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.                  

###### Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

# AGENCY:

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

# ACTION:

Annual notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is given of the appointment of members to the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

# DATES:

Membership is effective on January 21, 2025.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Huffman, Human Resources Specialist, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 1120 20th Street NW—Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457, (202) 606-5393.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Review Commission, as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5), has established a Senior Executive Service PRB. The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor and makes recommendations to the Chairman of the Review Commission regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance adjustments. Members of the PRB serve for a period of 24 months. In the case of an appraisal of a career appointee, more than half of the members shall consist of career appointees, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(5). The names and titles of the PRB members are as follows:
    - Fred B. Jacob, Solicitor, National Labor Relations Board;
    - Michael A. McCord, General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission;       ( print page 7198)      
    - Reggie James, Associate Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.

Cynthia L. Attwood,

Chairman.

[FR Doc. 2025-01355 Filed 1-17-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7600-01-P
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of NetSol Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Tina Gilger,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





Date:
September 15, 2009





/s/ Boo-Ali SiddiquiBoo-Ali
      Siddiqui, Chief Financial
Officer
EX PARTE Harold WATSON, Jr.

CR-16-1308

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Tamond COLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3623

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 26, 2019

Tamond Cole, Quincy, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Appellant's motion to correct illegal sentence, filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), without prejudice to his ability to file a timely and sworn motion for postconviction relief under Rule 3.850, if he can do so in good faith. *See**Lewis v. State*, 926 So.2d 437, 438-39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Henry Clay RUSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2124

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Ernest Miessel GRUBB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1118

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 23, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and M.J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell and Makar, JJ., and Brasington, Monica J., Associate Judge, concur.
J.D., Father of D.M., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3806

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 16, 2019

Elliot R. Ambrose, of The Law Office of Elliott R. Ambrose, Brooksville, for Appellant.

Kelly Schaeffer, of Children's Legal Services, Department of Children and Families, Bradenton, for Appellee.

Craig Robert Lewis, of Vincent F. Vaccarella, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, Thomasina Moore and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, of Guardian ad Litem, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, LAMBERT and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-51099 Summary Calendar

MARCOS GONZALEZ, and those other inmates similarly s i tuated in the custody of the Attorney General, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. J. MCLAUGHLIN, Clinical Director, in his official and/or individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CV-582
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marcos Gonzalez, federal prisoner # 65613-079, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. J

. McLaughlin o n his claims

o f deliberate indifference to serious medical n eeds. Gonzalez’s claims am o u n t to a disagreement with t h e m edical care h e received, w h i ch is not actionable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named A gents of Federal B u reau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See G obert v. C a l d well , 463 F.3d 339, 346 ( 5th Cir. 2006). U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Septem ber 27, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-51099 Document: 00512389453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2013No. 12-51099

Gonzalez has abandone d a l l o ther c laims by failing to brief them adequately. See M a p e s v . B ishop , 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008); B rinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. McLaughlin’s motion for summary affirmance and his alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief are DENIED as moot.

2 Case: 12-51099 Document: 00512389453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2013
Wesley Owen CLAYBROOK v. Lorelei Marie CLAYBROOK

2160419

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Tintic Gold Mining Company (the Company) certifies that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 9, 2011 By: /s/ Ding Lieping  Ding Lieping, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:04-cv-02468-P Document 21 Filed 04/12/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 97
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02468-P Document 21 Filed 04/12/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 98
# C_2017112EN.01001502.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Torino (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Mr Livio Guida

(Case C-1/17)

(2017/C 112/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte di Appello di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA

Appellant:

Respondent: Mr Livio Guida

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Under Article 20(2) of Regulation No 44/2001, may an employer domiciled in the territory of an EU Member State, against which an action is brought by its former employee before the courts of a Member State in which that employer is domiciled (within the meaning of Article 19 of the regulation), bring a counter-claim against the employee before the same court hearing the original action? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Article 20(2) of Regulation No 44/2001, may an employer domiciled in the territory of an EU Member State, against which an action is brought by its former employee before the courts of a Member State in which that employer is domiciled (within the meaning of Article 19 of the regulation), bring a counter-claim against the employee before the same court hearing the original action?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 20(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 include the jurisdiction of the court hearing the original action even when the employer’s counter-claim is not based on a claim originating with the employer but on a claim originating with another party (which is, at the same time, an employer of the same employee under a parallel employment contract), and the counter-claim is based on an assignment-of-claim agreement, concluded by the employer and the party from which the claim originally derives, after the date on which the original action was brought by the employee? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 20(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 include the jurisdiction of the court hearing the original action even when the employer’s counter-claim is not based on a claim originating with the employer but on a claim originating with another party (which is, at the same time, an employer of the same employee under a parallel employment contract), and the counter-claim is based on an assignment-of-claim agreement, concluded by the employer and the party from which the claim originally derives, after the date on which the original action was brought by the employee?

---
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 960 

To provide for proper treatment of Taiwan government representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 24, 2021 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. SASSE, Mr. 

CORNYN, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. COTTON, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. RUBIO) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To provide for proper treatment of Taiwan government 

representatives. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reassurance On Com5 mitments Act of 2021’’ or the ‘‘ROC Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROPER TREATMENT OF TAIWAN GOVERNMENT 

7 REPRESENTATIVES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 

10 made available for the Department of State for fiscal year 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 960 IS

1 2022 may be used to prepare, propose, draft, review, or 

2 promulgate any regulation, guidance, or executive order, 

3 or to otherwise implement, administer, or enforce any pol4 icy that restricts the ability of members of the armed 

5 forces and government representatives from the Republic 

6 of China (Taiwan) or the Taipei Economic and Cultural 

7 Representative Office (TECRO) to display for official pur8 poses symbols of Republic of China sovereignty, includ9 ing— 

10 (1) the flag of the Republic of China (Taiwan); 

11 and 

12 (2) the corresponding emblems or insignia of 

13 military units. 

