alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Certification                                Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley                                Act of 2002I, Martin P. Moore, certify that: 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cost-U-Less,Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge,        this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material        fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report;     3.  Based        on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information        included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;     4. The        registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for        establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and we have:       a) designed such disclosure        controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating        to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;           b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures, and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport; and       c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,      basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):       a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and       b) any fraud, whether        or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 
Date: May 15, 2006 /s/ Martin P. Moore Martin      P. MooreChief Financial Officer**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7372

GREGORY ROLAND PRUESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-99-79-V) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 22, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Roland Pruess, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court denied relief, in part, in reliance on this court’s decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 995 (2003), that case does not apply because this matter arises from Pruess’ § 2241 petition, rather than from a § 2255 motion. Accordingly, neither the certificate of appealability requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (2000), nor Winestock , applies to this action. PER CURIAM: Gregory Roland Pruess, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), taken from the district court’s previous denial of his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We affirm the district court’s denial of relief on the ground that Pruess’ claim previously was considered by the district court in evaluating Pruess’ § 2241 petition, as well as by this court on appeal of the district court’s denial of the petition. SeeUnited States v. Pruess , Nos. 01-6346, 02-6803 (4th Cir. Oct. 8, 2002) (unpublished). Rule 60(b) may not be used to relitigate claims already decided by the court, CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co. , 57 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 1995), and Pruess has raised no new ground to call into question the propriety of that decision. * We further affirm the district court’s denial of relief based on the timeliness of Pruess’ Rule 60(b) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
John DEVANEY, petitioner, v. TOWN OF NARRAGANSETT, RHODE ISLAND, et al.

No. 16-510.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
----

----

I Aktid, mille avaldamine on kohustuslik

Nõukogu

----

NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS (EÜ) nr 1241/2004,

5. juuli 2004,

millega muudetakse teatavatele tööstus-, põllumajandus- ja kalandustoodetele kehtestatud ühtse tollitariifistiku ühepoolseid tollimakse kindlaksmääramata ajaks peatavat määrust (EÜ) nr 1255/96

EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,

võttes arvesse Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut, eriti selle artiklit 26,

võttes arvesse komisjoni ettepanekut

ning arvestades järgmist:

ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA MÄÄRUSE:

Artikkel 1

Käesolevaga muudetakse määruse (EÜ) nr 1255/96 lisa järgmiselt:

Artikkel 2

Käesolev määrus jõustub kolmandal päeval pärast selle avaldamist Euroopa Liidu Teatajas.

Seda kohaldatakse alates 1. juulist 2004.

Käesolev määrus on tervikuna siduv ja vahetult kohaldatav kõikides liikmesriikides.

Brüssel, 5. juuli 2004

Nõukogu nimel

eesistuja

G. ZALM

----

(1)EÜT L 158, 29.6.1996, lk 1. Määrust on viimati muudetud määrusega (EÜ) nr 2285/2003 (ELT L 341, 30.12.2003, lk 1).

----

I LISA

----

(1)  Sellel konkreetsel eesmärgil kasutamist kontrollitakse vastavalt asjaomastele ühenduse sätetele.

----

II LISA

----
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-40529 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. EMILY TOVAR, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:10-CR-2284-1
Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Emily Tovar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Tovar has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected t h e r e i n. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Acco rdingly, counsel’s motion for leave to wi t h draw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 30, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40529 Document: 00511680248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2011No. 11-40529

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-40529 Document: 00511680248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2011
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report of Digital Generation Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates indicated below, hereby 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.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                               
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ SCOTT K. GINSBURG                                         
|                      |  |     |  | Scott K. Ginsburg                                             
|                      |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  |    
|Dated: March 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ OMAR A. CHOUCAIR                                          
|                      |  |     |  | Omar A. Choucair                                              
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Disruptive Trading Practices Q & A 

What is the goal of the proposal? 

