alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1)   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(a) 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. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /S/ Floyd Glisson  |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Floyd Glisson      |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |                    |
|   |   | June 21, 2010           |
EXHIBIT 32.1
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer**
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of AMB Property Corporation,the sole general partner of AMB Property, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”),hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the OperatingPartnership for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theOperating Partnership.
Dated: November 9, 2004         /s/ HAMID R. MOGHADAM   Hamid R. Moghadam   Chairman and CEO       /s/ W. BLAKE BAIRD   W. Blake Baird   President and Director       /s/ MICHAEL A. COKE   Michael A. Coke   CFO and Executive Vice President   
     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany theReport pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Operating Partnership, whethermade before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporationlanguage in such filing.
49
**Dr. Lori Moore-Merrell,**

Across our nation, fire is a threat to individuals, and it is a threat to our homeland security. Fire continues to be a leading cause of death and injury in the United States. In fact, if a fire occurs in a home today, occupants are more likely to die in that fire than they were 40 years ago. Additionally, fire departments are reporting challenges with insufficient resources to respond to increasing call volume and emerging threats.

It is the role of the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) to highlight the relevant issues facing our nation and the fire service… and to identify solutions to address the devastating fire problem in America.

Every year, tens of thousands of individuals are seriously injured by fires. While fire can impact anyone, unfortunately, time and again it disproportionately impacts our most vulnerable populations — the elderly, our children, the disabled, and low-income families.

Inspired by tragic fires in 2022, Congress passed, and President Biden signed, legislation to give the USFA new investigative authority for major fires. This authority enables USFA to identify fire safety factors that contributed to fire growth or spread and led to large-scale loss and multiple fatalities.

President Biden also enacted legislation mandating long-life encased smoke alarms in public housing not equipped with hard-wired smoke alarms. This law will help ensure that life-saving smoke alarms cannot be disabled in public housing.

While these laws will help, unfortunately, the changes in our construction practices using lightweight building materials and the evolution of technology using lithium-ion energy and robotics pose **new** fire threats. Therefore, we must continue to research and develop solutions to curtail these threats.

The scourge of fire is not limited to our urban and suburban jurisdictions. Today, 99 million people or a third of the U.S. population live in the wildland urban interface (WUI) environment, yet most have no idea what the interface is or the dangers that it poses. The USFA, along with our federal, state, and local partners, is working to address the fire challenges in the interface, educate those who live and work in the WUI, and ensure that firefighters responding to a fire in the area are trained and equipped to respond safely, efficiently, and effectively.

Along with national fire organization partners, the USFA has launched a Fire Service National Strategy “U.S. Fire Administrator’s Summit on Fire Prevention and Control Proceedings” to address the threat of fire to our communities and the ramifications of fire on our nation’s firefighters.

While the fire problem in America remains difficult, I feel confident that with our continued partnership at the federal, state, and local level, we can prevent future fires, reduce suffering, and ensure that more people across the nation have the tools to protect themselves and their families when disaster strikes.

We are stronger together,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT APRIL 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED APRIL
30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,978,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,798,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 18,331,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,393,000
<PP&E>                                      57,147,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              30,441,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,567,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,514,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,462,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,567,000
<SALES>                                     34,666,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,666,000
<CGS>                                       10,642,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,089,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             118,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,817,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,817,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,817,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jose Samuel Sanchez, * From the 106th District Court

of Dawson County,

Trial Court No. 17-7724.

Vs. No. 11-18-00295-CR * October 22, 2020

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

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

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

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 opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
A92A0978.

#### MAXSON v. THE STATE.

(423 SE2d 292)

Decided October 2, 1992.

*Arthur J. Shelfer, Jr.,*for appellant.

*H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, James E. Hardy, Mark E.*
      *678
      *Mitchell, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

*677Johnson, Judge.

Danny Lee Maxson was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Maxson appeals from his convictions.

In his sole enumeration of error, Maxson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. Although Maxson admits shooting the victim, he argues that the State failed to rebut his theory of self-defense because the State’s own evidence established that the victim had a knife on his person and was intoxicated at the time of the shooting. This enumeration is without merit.

