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: 11471]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror” at the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Matthew R. Lussenhop,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-15961 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John Mutch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that except for
the failure to timely file the report, the Quarterly Report of Peregrine Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Peregrine Systems, Inc.

Date:
November 3, 2004

| |  | /s/JOHN MUTCHJohn Mutch
President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Peregrine Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Peregrine Systems, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
# C_2019270EN.01005101.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/51

---

Action brought on 27 June 2019 –Mantovani v Parliament

(Case T-392/19)

(2019/C 270/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Agostino Mantovani (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament redetermined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament redetermined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the legal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the legal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-389/19 Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
_____________

No. 96-1627EA

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Richard Hensley, *

*

Appellant. *

_____________ Appeals from the United States

District Court for the Eastern

No. 96-1754EA District of Arkansas.

_____________

[UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Cynthia Hensley, *

*

Appellant. *

_____________

Submitted: September 10, 1996

 Filed: September 19, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, HEANEY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Hensley and Cynthia Hensley entered guilty pleas to

possession with intent to deliver marijuana. On appeal, the Hensleys

contend the district court improperly refused to suppress evidence gathered

under an anticipatory search warrant. Specifically, the Hensleys challenge

the probable cause basis for the anticipatory warrant. After a careful

review of the record and
-2-

the parties' briefs, we conclude the magistrate judge properly denied the

Hensleys' motion to suppress. We thus affirm for the reasons stated in the

magistrate judge's report adopted by the district court. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 19 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing 

Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2011 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. VITTER, Mr. LUGAR, and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within 7 years after the date of its submission for 

9 ratification: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 19 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘The Congress shall have power to prohibit the phys3 ical desecration of the flag of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                  SUBSIDIARIES AND JOINT VENTURE OF REGISTRANT

              TB WOOD'S CORPORATION, SUBSIDIARIES AND JOINT VENTURE

                                DECEMBER 31, 2005

Registrant: TB Wood's Corporation (Delaware)

   Subsidiary:  TB Wood's Incorporated (Pennsylvania)

       Subsidiaries:  Plant Engineering Consultants, LLC (Tennessee)

                      T.B. Wood's Canada Ltd (Canada)

                      Industrial Blaju, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)

                      Berges electronic GmbH (Germany

                      Subsidiary: Berges electronic S.r.l. (Italy)

                      TB Wood's Enterprises, Inc. (Delaware)

       Joint Venture:  TB Wood's (India) Private Limited (India)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15641]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket Nos. 20-36; Report No. 3178; FRS 37546]


Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the 
Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Catherine Wang, on behalf of 
Shure Incorporated.

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 9, 
2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 17, 
2021.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh VanTuyl, Office of Engineering 
and Technology Bureau, (202) 418-7506 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c880bdafa0e69ea9a69cbdb1a488aeababe6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="10586577783e46717e4465697c507673733e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, Report No. 3178, released July 7, 2021. The full text of the 
Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not 
send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.
    Subject: Unlicensed White Space Device Operations in the Television 
Bands, FCC 20-156, published at 86 FR 11490, February 25, 2021, in ET 
Docket No. 20-36. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 
1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-15641 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 32.1




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Valley National Gases
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, William A. Indelicato, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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.


                                                /s/ William A. Indelicato
                                                -------------------------------
                                                William A. Indelicato
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                November 14, 2003
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, Steven P.
Berry, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 28, 2007
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of NeoMagic Corporation.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: December 7, 2007 |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Steven P. Berry    
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Steven P. Berry        
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019155EN.01002701.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/27

---

Appeal brought on 6 February 2019 by the European External Action Service against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2018 in Case T-315/17, Hebberecht v EEAS

(Case C-93/19P)

(2019/C 155/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Chantal Hebberecht

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 in Case T-315/17; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 in Case T-315/17;

| — | dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded;

| — | order the other party to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the EEAS, the General Court erred in law in basing its judgment on an infringement of Article 1d(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and in considering that that provision contains a principle directly applicable to individual decisions adopted by the institution pursuant to those regulations (paragraphs 93 and 94 of the judgment under appeal).

