alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12382-12383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,429]


Cenveo Cadmus Communications, Ephrata, PA; Notice of Termination 
of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 27, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers of Cenveo Cadmus

[[Page 12383]]

Communications, Ephrata, Pennsylvania.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-6310 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
### TELEPHONE CA LL NOTES

PARTICIPANTS: B ruce K. Bernard (SRA) TCVPTF Representative Paddy McDonald (CRL) Study Director, Inhalation Study Elizabeth Donald (CRL, Edinburgh) Study Director, Immunotoxicity Study James Parker ( EPA) Product Manager Michael Metzger (EPA) Chief, Risk Assessment Branch 7, HED Paul Chin (EPA) Toxicologist, HED Yang Yung (EPA) HED
DATE/TIME: June 7, 2011 1115

– 1140 (EDT) SUBJECT: TCVP Immunotoxicity Study

Bac kground 1. A combined Immunotoxicity/28
- day inhalation study protocol was submitted to EPA for review; the submission was in response to the data requests set out in the GENERIC DCI.; the combined concept was rejected by EPA. 2. EPA provided a written review of the submission; the combined concept was rejected and a number of additional comments included. 

# SRA International, Inc.

5235 Ragged Point Road, Cambridge, MD 21613
- 3518 410

. 2 28

. 1400 (ph) 410

. 228. 1 450 (f x) Bernard@sra
- intl.comTCVPTF

TCC SRA/CRL(Edinburgh)/EPA GENERIC DCI/Immunotox & Inhalation Studies 7 June 2011, p. 2

3. The purpose of this TCC was to clarify those questions rega rding the additional comments. Topics for this Call 1. Immunotoxicity

Study A. Clarification regarding Histopathology and Hematology EPA stated that neither histopathology nor hematology analyses were required in this study. B. Group Size (animals) SRA agree d to EPA’s request that the groups size be 10 not 8. C. An imal Species SRA agreed to EPA’s request that the mouse be employed. D. NK AssayData EPA stated that NK data is not required; data based studies are sufficient to conclude that the immune syste m is not THE primary target organ of TCVP. EPA stated that submission of a formal request to EPA for a waiver of the NK data is NOT required. E. Route of Ad ministration EPA stated that either gavage or dietary administration is acceptable (both require exposure 7 days/week).TCVPTF

TCC SRA/CRL(Edinburgh)/EPA GENERIC DCI/Immunotox & Inhalation Studies 7 June 2011, p. 3

F. Dose Levels Wewill be reviewing the available data to determine what doses will be employed in the study. G. Submission of Co urtesy Copy of Revised Protocol SRA offered to submit a courtesy copy of the revised protocol.
2. Inhalation Study EPA confirmed 5 days/week dosing is satisfactory.
Emil NUNEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-250

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENT OF
NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION OF DAMSON BIRTCHER REALTY INCOME FUND-I AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,538,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,586,000
<PP&E>                                       5,980,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,566,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          449,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,117,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,566,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0<F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0<F1>
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS IS NOT PRESENTED IN LIQUIDATION BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
</FN>


</TABLE>
A00A1405.

#### In the Interest of J. E., a child.

(538 SE2d 852)

Pope, Presiding Judge.

Appellant J. E. was adjudicated delinquent on two counts of simple battery arising out of an altercation that occurred in Peachtree City. He appeals alleging only that the State failed to prove venue in Fayette County.

J. E. denied the allegations against him including venue, and the case was tried before the Juvenile Court of Fayette County. During the trial, the State asked the victim, “Did it happen here in Fayette *771County?” The victim replied, “Peachtree City.” The boy also testified that he went to the Peachtree City Police Department to make a statement. And others testified the incident occurred in the Braelinn shopping center.

Decided September 1, 2000.

*Lloyd W. Walker,*for appellant.

*William T. McBroom III, District Attorney, James E. Sherrill, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Venue is a jurisdictional fact that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. *Graves v. State,*269 Ga. 772, 773 (1) (504 SE2d 679) (1998). “When there is insufficient evidence of venue, the verdict rendered is contrary to law and without sufficient evidence to support it.” Id. In order to take judicial notice of any fact, the trial court “must first announce its intention to do so on the record, and afford the parties an opportunity to be heard regarding whether judicial notice should be taken.” Id. at 775 (4) (a).

Without judicial notice of the fact that either Peachtree City or the Braelinn shopping center is wholly within Fayette County, there is no proof of venue. And, because the trial court did not announce its intention to take judicial notice, as required in *Graves,*the State presented no evidence of venue in Fayette County.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Miller and Mikell, JJ, concur.*
[No. 50787-7-I.

Division One.

May 10, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Daniel Kristopher Larson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 01-1-02206-1, Ellen J. Fair, J., entered July 10, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D.S.A., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5200

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ David Lester                                               |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  David Lester                                                         |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  April 12, 2011                                                       |
IN the INTEREST OF: O.S.F.