“The standard of review for the denial of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal is the same as that for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) *Johnson v. State,*201 Ga. App. 88, 89 (1) (410 SE2d 189) (1991). Evidence in this case indicated that Maxson, who had been drinking beer excessively, began to get “rowdy” in a bar while in possession of a .22 caliber gun. Two witnesses testified that Maxson threatened to shoot a man in the bar. Thereafter, Maxson gave the victim a ride home in Maxson’s truck. During the ride Maxson became angry with the victim for refusing to get out of the truck. Max-son pointed his gun at the victim and ordered him to get out of the truck. Maxson claims the victim then threatened him with a knife. Maxson admits that he then shot the victim in the shoulder.

Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict we find that a rational trier of fact could have found Maxson guilty of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Maxson’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carley, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.*
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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11:15 a.m., Monday, April 30, 2001.

# PLACE:

Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The Commission will consider whether to postpone the May 2, 2001, Commission meeting regarding Eagle Energy, Inc., Docket No. WEVA 98-123.

No earlier announcement of the meeting was possible.

# **Federal Register**                         CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:                    

Vol. 66, No. 83, at 21,416, April 30, 2001.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE:

10 a.m., Wednesday, May 2, 2001.

# PLACE:

Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

Closed in Part [Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10)].

# CHANGES IN MEETING:

 The Commission has postponed the Commission meeting to consider and act upon Eagle Energy, Inc., Docket No. WEVA 98-123, until 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 30, 2001.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

Jean Ellen, (202) 653-5629/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 01-11327 Filed 5-1-01; 3:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 79 

To amend subtitle IV of title 40, United States Code, regarding county 

additions to the Appalachian region. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mrs. BLACKBURN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend subtitle IV of title 40, United States Code, 

regarding county additions to the Appalachian region. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONS TO APPALACHIAN REGION. 

4 Section 14102(a)(1)(K) of title 40, United States 

5 Code, is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘Hickman,’’ after ‘‘Hawkins,’’; 

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘Perry,’’ after ‘‘Overton,’’; and 

8 (3) by inserting ‘‘Wayne,’’ after ‘‘Washington,’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
China Packaging Technologies, Inc. - Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.1 

Sale Contract 

(English Summary) 

Party A: Great Shengda as supplier 

Party B: Hangzhou Panasonic Home Electronics Co., Ltd as
purchaser 

	Date of Signing 	
      January 1, 2008 

	  	
       

	Price of Products 	
      Taken pattern, amount, time of Purchase, way of payment,
      quality, price of material, working expenses, transportation expenses, the
      market situation and profitability into account, the price is negotiated
      and agreed. 

	  	
       

	Goods delivery 	
      The supplier should deliver the goods before deadline of
      every Single Contract. If the problem of inspection, labor dispute or
      other affairs occur and goods can not be delivered on time, the purchaser
      shall be informed and the problem should be solved under the purchaser’s
      direction. 




	Risks 	1. 	
      Before delivery, the supplier should take all the risks
      that the products may be lost or damaged, unless it is caused by the
      purchaser. 

	
      

      
	2. 	
      The purchaser will keep custody of the non-conforming
      products before the problem is solved. If the products are lost or damaged
      during the custody period, the supplier will be responsible unless it is
      caused by the purchaser. 




	Sales 	
      Every time the Purchaser accepts the goods, it is
      perceived that the goods are delivered to the Purchaser. But when
      inspection is need, sales are not recognized before the inspection is done
      the Purchaser is satisfied. 




	Guarantee 	1. 	
      If any quality problem is found in 3 years after the
      Purchase, the supplier should actively find the problem and take actions
      to solve it. 

		2. 	
      If any quality problem is found in 3 years after the
      Purchase, the supplier should not only change the products but also bear
      all the consequences caused by the problem. 

		3. 	
      Any material problem caused by the non-conforming
      products should be compensated by the supplier.





	Raw material 	
      Basically the raw material is provided by the Supplier,
      however, upon negotiation, the Purchaser can also provide the raw
      material. 




	Payment 	1. 	Balance settled on the 27th
      every month 
		
      2. 
	
      If the deadline is missed, the purchaser should
      compensate the interest equal to bank deposit of the same amount.
  




