alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 14, 1979



### 79-41 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board—Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1977 (5 U.S.C. App.)—Resignations—The President’s Authority to Redesignate a Member as Chairman

This responds to the oral request of your Office for our views on the President’s power to redesignate a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. The Board, established by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1947 (5 U.S.C. App.; see also 12 U.S.C. § 1437), consists of three members appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. On April 20, 1979, the Chairman tendered his resignation effective June1, 1979. On May 1, 1979, the President accepted the resignation as Chairman and as a member of the Board. In a letter dated June 1, 1979, henotified the President that he had submitted his resignation only as Chairman, but not as a member. However, he expressed his willingness to continue to serve as Chairman until June 29, 1979, or until such earlier date as his resignation as a member and Chairman would be tendered. By letter dated June 6, 1979, the President noted that the letter of resignation ofApril 20 had applied only to the position of Chairman and not to membership on the Board. The President thereupon redesignated the member as Chairman of the Board until such time as his resignation as a member and
Chairman was tendered. It is our opinion that the President was authorized to redesignate the
member as Chairman because he still was a member of the Board at that time.It is true that the President’s letter of May 1, 1979 stated that he accepted the resignation as Chairman and member. But the resignation was only as Chairman and not as a member. The President, of course, has the power to remove a purely executive officer in the absence of a resignation. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). However, in view of the bipartisan nature and the regulatory functions of the Board, it is questionable

248whether the President has the same unrestricted power with respect to the
members of the Board. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935); Wiener

v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958). In any event, an
intent to remove the Chairman as a member of the Board would be inconsistent with the highly complimentary and appreciative nature of the President’s letter of May 1, 1979. The “ acceptance” of the resignation as a member, therefore, was at most in the nature of a misunderstanding without any legal effect and did not terminate membership on the Board. Accordingly, the member was eligible to be redesignated as Chairman.

L a r r y A . H a m m o n d Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

249
# C_2021138EN.01002902.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 22 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail du Brabant wallon — Belgium) — PR v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

(Case C-335/20) (1)

(2021/C 138/37)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court of Justice has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.

---
Omar AYA, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0925

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 25, 2019

Omar Aya, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel; Gayla Grant and Eric Salvatore Giunta, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Roberts and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 106423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31247]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-224-2024]

Foreign-Trade Zone 247; Application for Subzone; Cummins Inc.; 
Irvine, Pennsylvania

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 
247, requesting subzone status for the facility of Cummins Inc., 
located in Irvine, Pennsylvania. The application was submitted pursuant 
to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 
81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It 
was formally docketed on December 20, 2024.
    The proposed subzone (5.87 acres) is located at 200 Murray Drive, 
Irvine, Pennsylvania. No authorization for production activity has been 
requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the 
existing activation limit of FTZ 247.
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Juanita Chen of the 
FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
[email protected]. The closing period for their receipt is February 10, 
2025. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted through February 24, 2025.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information Section'' section of the FTZ Board's 
website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Juanita Chen at 
[email protected].

    Dated: December 20, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-31247 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
Rachael LEAHY, DOC #S41425, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2598

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 5, 2018

Brett McIntosh and Kevin M. Griffith, Sarasota, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katie Salemi-Ashby, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
INTERVIDEO, INC.



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



I, Randall Bambrough, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of InterVideo, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of InterVideo, Inc.



Date: March 31, 2005



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Randall Bambrough                                                                 
|Randall Bambrough Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 532 

Calls on the Government of Turkey to allow free expression and Internet 

freedom. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2014 

Ms. ESHOO (for herself, Mr. MARINO, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. KEATING) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Calls on the Government of Turkey to allow free expression 

and Internet freedom. 

Whereas an independent, unfettered media and freedom of 

expression, including the Internet and social media, are 

essential elements of democratic, transparent, and open 

societies; 

Whereas millions of people in Turkey, including senior members of the Government of Turkey, use the Internet and 

social media to communicate on a daily basis; 

Whereas the Government of Turkey imposed a countrywide 

ban on access to Twitter on March 20, 2014, and to 

YouTube on March 27, 2014, blocking the use of the 

communications platforms; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 532 IH 

Whereas respected nongovernmental organizations have condemned the decision to block Twitter and YouTube as an 

attack on Internet freedom and freedom of expression in 

Turkey; 

Whereas Twitter has been blocked in Turkey, China, Iran, 

North Korea, and Syria and YouTube has been blocked 

in Turkey, China, Iran, and Pakistan; 

Whereas the Turkish Bar Association argued that the ban on 

Twitter is unconstitutional and in violation of Turkish 

and European human rights laws; and 

Whereas on March 26, 2014, the Turkish district court in 

Ankara blocked implementation of the ban due to the restriction on freedom of expression and communication 

that are protected by the Turkish Constitution and the 

European Convention of Human Rights: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) calls on the Government of Turkey to lift 

3 restrictions on freedom of the press, freedom of ex4 pression, and Internet freedom, including social 

5 media, in Turkey; 