14 (b) OFFICIAL PURPOSES DEFINED.—In this section, 

15 the term ‘‘official purposes’’ means— 

16 (1) the wearing of official uniforms; 

17 (2) conducting government-hosted ceremonies 

18 or functions; and 

19 (3) appearances on Department of State social 

20 media accounts promoting engagements with Tai21 wan. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Case 3:05-cv-01323-B Document 45 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID 634
Case 3:05-cv-01323-B Document 45 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID 635
Case 3:05-cv-01323-B Document 45 Filed 03/17/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID 636
Case 3:05-cv-01323-B Document 45 Filed 03/17/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID 637
# C_2019065EN.01000601.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) v Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

(Case C-219/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Acquisition of a qualifying holding in a credit institution - Procedure governed by Directive 2013/36/EU and by Regulations (EU) No 1024/2013 and No 468/2014 - Composite administrative procedure - Exclusive decision-making power of the European Central Bank (ECB) - Action brought against preparatory acts adopted by the national competent authority - Claim that the force of res judicata attaching to a national decision has been disregarded))

(2019/C 65/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest)

Defendants: Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

Third parties: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Banca Mediolanum SpA, Holding Italiana Quarta SpA, Fin. Prog. Italia di E. Doris & C. s.a.p.a., Sirefid SpA, Ennio Doris

Operative part of the judgment

Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national courts from reviewing the legality of decisions to initiate procedures, preparatory acts or non-binding proposals adopted by competent national authorities in the procedure provided for in Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC, in Articles 4(1)(c) and 15 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and in Articles 85 to 87 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation). It is immaterial in that regard that a specific action for a declaration of invalidity on the ground of alleged disregard of the force of res judicata attaching to a national judicial decision has been brought before a national court.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2****NATIONAL INTERSTATE CORPORATION****SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATIONS**I, Julie A. McGraw, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Interstate Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter 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 officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.August 8, 2006     BY: /s/ Julie A. McGraw Julie A. McGraw    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER TYLER LOFTON,

Individually and on behalf of the

ESTATE of CHRISTOPHER M.

LOFTON, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

MCNEIL CONSUMER & SPECIALTY

PHARMACEUTICALS, a Division of

MCNEIL- PPC, INC., and JOHNSON &

JOHNSON, 

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1531-L

ORDER

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed January 4, 2011, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court determines that the Findings and Conclusions of

the magistrate judge are correct, and they are accepted as the findings and conclusions of the court. 

No objections were filed by any party. Defendants shall recover $19,117.16 in taxable court costs.

It is so ordered this 21st day of January, 2011.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Order – Solo Page
Exhibit 10.19



Agreed terms document under the joint venture shareholders' agreement dated [ ]
October 2005 among  Baltic  Petroleum  (E&P)  Limited,  Siberian  Energy  Group
Inc. and Zauralneftegaz Limited



                                 Waiver Letter


To:

Siberian Energy Group Inc.
275 Madison Avenue
6th Floor
New York
NY 10016
United States

Zauralneftegaz Limited
c/o Gilchrist Solicitors
18b Charles Street
London W1J 5DU
United Kingdom

Date: October [ ], 2005

Dear Sirs

SIBERIAN ENERGY GROUP INC.

I am writing this letter in connection with the proposed joint venture agreement
between Baltic Petroleum  (E&P)  Limited  ("BP"),  Siberian  Energy  Group  Inc.
("SEG") and Zauralneftegaz Limited  ("ZNG LTD") dated 14 October, 2005  relating
to OOO  Zauralneftegaz  ("ZNG").  I  acknowledge  that  delivery  of this waiver
letter is a condition precedent to completion of such  agreement  and  that  the
terms hereof may only be varied or amended with the  consent  of  both  SEG  and
ZNG Ltd.

I hereby confirm that, other than those claims against SEG which  are listed  in
the Schedule hereto (the "CLAIMS") and which has been settled as of October  26,
2005 by acceptance of  SEG's shares, [             ] has no  actual,  contingent
or prospective claim outstanding of any nature against SEG, ZNG or any of  their
respective directors, officers and employees or any of  them  in  respect of any
cause, matter or thing whatever.  However, to the extent  that  any  such  claim
(other  than  the  Claims) exists or may exist, [             ] Inc. irrevocably
waives  such claim and releases SEG,  ZNG  and/or  their  respective  directors,
officers and employees, as the case may be, from any  liability  in  respect  of
such claim.

I hereby confirm that [          ] shall not seek to exercise any rights against
SEG in relation to the Claims until such  time  as  SEG  shall  have  sufficient
profits available to discharge the Claims.

EXECUTED by

/s/ [signature]


                                  The Schedule
        Description of Claim                                  Amount ($)
    ----------------------------                          ----------------

<PAGE>
Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 54 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1200
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jackie David Alvarez

, * From the 42nd District Court

o f Taylor County,

Trial Court No

. 26171A

Vs. No. 11

- 19

- 00305

- CR * September 2 , 20 2 1

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Williams , J

. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.