In addition, even if Article 1d(2) of the Staff Regulations were to impose a directly applicable obligation, that provision could not apply in the present case, given the nature of the decision at issue, which concerned only the applicant in her capacity as Head of Delegation, and which was not suitable for the application of the principle of gender equality.

---
#### Candra SANJAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73434.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Gihan L. Thomas, Esquire, Law Offices of Gihan L. Thomas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Joan H. Hogan, OIL, Claire Workman, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Candra Sanjaya, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have juris*439diction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.8d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we review de novo due process claims, *Ibarra-Flores, v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

We reject Sanjaya’s contention that the IJ’s decision violated his due process rights. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process claim).

Sanjaya does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was untimely. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not addressed in argument portion of brief are deemed waived).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Sanjaya has not established it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1067-68.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that the harms experienced by Sanjaya were not sufficiently serious to rise to the level of past persecution. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1059-60 (being beaten by youths, robbed of sandals and pocket money, and accosted by a threatening mob did not compel a past persecution finding). However, the BIA declined to apply the disfavored group analysis to Sanjaya’s withholding of removal claim. In light of our intervening decision in *Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1064-67, we remand for the agency to assess in the first instance whether Sanjaya has demonstrated a clear probability of future persecution under the disfavored group analysis. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Town of North Elba et al., Appellants, v William H. Grimditch Jr. et al., Respondents.

[948 NYS2d 157]

Rose, J.P.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Meyer, J.), entered September 29, 2010 in Essex County, which, among other things, partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and (2) from an order of said court, entered March 11, 2011, which, among other things, granted defendants’ motion to vacate said order.

The underlying facts are more fully set forth in our decision in *Town of N. Elba v Grimditch*(96 AD3d 1305 [2012] [decided herewith]). As relevant here, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction preventing defendant William H. Grimditch Jr. from constructing a boathouse in the waters of Lake Placid adjacent to his lakefront property. The parties agreed that the injunction would also apply to a second boathouse being constructed adjacent to a nearby lakefront parcel owned by Grimditch’s children, defendants Wayne H. *1301Grimditch and Carol Lynn Grimditch Roda. Supreme Court issued a limited preliminary injunction which, among other things, directed defendants to apply for building permits and to comply with the applicable Village of Lake Placid/Town of North Elba Land Use Code. Plaintiffs appeal from the preliminary injunction, arguing that the court had no authority to impose certain conditions on the process for reviewing defendants’ applications. While that appeal was pending, Supreme Court vacated the preliminary injunction, and plaintiffs appeal from that order as well.

Initially, we address defendants’ contention that the appeal from the preliminary injunction is moot by virtue of the subsequent order vacating the injunction. Plaintiffs’ challenge to the vacatur order is limited to whether Supreme Court was authorized to issue it. Generally, an issuing court retains the power to entertain and decide motions on an order that has been appealed even where the outcome may impact the pending appeal *(see Matter of Rospigliosi v Abbate,*31 AD3d 648, 650 [2006]; *see generally*CPLR 2221, 5015). Here, plaintiffs claim that the vacatur was improper because it was sua sponte *(see Matter of Zachary EE. [Misty DD.],*71 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2010]). The record, however, reveals that Supreme Court vacated the preliminary injunction pursuant to defendants’ specific request. As the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, and as plaintiffs do not challenge the merits of the determination to grant vacatur, the appeal from the preliminary injunction must be dismissed *(see Matter of Martin v Rolley,*22 AD3d 998 [2005]; *Ireland v Wilenzik,*296 AD2d 771, 773-774 [2002]; *Matter of Century Concrete Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Saugerties,*248 AD2d 787, 788 [1998]; *cf. Scally v Scally,*151 AD2d 869, 871 [1989]).

Malone Jr., Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal from the order entered September 29, 2010 is dismissed, without costs. Ordered that the order entered March 11, 2011 is affirmed, without costs.