alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7150]



[[Page 14592]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,456]


Silver King Refrigeration, Inc.; Plymouth, MN; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 3, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by the Minnesota State Workforce Office on behalf of 
workers of Silver King Refrigeration, Inc., Plymouth, Minnesota.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of March 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-7150 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,188,243
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,243,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                   420,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,765,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,359,090
<PP&E>                                       3,219,795
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,818,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,549,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,448,238
<BONDS>                                     48,328,971
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,500
<COMMON>                                       810,975
<OTHER-SE>                                 (43,754,803)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,549,063
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,423,326
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,054,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               953,455
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               102,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             953,455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,584,581)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,584,581)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,584,581)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.23)
         

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Staff Assistant.

 [FR Doc. E9-7537 Filed 3-31-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
States

. By granting this Petition, the FAA Administrator will be fulfilling the Congressional mandate ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, while also advancing the interests ofthe public, by allowing The Goodwyn Group , LLC to safely , efficiently, and economically operate the DJI Phantom Series , DJI Inspire, DJI S800, DJI S900 and DJI S1000 UASs commercially within the NAS. WHEREFORE, in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012 , Section 333, The Goodwyn Group , LLC respectfully requests that the Administrator grant this Petition for an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R Sections 45

.27(a), 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.105 , 91.119(c), 91.121 , 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), AND 91.417(a) & (b) , and permit The Goodwyn Group , LLC to operate the DJI Phantom Series, DJI Inspire, DJI S800, DJI S900 and DJI S1000 UASs commercially for the purpose ofconducting aerial video and photography over certain areas ofthe United States

.

Dated: May 29, 2015



### 41 Respectfully submitted, The Goodwyn Group , LLC



# ~cC<J **OiAr-** Richard W. Goodwyn



# ~ 42762 Hollowind Ct. Broadlands, VA 20148 Tel: (703) 606-3978
David John VEDROS v. Kelli Soileau VEDROS

NO. 2017-02119

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

Denied.

GENOVESE, J., would grant in part.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 15, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00104

- CV

Realtex Housing Management, LLC , Appellant

v.

Villa Main Housing Associates, Ltd. , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUN TY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgm ent signed by the tr i a l court on December 3, 2021

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The

appe llan t shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
----

Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-264/05)

(2005/C 217/112)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA), represented by G. Kuipers, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 98]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28270]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2018 / 
Notices

[[Page 98]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-57-2017]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 35--Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 
Authorization of Production Activity; Estee Lauder Inc.; (Skin Care, 
Fragrance, and Cosmetic Products); Bristol and Trevose, Pennsylvania

    On August 29, 2017, Estee Lauder Inc. submitted a notification of 
proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within 
FTZ 35, in Bristol and Trevose, Pennsylvania.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (82 FR 44159, September 21, 2017). On 
December 27, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.14.

    Dated: December 27, 2017.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28270 Filed 12-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed October 31, 2019

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO

. 14

- 19

- 00810

- CV

____________ IN RE MICROWAVE NETW ORKS INC. , Relator

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 165th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 64733

- A



### ABATEMENT ORDER
On October 28, 2019, the parties notified this court that they have reached an agreement to settle the underlying action and requested that the mandamus proceeding be abated for execution of the final settlement documents. The motion is granted. Accordingly, we issue the following order

. This mandamus proceeding is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this cou rt’s active docket until November 12, 2019 . The mandamusproceeding will be reinstated on this court’s active docket at that time, or when the

parties file a motion to dismiss the mandamus proceeding or other dispositive motion. The court will also conside r an appropriate motion to reinstate the mandamus proceeding filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the mandamus proceeding on its own motion

.
PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer

.
Pedro HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Pedro Ramirez, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-3497

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, R. Douglas Barton, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of Discount Dental Materials, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Discount Dental Materials, Inc.;  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. I am 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. I, as the certifying officer have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (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: February 1, 2011 By: /s/ R. Douglas Barton R. Douglas Barton Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer Chief Financial Officer
This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.



Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) AND 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 Smithtown Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2004, (the Report), I, Anita M. Florek, Executive Vice President and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 6, 2004



/s/ Anita M.FlorekAnita M. Florek, Executive Vice President and Treasurer of Smithtown Bancorp
D.B., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5487

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 13, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
----

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC No 29/05

European associations acting at European level in the field of education

(2005/C 216/05)

1.   Objectives and description

The purpose of this call for proposals is to support associations active in the field of education and training at the European level, and particularly those associations which are most representative in terms of the target groups they cover, by contributing to the funding of the operational and administrative costs of their European operations. Applicant organisations are invited to present a work plan covering their basic activities (e.g. membership and statutory activities, communication, representation of their membership's interests at European level, other recurrent European activities etc.) for one year. These activities must contribute, or be capable of contributing, to the development and implementation of Community cooperation policy and actions in the field of education and training.

2.   Eligible applicants

Beneficiaries must fulfil the following minimum criteria:

3.   Budget and project duration

The total budget earmarked for the co-financing of work-plans amounts to EUR 750 000. Financial assistance from the Commission cannot exceed 75 % of the total eligible costs set out in an approved work-plan for the association. The Commission expects to fund up to 15 associations.

The period covered by the work plan must start between 1 January 2006 and 1 April 2006. The maximum duration of the approved work-plans of the associations receiving funding is 12 months. The period covered by the work plan must not run over more than one budgetary year of the beneficiary.

4.   Deadline

Applications must be sent to the Commission no later than 4 October 2005.

5.   Further information

The full text of the call for proposals and the application forms are available on the following website:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/calls/2905/index_en.html

Applications must comply with the requirements set out in the full text and be submitted using the form provided.

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0088

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LEWIS LEON BRYSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 14, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 8 2023

05/08/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0088
EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-K of SA Recovery Corp. for the period ending February 28, 2010, I, James A. Ditanna, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of SA Recovery Corp. hereby certify 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 my knowledge and belief, that:  1.Such annual report of Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2010, 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 annual report of Form 10-K for the year ending February 28, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SA Recovery Corp.  Date:  September 9, 2010SA Recovery Corp.By: /s/   James A. DitannaJames A. Ditanna
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Principal Accounting Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1352. KENDRICK D. HEATH v. THE STATE.

After a jury trial, Kendrick Heath was convicted of burglary and other offenses.

He filed a motion for new trial, then appealed his convictions and the denial of his

motion for new trial. This Court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion.

Case No. A16A1839 (Dec. 6, 2016). Heath later filed an extraordinary motion for

new trial, which the trial court also denied. We dismissed Heath’s direct appeal from

that order because he failed to follow the discretionary appeals procedure. Case No.

A19A2163 (June 26, 2019).1 Heath thereafter filed another extraordinary motion for

new trial, which the trial court denied. He filed this direct appeal from that order. 

As stated in our dismissal order in Case No. A19A2163, an order denying an

extraordinarymotion for new trial must be appealed by discretionary application. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7); Balkcom v. State, 227 Ga. App. 327, 329 (489 SE2d 129)

(1997). Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure isjurisdictional and this

Court cannot accept an appeal not made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190

Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Thus, Heath’s failure to follow the

discretionary appeals procedure in this case deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct

appeal. See id. In addition, Heath’s current appeal is barred because the issues he

1 Heath also filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the trial court

denied. This Court dismissed his appeal from that ruling because he failed to raise a

colorable void sentence claim. Case No. A20A1965 (Aug. 24, 2020). 

August 05, 2022
raises have or could have been litigated in a prior appeal.

2 See Echols v. State, 243

Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot

be relitigated ad infinitum. The same is true of appeals of the same issue on the same

grounds.”) (punctuation omitted); Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320, 320 (540 SE2d 612)

(2001) (a party “is not entitled to another bite at the apple by way of a second

appeal”); Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 (713 SE2d 438) (2011) (dismissal of

previous appeal constitutes binding law of the case). 

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

2 Although Heath cited newly-discovered evidence as the basis for the

extraordinary motion for new trial at issue in this appeal (which motion he filed in

2021), he stated that the new evidence was discovered during a motion hearing in

November 2015. Heath filed an extraordinary motion for new trial in 2019, and we

dismissed his appeal from the denial of that motion in Case No. A19A2163. 

08/05/2022
STATE EX REL. Jonathan P. SIMS v. STATE Op Louisiana

NO. 2018-KK-0058

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Louisiana March 9, 2018

Writ not considered. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.