alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16008]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / 
Notices

[[Page 33943]]



AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Senior Executive Service: Membership of Performance Review Board

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Performance Review Board will initiate their labors on or 
about June 28, 2001. The following persons are members of the 
Performance Review Board for 2001.
Members
Corbett M. Flannery, Chair
Arnold J. Haiman, SES Member
Michael G. Kitay, SES Member
Adrienne R. Rish, SES Member
Franklin C. Moore, SES Member
John L. Wilkinson, SES Member

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Anne Conboy, 202-712-5438.

    Dated: June 14, 2001.
Henry W. Reynolds,
Executive Secretary, Executive Resources Board.
[FR Doc. 01-16008 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
John HOWELL, petitioner, v. Sandra HOWELL.

No. 15-1031.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona granted.
D.L., By and Through His Next Friends, J.L. and A.L., petitioner, v. CLEAR CREEK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.

No. 17-760.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Kentray Devon BAILEY, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 16-9414.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-18-00346-CR

Style: Ex parte Arelius Alphonsa McGregor

Date motion filed*: May 15, 2018

Type of motion: Designation of Lead Counsel for Defendant

Parties filing motion: Appellant’s appointed counsel Olubukunola Oyewuwo

Document to be filed: Notice of Appearance by new lead appellate counsel Mark Bennett

Is appeal accelerated? Yes.

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: May 29, 2018.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

The designation of lead counsel for defendant, construed as notice of additional

counsel because only the appointed counsel signed it, and the new lead appellate 

counsel did not, is granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.1(c), 6.2. The Clerk of this Court is 

directed to add Mark Bennett as additional counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.2. Mr. 

Bennett is ordered to file a notice of appearance as new lead appellate counsel by May 

29, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.1(c), 6.2.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  Acting for the Court

Date: May 22, 2018
Exhibit 12.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Daniel Widdicombe, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form 20-F of chinadotcom corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit 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 this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrantand have:
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
Date: May 7, 2004          /s/ Daniel Widdicombe   Daniel Widdicombe   Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, George A. McQuain, the President and
Chief Executive Officer of Global Axcess Corp (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that
to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the first quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated:
May 5, 2009
 
 /s/
      George A. McQuainName:
      George A. McQuainTitle:
      President and Chief Executive
Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10758 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDRES MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-197-ALL

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Andres Martinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by the remedy opinion in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which effectively converted the Sentencing Guidelines from a mandatory regime to an advisory regime. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Benjamin KOLE, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 16-7194.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Colorado, Larimer County denied.
Murray Allen WOODWORTH, petitioner, v. J.T. SHARTLE, Warden.

No. 16-6094.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
# C_2009102EN.01003101.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/31

---

Action brought on 27 February 2009 — Mojo Concerts and Amsterdam Music Dome Explotatie v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-90/09)

2009/C 102/46

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Mojo Concerts BV (Delft, Netherlands) and Amsterdam Music Dome Explotatie BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by S. Beeston, Lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission Decision of 21 October 2008 on the investment of the municipality of Rotterdam in the Ahoy complex (State aid C 4/2008 (ex N 97/2007, ex CP 91/2007).

They submit that the Commission’s reasoning in the contested decision discloses a manifestly incorrect assessment and that the steps in the reasoning are incorrect and/or inadequately substantiated.

First, the applicants argue that the value of the rent and of the shares in Ahoy which have been established are not in accordance with market value. Furthermore, an investment which only leads to value retention can indeed produce an advantage. Moreover, when determining the value of the rent and of the shares, no account was taken of the investment. According to the applicants, the contractual restrictions between the municipality and the operator would not prevent the investment from producing added value. Finally, the benefit-sharing arrangement does not provide an additional guarantee of the market conformity of the transactions.

The applicants also allege breach of procedure and defective reasoning: the arguments submitted by them were not, or only inadequately, taken into consideration by the Commission in the contested decision; parts of the file were wrongly classified as confidential; and the applicants were not informed of all the elements in the file, which constitutes an infringement of the right to be heard.

---
Carl A. DIMPERIO, Jr., petitioner, v. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.

No. 16-6792.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Ronald J. GRASON, petitioner, v. Thomas PRICE, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

No. 16-9294.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999           JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      117,999                 2,246
<SECURITIES>                                      0                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                45,458                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0                     0
<INVENTORY>                                       0                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            170,457                 2,246
<PP&E>                                       59,075                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                               (2,037)                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            4,290,491                 2,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        23,545                13,042
<BONDS>                                           0                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0                     0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                     0
<COMMON>                                      2,573                   600
<OTHER-SE>                                4,300,650               (10,198)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              4,290,491                 2,246
<SALES>                                           0                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0                     0
<CGS>                                             0                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             1,498,649                10,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,432,230)              (10,797)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (1,432,230)              (10,797)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                     0
<CHANGES>                                         0                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             (1,432,230)              (10,797)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.09)                (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.09)                (0.00)



</TABLE>
# C_2011013EN.01002403.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2010 — OHIM v Simões Dos Santos

(Case T-260/09) (1)

1

(Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Merit points reset at zero and their total recalculated - Compliance with a judgment of the General Court - Res judicata - Legal basis - Non-retroactivity - Legitimate expectation - Material damage - Loss of opportunity for promotion - Non-material damage)

2011/C 13/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Simões Dos Santos (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08 Simões Dos Santos v OHIM, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Simões Dos Santos

OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Paragraphs 2 to 25 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08 Simões Dos Santos v OHIM are annulled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Paragraphs 2 to 25 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08 Simões Dos Santos v OHIM are annulled.

| 2. | The main appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The main appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed as to the remainder.

| 3. | The case is referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The case is referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

| 4. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
# C_2013032EN.01001601.xml

| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/16

---

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — 1. garantovaná v Commission

(Case T-392/09) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Relevant turnover - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Ability to pay)

2013/C 32/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented initially by: M. Powell, Solicitor, A. Sutton and G. Forwood, Barristers, and subsequently by M. Powell, G. Forwood, M. Staroň and P. Hodál, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Bourke, N. von Lingen and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 1. garantovaná a.s. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 1. garantovaná a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2



WRITTEN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 USC. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of China 3C Group and
its subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Jian Zhang, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 USC. 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
13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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: June 4, 2012 | By:    | /s/ Weiping Wang                                                            
|------------------- | ------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    | Name:  | Weiping Wang                                                                
|                    | Title: | Chief Financial Officer (Principal
        Accounting and Financial Officer)
R.D., petitioner, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES.

No. 17-7745.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District denied.
James M. McMASTER, et ux., petitioners, v. TOWNSHIP OF BENSALEM, PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 17-967.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied.
Ramiro LOPEZ-AQUIRRE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6113.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-89113 and 333-44480) of Launch Media, Inc.
of our reports dated January 24, 2001, relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedule which appear in this Form 10-K. We also consent to
the reference to us under the heading "Selected Consolidated Financial Data" in
this Form 10-K.


/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Woodland Hills, California,
March 30, 2001
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of PW Eagle, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jerry A. Dukes,
Chief Executive Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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: November 11, 2005



/s/ Jerry A. DukesJerry A. Dukes Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Laserscope on Form10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004, I, Eric M. Reuter, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of Laserscope, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:
 (1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months endedMarch 31, 2004 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended March 31, 2004 fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof Laserscope.        Date:  May 7, 2004 By:  /s/  Eric M. Reuter    Eric M. Reuter    President and Chief Executive Officer   
A signed original of this written statement required by section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by section 906, has been provided to Laserscope and will beretained by Laserscope and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.