. Va. 

Apr. 5, 2019). 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.

DISMISSED
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 the Quarterly Report of EAU Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wade R. Bradley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.





DATE: May 16, 2011





/s/ Wade R. BradleyWade R. BradleyChief Executive OfficerEAU Technologies, Inc.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No s
. 04

- 13

- 00054

- CR , 04

- 13

- 00055

- CR
Jacinto SOLIS Jr. , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 399th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No s
. 2010CR9139 , 2010CR9140 Honorable Juanita Vasquez

- Gardner , 1 Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 13, 2013
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant Jacinto Solis Jr. was sentenced on July 10, 2012 . Because he did not file a motion for new trial, A ppellant’s notice s of appeal w ere due to be filed no later than August 9 , 2012. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.2(a). Our records show (1) the notice s of appeal w ere not filed
until January 15, 2013 , and (2) no motion s for extension of time w ere timely filed. See id.
R. 26.3.

1 The Honorable Ray Olivarri is now the presiding judge in the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.04

- 13

- 00054

- CR & 04

- 13

- 00055

- CR

- 2

- On February 11, 2013, we ordered A ppellant to show cau se in writing by February 26,
2013 , why his appeal s should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 2 To date, this court has not received any response to our order. This court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of a criminal conviction in the absence of a timely, written notice of appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ j urisdiction.”); Shute v.
State , 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Accordingly, th ese appeal s are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

2 The trial court’s certification s in th ese appeal s state that “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of a ppeal.” We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d).
#### Earl L. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Walter N. TOBRINER et al., Appellees.

No. 18628.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 27, 1965.

Decided March 4, 1965.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc and for Rehearing before the Division Denied April 14, 1965.

Mr. George H. Windsor, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George E. C. Hayes and Julian R. Dugas, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. David P. Sutton, Asst. Corp. Counsel for District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellees.

Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Washington and Danaher, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After some eight years of service as a member of the Metropolitan Police Department, this appellant was retired for disability upon an annuity of 40 per cent of his basic salary. D.C. Code § 4-526 (1961). Unsuccessfully he sought additional relief in appropriate administrative proceedings, after which he asked the District Court to compel the Commissioners “to order the plaintifl: retired for disability incurred during the performance of duty.” Upon consideration of the administrative record and of oral stipulations at the court hearing and after argument of counsel, the District Judge filed findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order that the complaint be dismissed.

On this appeal we have considered the entire record as made available to this court. We find no substantial basis for disturbing the conclusion of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement and Relief Board as affirmed by the Commissioners that appellant’s disability was not due to injury or to a disease contracted in the *798performance of duty, or to an injury or disease which was “shown to have been aggravated by the performance of duty.” D.C. Code § 4-527 (Supp. IV, 1965). Accordingly, we find no error in the findings and conclusions of the District Judge, and his order dismissing the complaint must be

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 54 (Monday, March 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6177]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-533-848)


Commodity Matchbooks from India: Notice of Extension of Time 
Limits for Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3874.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On November 24, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice of initiation of antidumping investigation of 
imports of commodity matchbooks from India. See Commodity Matchbooks 
from India: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 70965 
(Nov. 24, 2008). The notice of initiation stated that we would issue 
our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of 
initiation, in accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act). The preliminary determination is 
currently due no later than April 7, 2009.
    On March 12, 2009, the petitioner, D. D. Bean & Sons Co., made a 
timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(e) for a 50-day extension of the preliminary determination. The 
petitioner requested that the determination be extended due to the 
complexities of the case and the difficulty in obtaining useable 
information from the sole respondent, Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd.
    Under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, if the petitioner makes a 
timely request for an extension of the period within which the 
preliminary determination must be made under subsection (b)(1), then 
the Department may postpone making the preliminary determination under 
subsection (b)(1) until not later than the 190th day after the date on 
which the administering authority initiated the investigation. 
Therefore, for the reasons identified by the petitioner and because 
there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department is 
postponing the preliminary determination in this investigation until 
May 27, 2009, which is 190 days from the date on which the Department 
initiated this investigation.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: March 16, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-6177 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,James A. Tassone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

•              The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and

•              The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | November 10, 2005 | By:    | /s/ James A. Tassone                      |   |
|--------|------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                   |   | James A. Tassone, Chief Financial Officer |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Uni-Pixel, Inc. andwill be retained by Uni-Pixel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report or as aseparate disclosure document.*

 

----