alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17418 and #17419; GEORGIA Disaster Number GA-00137]
 AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of GEORGIA dated 04/22/2022. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         04/05/2022 through 04/06/2022.
 DATES: Issued on 04/22/2022. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/21/2022. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         01/23/2023.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                    Bryan. *Contiguous Counties:* Georgia: Bulloch, Chatham, Effingham, Evans, Liberty. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.875Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.438Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.880Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.940Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.940Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875
 
 
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17418 C and for economic injury is 17419 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Georgia. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-09081 Filed 4-27-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
A00A1507.

#### WILKERSON v. THE STATE.

(535 SE2d 505)

McMURRAY, Senior Appellate Judge.

Appellant Steve Allan Wilkerson and his brother, David Wayne Wilkerson, were indicted separately, but tried jointly, on one count of aggravated assault each. Evidence adduced at trial showed that the Wilkerson brothers approached the victim in a convenience store parking lot. They correctly suspected the victim was romantically involved with David Wilkerson’s wife. After a heated verbal exchange, Steve Wilkerson produced a knife and threatened to cut the victim’s throat. The victim withdrew to his truck. Steve Wilkerson then retrieved a tire iron from his vehicle and tossed it to David Wilkerson, who threw it through the driver’s side window of the victim’s truck, hitting the victim in the head. The victim sustained a small cut.

The jury returned guilty verdicts for both defendants, and their motions for new trial were denied. Steve Wilkerson appeals. In his sole enumeration of error, Wilkerson urges reversal of his conviction based on the trial court’s refusal to charge the jury that conviction of one defendant does not necessarily require conviction of the other. Held:

In cases involving multiple defendants, the Supreme Court of Georgia urges trial courts:

> to give a separate instruction which details the jury’s duty to consider each charge in the indictment against each defendant separately and which reminds the jury that the guilt of one defendant does not require the return of a guilty verdict against the other defendant.1

To determine whether the trial court’s refusal to give the requested instruction harmed Wilkerson, this court must consider the charge in its entirety.2 Upon explaining the indictments, the trial court referred to “each particular indictment, or each charge contained in each of the two indictments.” The trial court further charged that each defendant is presumed innocent and that the presumption remains with each defendant. Moreover, the jury was instructed to determine whether the tire tool allegedly used by David Wilkerson constituted a deadly weapon. Finally, as to the verdict form, the jury was instructed to return a unanimous verdict as to each defendant. The trial court reiterated “that this rule certainly *308applies to each defendant in each separate indictment.” The defendants were never referred to in the plural.

Decided May 31, 2000

*Harrison & Harrison, Samuel H. Harrison,*for appellant.

*Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, R. Keith Miles, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

While it is the “better practice” to charge the jury, particularly upon request, that the conviction of one defendant does not necessitate the conviction of the other, we find no reversible error in the case sub judice.3

*Judgment affirmed.*

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

1

*Nicholson v. State,*265 Ga. 711, 714 (3) (462 SE2d 144); see also *Nunez v. State,*237 Ga. App. 808, 810 (2) (516 SE2d 357).

2

*Nicholson,*supra at 713.

3

Id. at 714.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         579,963
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,208,868
<ALLOWANCES>                                   178,695
<INVENTORY>                                    572,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,513,310
<PP&E>                                      11,729,311
<DEPRECIATION>                                 273,906
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,928,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,814,691
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,289,556
<COMMON>                                    17,693,852
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,928,911
<SALES>                                      4,259,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,259,659
<CGS>                                        2,665,255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,245,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (332,655)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             387,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,295,348)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,782,011)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (486,663)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,295,348)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.74)
        


</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 11

- 00693

- CR

ERICK SALINAS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 3983

- 08

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 24, 2013
In Re Archie CABELLO, petitioner.

No. 18-7754.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Ronald BASS, Sr., petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY, et al.

No. 17-6784.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Erica HUSS, Warden, petitioner, v. Loren ROBINSON.