ED 105835

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FIVE.

Filed: May 9, 2018

Christopher M. Braeske, 8008 Carondelet Ave., Ste. 300, St. Louis, MO 63105, for appellant.

Jennifer C. Hoffman, 105 S. Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105, Richard J. Childress, 111 North 7th Street, Suite 329, St. Louis, MO 63101, for respondents.

William P. Grant, 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Ste. 1850, St. Louis, MO 63105, Guardian Ad Litem.

Before James M. Dowd, C.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and Jason M. Sengheiser, Sp.J.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Mother, B.K., challenges the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County terminating her parental rights to the child, O.S.F., who was 5 years old at the time of trial and judgment.1 Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. We have provided the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the trial court's judgment. Rule 84.16(b)(1).

1

The court also terminated the rights of the child's father, but his rights are not at issue in this appeal.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**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 United eSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Walter
      Reid Green, Jr., as 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, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.





/s/
      Walter Reid Green, Jr.


Walter
      Reid Green, Jr.


Chief
      Financial Officer


Date:  November
      13, 2007








This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
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
 
 
 I,
        Michael D. Price, President and Chief Executive Officer of Platinum Underwriters
        Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that
        this
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
        78o(d)) and that the information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form
        10-Q
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd.
 
 
 Date:
                      October 31, 2007
                  /s/  Michael
                      D. PriceBy:
                      Michael D. PricePresident
                      and Chief Executive
                      Officer
EXHIBIT
32.2








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 Annual Report of Royal Style Design, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nikolay Lobachev,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 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 result of
operations of the Company.




/s/
      Nikolay LobachevNikolay
      Lobachev, Chief Financial OfficerApril 5,
      2010
##### 



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 Surg II, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth W.
Brimmer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Kenneth W. Brimmer

Kenneth W. Brimmer
Chief Executive Officer
November 7, 2002
Bobby Gene MILES v. STATE

CR-15-1244

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 21, 2016 Reh. denied November 10, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gregory MONROE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1484

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**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 TXP Corporation (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Shores, Chief
      Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      TXP Corporation and will be retained by TXP Corporation and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





February
      8,
      2007


*/s/ Michael
                  Shores*Michael Shores
                  Chief
                          Executive*Officer (Principal Executive
                          Officer)*
Exhibit 32.2

















CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Entest BioMedical, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Koos, Chief Financial Officer certify, 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 my 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:  November 2, 2011
/s/David R. KoosDavid R. KoosChief Financial Officer
Antonio Lebaron MELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-1147

Supreme Court of Florida.

[February 2, 2018]

Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine Millsaps, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

*235We have for review Antonio Lebaron Melton's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Melton's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. *See* art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Melton's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in *Hurst v. Florida*, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in *Hurst v. State* (*Hurst* ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Melton's appeal pending the disposition of *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided *Hitchcock*, Melton responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Melton's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Melton is not entitled to relief. Melton was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. *Melton v. State*, 638 So.2d 927, 928 (Fla. 1994). His sentence of death became final in 1994. *Melton v. Florida*, 513 U.S. 971, 115 S.Ct. 441, 130 L.Ed.2d 352 (1994). Thus, *Hurst* does not apply retroactively to Melton's sentence of death. *See**Hitchcock*, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Melton's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Melton, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court's opinion in *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Hitchcock*.
Beta Music Group, Inc. 10-K




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 Annual Report of Beta Music Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his 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 operation of the Company.





3. A signed original 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:
September 1, 2016By:
/s/  Jim EnnisJim EnnisChief Executive Officer
Gerald F. BULL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-936

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 2, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
In the Senate of the United States,

September 30 (legislative day, September 29), 2006.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 5585) entitled ‘‘An Act to improve the netting

process for financial contracts, and for other purposes.’’, do

pass with the following

AMENDMENTS:

Ω1æStrike section 7 (relating to compensation of chapter 7

trustees; chapter 7 filing fees).

Ω2æIn section 8 (relating to scope of application), strike the

section heading and all that follows through ‘‘the amendments made’’ and insert the following:

1 ‘‘SEC. 7. SCOPE OF APPLICATION.

2 ‘‘The amendments made’’.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5585

AMENDMENTS
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeanne M. EISELE, Appellant.

WD 81463

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: July 30, 2019

Jedd C. Schneider, Columbia, for appellant.

Benjamin J. Miller, Fulton for respondent.

Before Division One: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Gary D. Witt, Judges

**ORDER**

Per Curiam *863Jeanne Eisele appeals her conviction for driving while intoxicated following a bench trial. She contends the circuit court erred in denying her motion to suppress and admitting all evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop because the stop was an unconstitutional seizure. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction. Because a published opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision.

AFFIRMED. Rule 30.25(b)