6 (2) recognizes the critical role that technology 

7 and social media play in helping independent jour8 nalists and the general public to communicate, ac9 cess information, and support accountability; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 532 IH 

1 (3) reaffirms the importance of Internet free2 dom to promote democracy and good governance 

3 around the world. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Bradley Lee MCCOY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3108

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
March 29, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NATHANIEL CLAYTON WEATHERS, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00593-CV V.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard appellee=s motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on June 6, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by

NATHANIEL CLAYTON WEATHERS.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Mia NOWELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2688

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021490EN.01000801.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Top System SA v Belgian State

(Case C-13/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Legal protection of computer programs - Directive 91/250/EEC - Article 5 - Exceptions to the restricted acts - Acts necessary to enable the lawful purchaser to correct errors - Concept - Article 6 - Decompilation - Conditions)

(2021/C 490/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Top System SA

Defendant: Belgian State

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which that program forms a part; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which that program forms a part;

| 2. | Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program who wishes to decompile that program in order to correct errors affecting the operation thereof is not required to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 6 of that directive. However, that purchaser is entitled to carry out such a decompilation only to the extent necessary to effect that correction and in compliance, where appropriate, with the conditions laid down in the contract with the holder of the copyright in that program. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program who wishes to decompile that program in order to correct errors affecting the operation thereof is not required to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 6 of that directive. However, that purchaser is entitled to carry out such a decompilation only to the extent necessary to effect that correction and in compliance, where appropriate, with the conditions laid down in the contract with the holder of the copyright in that program.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(7)
              - products_publications(14)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(8)
              - arizona(6)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(43)
              - colorado(1)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - florida(2)
              - georgia(1)
              - hawaii(15)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - (-)nevada(1)
              - new jersey(2)
              - north carolina(2)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(3)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(13)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(4)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        June 10, 2013        A Mammal's Take on the 'Rapture Hypothesis' in Sierra Nevada
Liza PONCE and Michael Ponce, Appellants, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 3D18-154

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2018

Duboff Law Firm, and William J. Karoly, Jr., for appellants.

Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli & DiMatteo, and Elaine D. Walter, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, FERNANDEZ, and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
H.A. BUIE, Jr., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hugh A. Buie, Sr., and Suzanne B. MacDonald and Hugh A. Buie, Jr. as Co-Trustees of the Hugh A. Buie, Sr. Family Irrevocable Trust, Under Trust Agreement Dated January 19, 2000, Appellants, v. BLUEBIRD LANDING OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Appellees.

Nos. 1D17-4331 1D18-0088

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - (-)news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - california(1)

## By Year

Posters        December 31, 2004        Oceanography Beyond the Golden Gate

newsletter        November 30, 2014      Earth Science Matters - Volume 1, Fall 2014
# C_2021357EN.01000401.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/4

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — MN, DN, JN, ZN v X Bank S.A.

(Case C-198/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Mortgage loan drawn up in a foreign currency - Articles 3 and 4 - Assessment of the unfairness of a contractual term)

(2021/C 357/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MN, DN, JN, ZN

Defendant: X Bank S.A.

Intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Re:

All consumers enjoy the protection laid down by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, not only those who may be regarded as an ‘average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect’.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---
2059.

#### Green *v.*The State.

Indictment for larceny after trust, from Sumter superior court— Judge Littlejohn. July 6, 1909.

Submitted October 5, —

Decided October 13, 1909.

*W. M. Harper,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. R. Williams, solicitor-general,*contra.

Powell, J.

The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial rests chiefly on the ground of newly discovered testimony. The fact testified to by the newly discovered witness was insisted upon at the trial, by the defendant in his statement, but he had no witness to the fact. The affidavits make a prima facie ease as to the movant’s diligence; and in the facts of the transaction there is nothing inconsistent with the view, sustained by his affidavits, that he could not have discoyered the existence of this witness by-ordinary diligence. The character of the new witness is duly substantiated. There was no counter-showing. ' This court is of the opinion that the interests of justice can best be subserved through a new investigation. *Judgment reversed.*
Yolanda STEWART v. STATE of Louisiana, THROUGH the LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT and SMG

NO. 2018-CC-1879

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

Denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - connect_social_media(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(1)
              - colorado(1)
              - georgia(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - montana(1)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - (-)texas(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(3)
              - (-)2023(1)
              - 2019(1)

social mediaTexas Flood Watch
Russell MALONEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-4523

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 20, 2019

Russell Maloney, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED as untimely. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c)(1).

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Bruce Douglas Wilson, * From the 90th District

 Court of Stephens County,

 Trial Court No. 29,363.

Vs. No. 11-14-00022-CR * February 14, 2014

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
IN RE: Lauren G. COLEMAN

NO. 2018-B-2099

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent employed a disbarred attorney as a paralegal in her law firm. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that the employment violated Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Lauren G. Coleman, Louisiana Bar Roll number 14150, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to respondent's successful completion of a one-year period of unsupervised probation. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent *420and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.