No. 18-680.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Johnathan HOLT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7600.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 154/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 154 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 637 May 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 154

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 637 May 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2020/C 154/01 | Opinion No°2/2020
  (pursuant to Articles 287(4) and 322(1)(a), TFEU)
  on the Commission’s amended proposal of 14 January 2020 on the Common Provisions Regulation (COM(2020)
  23
  final) | 1 |

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

Court of Auditors

2020/C 154/01

Opinion No°2/2020
  (pursuant to Articles 287(4) and 322(1)(a), TFEU)
  on the Commission’s amended proposal of 14 January 2020 on the Common Provisions Regulation (COM(2020)
  23
  final)

(pursuant to Articles 287(4) and 322(1)(a), TFEU)

(COM(2020)

23

final)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>

                                  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 Annual Report of EDGAR Online, Inc, (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Susan Strausberg,
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, to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Susan Strausberg
                        ----------------------------
                        Susan Strausberg
                        Chief Executive Officer
                        March 30, 2004
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-111841, 333-111830,333-38896, 333-61284, 333-61278, 333-72704, and 333-89696on Form S-8 of our report dated March 31, 2005, relating to theconsolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule ofValueClick, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of and for the yearended December 31, 2004 and of our report dated March 31, 2005 on internalcontrol over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion onthe effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reportingbecause of a material witness), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof ValueClick Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Los Angeles,CaliforniaMarch 31, 2005

----
# C_2017249EN.01002501.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal Groupe (ROYAL & CAPORAL)

(Case T-95/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ROYAL & CAPORAL - Earlier EU word mark KAPORAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 249/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Savas Aydin (Pantin, France) (represented by: F. Watrin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and S. Pétrequin, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Kaporal Groupe (Marseilles, France) (represented by: J. André, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2015 (Case R 867/2015-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Kaporal Groupe and Mr Aydin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Mr Savas Aydin to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Savas Aydin to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

---
Jeffrey AKARD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6778.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

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

                                                                    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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted) (the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), Stephen S. Schwartz, Ph.D., the Chief Executive
Officer of Asyst Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), and David L. White, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge:

         1.       The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended December 31, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1
(the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2.       The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at
the end of the periods covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations
of the Company for the periods covered by the Periodic Report.

         This certification accompanies the Periodic Report pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed "filed" by the
Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

Dated:  February 10, 2004

/s/ Stephen S. Schwartz                   /s/ David L. White
------------------------------------      --------------------------------------
Stephen S. Schwartz, Ph.D.                David L. White
Chief Executive Officer                   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.8



                  B r o t h e r s   O i l   &   G a s   I n c .




December 31, 2001


Attn: Board of Directors
Herrimen Oil & Gas Inc.
#990 - 1500 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC  V6G 2Z6




         RE: Further Extension on Option Agreement and Initial Extension
         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                             for 61-9 and 18-R Wells
                             -----------------------


Please  accept this letter as  confirmation  that  Brothers  Oil & Gas Inc.  has
extended the term of the Option until June 30, 2002.


Regards,

BROTHERS OIL & GAS INC.


/s/ Allen Sewell


Allen Sewell
President










                 101 Church Bay Road, Saturna Island, BC V0N 2Y0
                         Telephone & Fax: (250) 539-5680
----

Exhibit 31.1

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, L. Mark Roseborough, certify that: 

1.     I havereviewed amendment no.1 to this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of EPODInternational Inc;
2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
4.    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for theregistrant and have:
(a)   Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;
(b)   Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and
(c)   Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a)   All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information and
(b)   Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.
Date November 14, 2007/s/ L. Mark    Roseborough                L. Mark Roseborough President and Chief    Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7384

MEJAY T. MCKINNEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY DARGAN

MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of

South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(4:05-cv-03147-MBS)

Submitted: November 13, 2006 Decided: December 13, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mejay T. McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Samuel

Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mejay T. McKinney seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that McKinney has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McKinney’s

motion for a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal, and

deny McKinney’s motion to appoint counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
# Official Journal C 32I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 032I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6429 January 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 032I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6429 January 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 32 I/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products on 29 January 2021(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 32 I/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products on 29 January 2021(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Peter A. PRIMEAU, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 17-5894.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County denied.