alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11469]

Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(a)(ii)(B) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, and Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, I hereby determine that the person known as Ousmane Illiassou Djibo, also known as Ousmane Illassou Kounou, also known as Halid Illiasou Djibo, also known as Djibbo Illiassou, also known as Aboubacar Chapori, also known as Petit Chapori, also known as Petit Tchapori, also known as Petit Chappori, also known as Petit Chaffori, is a leader of ISIS in the Greater Sahara (ISIS-GS), a group whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to a prior determination by the Secretary of State pursuant to Executive Order 13224.

Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

*Authority:*E.O. 13224. 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786.                

Dated: June 16, 2021.

Antony J. Blinken,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-15419 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **5 -**  **6361**

EDDIE LEVORD TAYLOR ,
P etitioner

- Appellant ,

v.

DENNIS DANIELS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the We stern District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 3:14

- cv
- 00079

- FDW )

Submitted : Ma y 19 , 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Eddie Levord Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Eddie Levord Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition . We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
was not timely filed.

Parties in a civil action in which the United States is not

a party are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a
notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
August 15, 2014 . The notice of appeal was filed , at the
earliest, on March 9, 2015

. 1 Because Taylor failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, 2 we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis

1 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (19 88).

2 Even if Taylor’s untimely notice of appeal were construed as a motion to reopen the appeal period under R ule 4(a)(6), we conclude that such a motion could not be granted because Taylor (Continued)3 and dismiss the app eal. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

DISMISSED

filed his notice of appeal 19 days after receiving notice of the court’s judgment, which was beyond the 14

- day period provided in Rule 4(a)(6)(B). See Dolan v. United States , 560 U.S. 605, 610 (2010) (stating that “expiration of a jurisdictional deadline prevents the court from . . . extend[ing] that deadline”); Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. , 651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir. 1981) (noting expiration of time limits in Rule 4 deprives court of jurisdiction)

.
Ex. 99.2



          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     In connection  with the annual report of Nordic  American  Tanker  Shipping
Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 21, 2002, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  the undersigned  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 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.

     This  certification  is made solely for the  purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, and not for any other purpose.


Dated:  June 27, 2003


/s/ Herbjorn Hansson
--------------------
Herbjorn Hansson
Chairman, President and Director







01318.0002 #410448
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jean M. Belot, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rubin, J.), rendered July 8, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

On September 18,1981, at about 10:00 p.m., two men committed a robbery of a gas station in Queens. The two attendants who *863were on duty at the time of the robbery described one of the perpetrators to the police and stated that the other robber was Stanley Witherspoon, who had formerly worked at the gas station with them. Both attendants subsequently viewed photo arrays and identified a photograph of defendant as one of the perpetrators.

At trial, over the objection of the prosecution, defense counsel, upon cross-examination, elicited the following facts from the arresting detective: That he arrested Witherspoon on October 7, 1981 and that after his arrest, Witherspoon looked through some photographs and selected one of the defendant. The detective then put the picture that Witherspoon selected into the array, which he subsequently showed to the attendants.

The defense counsel then called an Assistant District Attorney to the stand, who testified that the case against Wither-spoon had been dismissed on December 11, 1981. The case had been marked final against the prosecution on that date and the prosecution was not prepared to go forward because the complaining witness was not present. Witherspoon was not called as a witness by either side.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that defendant received a fair trial. Defendant contends that his right to confront witnesses was abridged because he did not have an opportunity to question Witherspoon. However, defendant’s right to confront witnesses was not denied by the actions of the prosecution. The prosecution witnesses who testified at trial and identified defendant in court were cross-examined by defense counsel. Since the prosecution was not going to call Witherspoon as a witness, the prosecution refrained, on direct examination of the detective, from making any reference to Witherspoon’s pretrial identification of defendant. The jury would not have known of Witherspoon’s identification of defendant if not for defense counsel’s questioning of the detective. If defense counsel believed that Witherspoon’s testimony was necessary to the defense, he could have called Witherspoon as a witness (CPL 610.20 [3]). There is no indication in the record that defense counsel either served a subpoena upon Witherspoon or requested an adjournment to do so. Accordingly, the prosecutor did not abridge defendant’s 6th Amendment right to confront.