The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comments on the statutory provisions of Section 747 of 

Dodd-Frank as well as whether the Commission should promulgate additional rules to prohibit disruptive trading 

practices as well as rules reasonably necessary to prohibit the trading practices specified in the statute and any other 

trading practice disruptive of fair and equitable trading. 

What are the practices prohibited by the statute that the Commission seeks comments? 

A. violates bids or offers; 

B. demonstrates intentional or reckless disregard for the orderly execution of transactions during the closing 

period; or 

C. is, is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, “spoofing” (bidding or offering with the 

intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution). 

Is the Commission proposing additional rules? 

Not at this time. The Commission instead is seeking comments on the reach of the existing statutory provisions 

and the Commission asks commenters to respond to a series of questions concerning other potential disruptive 

trading practices. 

Are the statutory provisions in effect today? 

No. The statutory provisions become effective 360 days after the enactment of Dodd-Frank. 

Are commenters required to respond to all of the proposed questions? 

No, commenters can comment on any or all of the questions posed in the ANOPR. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
Zakaria Mohamed OWEISS, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 16-5968.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

*480Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
Antonio Damarcus WOODSON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 15-9127.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
H. Res. 1448 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 17, 2010. 

Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 5297) to create the Small Business Lending Fund Program to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital 

investments in eligible institutions in order to increase the 

availability of credit for small businesses, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 1436, it shall be in 

order to consider the amendments printed in the report of the 

Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution as though 

they were the last two amendments printed in part C of 

House Report 111–506. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 10(h)


 





 


AMENDMENT
TO COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENT WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


 


Effective January 1, 2006, the annual cash
retainer paid to non-employee members of the Board of Directors is $75,000. The
retainer is prorated for directors elected during the calendar year.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33108-33109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15465]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.


[[Page 33109]]


    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel.
    Date: June 21, 2001.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Clare K. Schmitt, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4182, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 435-1148, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f685959e9b9f828295b6958584d8989f9ed8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6c5d5dedbdfc2c2d5f6d5c5c498d8dfde98d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine, 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 13, 2001.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-15465 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Nishon Quinte RAINNER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6506.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15762]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel
    Date: June 28-29, 2001.
    Time: 8 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Radisson Bracello, 2121 P. Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20037.
    Contact Person: Katherine Woodbury, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, 
Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review ad 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-15762 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Arthur J. BURTON, petitioner, v. Lori GIDLEY, et al.

No. 16-5420.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Keith D. GOODMAN, petitioner, v. Eddie PEARSON, Warden.

No. 16-6659.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Dorothy HARTMAN, petitioner, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al.

No. 16-5827.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

*623Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1386 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1386

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit Members 
       from negotiating for a job involving lobbying activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2010

 Mr. Foster submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit Members 
       from negotiating for a job involving lobbying activities.

    Resolved, That (a) clause 1 of rule XXVII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives is amended by inserting ``(a)'' after ``1.'' and by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(b) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall not 
negotiate or have any arrangement concerning prospective employment for 
a job involving lobbying activities as defined by the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act of 1995.''.
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall only apply to 
negotiations or arrangements entered into after the date of adoption of 
this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Name
    
    Jurisdiction of Organization1. Marvel Characters, Inc.
    
    Delaware2. Marvel Characters B.V.
    
    The Netherlands3. MVL International C.V.
    
    The Netherlands4. SM Characters C.V.
    
    The Netherlands5. Coöperatie SM Characters U.A.
    
    The Netherlands6. Marvel International Character Holdings LLC
    
    Delaware7. Marvel Entertainment International Limited
    
    United Kingdom8. Marvel Property, Inc.
    
    Delaware9. Marvel Publishing, Inc.*
    
    Delaware10. Spider-Man Merchandising L.P.
    
    Delaware11. MRV, Inc.
    
    Delaware12. Marvel Studios, Inc.
    