	Dispute Resolution 	Resort to the purchaser’s local
      court
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD     Document 17      Filed 03/25/2008     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD     Document 17      Filed 03/25/2008     Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 17-2 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11291]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Experiment and Integrative Activities; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Integrative 
Activities (1193).
    Date/Time: June 11, 2001; 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Caroline Wardle, CISE Information Technology 
Workforce (ITWF), Experimental and Integrative Activities, Room 
1160, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, VA 22230 
Telephone: (703) 292-8980.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation 
for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate CISE Information Technology 
Workforce (ITWF) proposals submitted in response to the program 
announcement (NSF 01-33).
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 1, 2001.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-11291 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We hereby consent to the incorporation in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 33-52388 for the 1992 Performance Stock Option Plan) and the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 6, 1995 for the Amended 1992 Performance Stock Option Plan). of our
report, dated November 19, 2002, except for notes 4 and 14 as to which the date
is November 27, 2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Concorde Gaming Corporation and Subsidiaries, included in the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2002.


/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Rapid City, South Dakota
January 3, 2003
Order entered May 29 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01375
- CR WILLIE JAMES PITTS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13
- 61758
- I



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the appellant’s brief received on May 26, 2015 filed as of the date
of this order. The clerk’s record does not contain the trial court’s jury charge on guilt or the verdict
form. The Court notes that on Octo ber 15, 2014, the trial court ordered that the verdict containing the jury foreman’s name and signature was not to be publicly available on the District Clerk’s case management system. The documents, however, must be included in the record on appeal.
Acco rdingly, the Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental record containing the trial court’s charge on guilt and the jury’s verdict. We further ORDER that the District Clerk take thenecessary precautions to file the supplemental record containing those documents in accordance

with the trial court’s October 15, 2014 order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Don Adams, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 2; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; and to counsel for all parties.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2548

___________

David Eugene Bailey, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

William McKinney, Doctor, Official *

and Individual Capacity; Unknown * [UNPUBLISHED]

Harrod, Dentist, Official and *

Individual Capacity; Lisa Spain, *

Medical Director, Official and *

Individual Capacity; Kim Unknown, *

Nurse, Official and Individual *

Capacity; Carla Unknown, Nurse, *

Official and Individual Capacity, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2011

Filed: October 26, 2011 

___________

Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Former Missouri inmate David Bailey appeals from the district court’s Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal of his action without prejudice. The
dismissal was based on his failure to comply with an order to pay an initial partial

filing fee within thirty days.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the dismissal of Mr. Bailey’s action was

an abuse of discretion because--based on his certified inmate account statements--it

appears that his failure to make an initial partial payment on time was due to a lack

of available funds, and because the court neither inquired as to whether Mr. Bailey

had attempted to comply with the court’s order nor provided him an opportunity to

explain his failure to make a timely initial payment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)

(stating that court shall collect initial partial filing fee “when funds exist”), (b)(4)

(providing that prisoner shall not be prohibited from bringing civil action because he

lacks assets and means to pay initial partial filing fee); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d

844, 850 (9th Cir. 2002) (for prisoners whose prior account balances resulted in

assessment of initial fee, but who do not have funds available when payment is

ordered, § 1915(b)(4) should protect them from having their cases dismissed for

non-payment); Hatchet v. Nettles, 201 F.3d 651, 652-53 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(holding that it was abuse of discretion for district court to dismiss action for failure

to comply with initial partial filing fee order, without making some inquiry regarding

whether prisoner had complied with order by submitting required consent formwithin

time allowed for compliance); see also Boyle v. Am. Auto. Serv., Inc., 571 F.3d 734,

742 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). In addition, it appears that the district court

received and accepted Mr. Bailey’s initial partial filing fee after the court dismissed

his action.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s Rule 41(b) dismissal, and we

remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also deny

all pending motions.

______________________________

-2-
Clear All

        30 June 2023    

                    United States hands over command of NATO maritime task group to United Kingdom                 
                TARANTO, Italy (June 30, 2023) – Commodore Paul Stroude of the Royal Navy has assumed command of Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2) in Taranto, Italy on June 30, 2023. Commander of Allied Maritime Command (MARCOM), Vice Admiral Mike Utley CB OBE, presided over the handover ceremony.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website