The other issues, which defendant raises in his supplemental brief, have not been preserved for review as a matter of law, and we decline to address them in the interest of justice. Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
I, *Paul William Fulton,*certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Lihir Gold Limited;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a – 14 and 15d – 15(e)) forthe company and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresbased, as of the end of the period covered by this report on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee ofcompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting   Date: June 28, 2005
Exhibit 13.3

CERTIFICATION OF DR. WERNER BRANDT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SAP AG

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 SAP AG (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 21, 2014 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies 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 operations of the Company.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |        |  |                         |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Date March 20, 2014 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Dr. Werner Brandt   |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Dr. Werner Brandt       |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES RAY JOHNSON; TERRENCE SIMS; HEATHER SIMS; JOSLYN JOHNSON-BENNING; WILLIE BENNING; RICHARD GADDES; ROBERT HARTENSTEIN; TODD D. SEVERIN; HANS P. SCHROEDER; MICHAEL BILICH; DEB HARTENSTEIN; LANCE GODDARD; JOAN GODDARD; MICHAEL MOFFETT; MARIAN MOFFETT; JAMES M. ROSS; WILLIAM SCHNEIDER; VALERIE SCHNEIDER; STEPHEN SCHNEIDER, Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v. STEVEN L. MYERS, DBA Myers Engineering International, Inc.; MYERS ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL INC, Defendants - Appellants. No. 12-16428 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00092-WHA
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding 

# FILED
MAR 07 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.Argued and Submitted February 13, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, a nd O’SCANNLAIN and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. James Johnson and eighteen other plaintiffs (collectively, “Johnson”) sued Steven Myers and Myers Engineering Intern ational, Inc. (collectively, “Myers”) for, among other things, breach of contract. The district court dismissed the original complaint and denied leave to f ile an amended complaint. Myers moved for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuan t to California Civil Code § 1717, but the district court denied the motion on the ground that Myers was not the prevailing party. Myers appealed. Under California law, the prevailing pa rty is “the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” Cal. Civil Code § 1717(b)(1). “[W]hen a defendant defeats recovery by th e plaintiff on the only contract claim in the action, the defendant is the party prevailing on the contract under section 1717 as a matter of law.” Hsu v. Abbara , 891 P.2d 804, 812 (Cal. 1995). Because Myers ensured that Johnson would not recover on the breach of contract claim, the district court erred in refusing to ru le that Myers was the prevailing party. That the suit was dismissed based on pre-trial motions rather than litigated on the merits is irrelevant. See Profit Concepts Mgmt., Inc. v. Griffith , 76 Cal.
2Rptr. 3d 396, 400 (Ct. App. 2008); Elms v. Builders Disbursements, Inc. , 283 Cal. Rptr. 515, 518 (Ct. App. 1991). California case law does not suggest that, for these purposes, shareholder derivative suits are materially distinguishable from other
cases. See Donner Mgmt. Co. v. Schaffer , 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 534, 543 (Ct. App. 2006). REVERSED and REMANDED.

3
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 23

- 00333

- CR

IN RE MARQUISE DAVAR HODGE

Original Proceeding

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 44392CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator's petition for writ of mandamus , filed on October 31, 2023 , is denied. His

motion for leave to file the petition is dismisse d as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Petition denied

Motion dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 9 , 2023

Do not publish

[OT06]
Exhibit 32.1



Visual Networks, Inc.



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Visual Networks, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Lawrence S. Barker                                                 
|Lawrence S. Barker President and Chief Executive Officer March 14, 2005



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Visual Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Visual Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



51
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15815]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 25, 2021, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers, Inc. (``IEEE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 17 new 
standards have been initiated and 2 existing standards are being 
revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at: https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/sba/may2021.html.
    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 5, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on May 11, 2021 (86 FR 25887).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-15815 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
# C_2020175EN.01002402.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/24

---

Order of the General Court of 25 March 2020 — Necci v Commission

(Case T-129/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Contract staff - Social security - JSIS - Rejection of the application for membership - Out of time - Substantial new fact - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 175/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Claudio Necci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Meyer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 18 April 2018 implicitly rejecting the application for membership of the sickness insurance scheme common to the institutions of the European Communities (JSIS), made by the applicant on 18 December 2017.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Claudio Necci shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Claudio Necci shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15554]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Federal Register CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  86 FR 36549.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:  Thursday, July 15, 
2021 at 10:00 a.m., Virtual Meeting.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The following matter was also considered: 
Motion to Amend Directive 68 to Include Additional Information in 
Quarterly Status Reports to Commission.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Laura E. Sinram,
Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-15554 Filed 7-19-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P