    Delaware13. MVL Film Finance LLC
    
    Delaware14. MVL Productions LLC
    
    Delaware15. MVL Rights LLC
    
    Delaware16. MVL Development LLC
    
    Delaware17. Marvel Film Productions LLC
    
    Delaware18. Iron Works Productions LLC
    
    Delaware19. Iron Works Productions II LLC
    
    Delaware20. Incredible Productions LLC
    
    Delaware21. MVL Iron Works Productions Canada, Inc.
    
    Province of Ontario22. MVL Incredible Productions Canada, Inc.
    
    Province of Ontario23. Asgard Productions LLC
    
    Delaware24. Marvel Animation LLC
    
    Delaware25. Assemble Line Productions LLC
    
    Delaware26. Vita-Ray Productions LLC
    
    Delaware27. Assembled Productions LLC
    
    Delaware28. Squad Productions LLC
    
    Delaware
 *
    
    Also does business under the name Marvel Comics.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

MARIA ANGELICA BACLINI, 

HECTOR HUGO SANDIANO, JORGE NELSON 

BATALLES, JUAN BAUTISTA ALBERTENGO, : 

GERADO JOSE TEDESCHI, NORA ALICIA 

CANTON!, DAMIAN MARTINUCCI , 

EDGARDO MAXIMO GEMINELLI, PEDRO & 

MARIA MOGETTA, GUSTAVO 

REDMONDINO, CHRISTINE WAGNER, 

MARIA & GABRIEL LAZZARINI, 

GUILLERMO DE LA TORRE & ADRIANA 

SEBASTIANELLI, NORA & GEORGINA 

REMONDINO, DANIELA CORNET, JOSE LUIS : 

GINITRINI, ALBERTO RAUL PESAOLA, 

CARLOS MARCELO FARRUGGIA, RAQUEL 

NORA ROTT AI & ANTONIO GUSTAVO 

TRILLO, EDGARDO MAXIMO GEMINELLI, 

PEDRO & MARIA MOGETT A, 

v. 

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., and 

DALILA COSTA-LEROY 

CFTC Docket Nos. 07-R036; 07-

R037;07-R038;07-R039;07-R040; 

07-R041; 07-R042; 07-R043; 07-

R044; 07-R045; 07-R046; 07-R047; 

07-R048; 07-R049; and 07-ROSO 

ORDER OF SUMMARY 

AFFIRMANCE 

Our review of the record and the complainants' appellate submission establishes that the 

Administrative Law Judge committed no error material to the outcome of the proceedings and 

that the findings of the Administrative Law Judge are supported by the weight of the evidence; 

we therefore adopt them. In addition, the complainants have not raised important questions of 

law or policy that merit extended discussion. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 14 of the 
Com~odity Exchange Act and Commission Regulation 12.406(b ), we summarily affirm the 

initial decision and order of the Administrative Law Judge without opinion. 1 

IT IS SO ORDERED? 

By the Commission (Chairman GENSLER and Commissioners CHILTON, O'MALIA and 

WETJEN). 

Meli sa D. Jurgens 

Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dated: October 18, 2013 

1 Pursuant to Commission Regulation 12.406(b), 17 C.F.R. § 406(b), neither the initial decision nor the 

Commission's order of summary affirmance shall serve as a Commission precedent in other proceedings. 

2 Under Sections 6(c) and 14(e) ofthe Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 18(e)(2000), a party may 

appeal a reparation order of the Commission to the United States Court of Appeals for only the circuit in which a 

hearing was held; if no hearing was held, the appeal may be filed in any circuit in which the appellee is located. The 

Commission has ruled that telephonic hearings are "held" in Washington, D.C., although parties may speak from 

several different locations. Dubois v. Alaron, [2000-2002 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 28,406 at 

51 ,027 n.17 (CFTC Oct. 26, 2000). The statute also states that such an appeal must be filed within 15 days after 

notice of the order and that any appeal is not effective unless, within 30 days of the date of the Commission order, 

the appealing party files with the court a bond equal to double the amount of any reparation award.