alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PIEDMONT COTTON MILLS.

No. 12864.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 30, 1953.

Charles A. Kyle, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, New Orleans, La., A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., and David P. Findling Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

John Wesley Weekes and Murphey Candler, Jr., Decatur, Ga., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and STRUM and RIVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This court having directed respondent and T. W. Tift to answer the petition of National Labor Relations Board filed herein on August 15, 1952, adjudging the respondents in civil contempt of court for failing and refusing to comply with the decree of the court entered herein on March 10, 1950, by: (1) failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with Textile Workers of America; (2) by discrimina-torily discharging one Pittman; and (3) by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees by unilaterally increasing their wages and privileges; the respondents answered and joined issue with the charges by denying them generally and specifically. Thereafter the court, on January 12, 1953, directed respondents and the union to resume bargaining negotiations for the purpose of arriving at a collective bargaining agreement if possible.

Within the time fixed by, and in accordance with, the directions of the court, the bargaining negotiations ordered were be*567gun and carried on in good faith until both bargainers had reached the conclusion and had declared that an agreement could not be reached.

Thereafter the Board, no longer insisting upon its claim that the respondents were in. contempt of 'court in respect of failing and refusing to bargain, but insisting that, under the showing made by the petition and accompanying affidavits, respondents were in contempt in respect of the discharge of Pittman and their unilateral action in raising wages and changing the company’s vacation plan, urged upon us that respondents have not effectively sworn away the charges made against them and should be adjudged in civil contempt in respect of these matters, and appropriate relief awarded.

The respondents, on their part, resisting the petitioner’s demands and pointing to the showing made by them in their answer and exhibits, insist: that there is no basis in this record for an adjudication in contempt and that they should be absolved of, and stand discharged as to, all the charges.

We agree. The petition for the adjudication in contempt will, therefore, he denied, and the respondents will stand discharged from the rule to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS 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 Amended Quarterly Report of National Beef Packing Company, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended February 28, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R. Miller, 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 the best of 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.



By:

/s/ JOHN R. MILLERJohn R. Miller Chief Executive Officer




Date: April 14, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4962 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4962

      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Vat Black 25.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2008

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Vat Black 25.

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

SECTION 1. VAT BLACK 25.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.45 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Vat Black 25) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
n o, li'at-o&mz-'Lft

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

* mavoa?A APPeALs ^RECEIVEDIN MAY 04 2^3 COURT OF CRMNAL APPEALS

yq^TTJe^AbelAcostar^lerk »cx«s MAY 04 2015

p c ^,- i= ^ i - r- ^- Abel Acosta, Clerk

ro r«F UoA/QRnBits r_oo/?r op cW^)a//)l appeals t

Com^A/o^^ cHMsrot°H&ft Rf)T B/i(?rrA/x'App,4Lt)On+" p^o^e. iV» *A<i

Hoy^C) rc,4/e. coorj- /o ex}e.nd /-iie. An^e, Po^ P/Vnjj ^ppe.Da^\ pro St,

PiWhlOrs for b)$CLceJ-f0ri6ry tfe~\/t€.l*J ;*n /be CQuJfi. a"<A S*j pf>®^

Appeals i± Chr]slaph<z-r Rcy 0Qr/e.n ia rte -S/o/e, ap Te^tfs AppealS

_ T-» -fJie. sAy/e. and fiuwl^r of He to.se. jV* fl»<^ Aoej/ Cour-/ <»J? «

on^/y /^ Z6;o

40, TA«. ^etfd/me Po^ P/A>if AW /?/>/>*,/JWs tiJiWcm. 9or

S-, /9n e.*f±Y)Sic»r\ of A/yy\s. Por &]pt,rj&4 of Sjxlyf&o} <J&yS js

, pu^j&siid—.&ln' Moult} rwakz, fioz. due. d%h, S\j\y jd -z,e>)s" „

C- Mo prior- ro^v^s-As fo^r Cm -t,/>h<tv)jr/cm of Afw^ JiOS htty)

re,^ues"Mcl. .€.^.f_e.oy/o>i <Kre._4^-_Pd//ouJ-C i rAe App^llar\^ ti)cis. rcprtsjcu/e^ ,

ky—(Lb-wi- etppo) fifed Counsel dv^inG j\)Z toppedJ6? hW e-^se. Aa f^e. ,

,Gourt-S&L^rmd^LJ pi-orr> Hie ctppt-al* fipp^iLwl hqs h ok/cir*

Copies oP Ak opptl/bk r^car£s to p^-P^J- Ak«- f>z.tikov\ Por

. D/'i CrcA i* D^^^V /?-e.v»c-u»> > A/je,^€.; dddi ltc>vc*l f'^c IS ftziittd
073-/5

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 07-13-00173-CR OFFENSE: 46.035

Darrell Lynn Holleman v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Hutchinson

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 84th District Court

DATE:12/03/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 10,889

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Darrell Lynn Holleman v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas CCA#: 073 -IS

PRO SF_

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

Petition CCA Disposition:

DATE:

&£Fu<>?b JUDGE:

DATE: pylxzl&Oir

JUDGE: tty /{yui^a^.

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
HomeOcean Facts

# What is federal consistency? 

## Federal consistency is a provision in the Coastal Zone Management Act that requires the federal government to comply with a state's Coastal Management Program when taking actions that are likely to affect coastal resources

Federal consistency ensures that our beautiful coasts are not threatened by government projects that could potentially harm the environment.            

  The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), passed in 1972 and  administered by the Office  for Coastal Management, provides for the management of  the nation's coastal resources by balancing economic development with  environmental conservation. The goal of the CZMA is to "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance  the resources of the nation's coastal zone."        

The CZMA applies to many different federal actions including  federal agency activities, federal license or permit activities, outer  continental shelf plans, and federally assisted state projects.

In order to ensure federal consistency, a state agency  reviews any programs being implemented by the federal government. Along with  the state review, the National Ocean Service interprets  the CZMA, oversees applications of federal consistency, provides management and  legal assistance to coastal states and federal agencies, and mediates CZMA-related  disputes.

The CZMA promotes cooperation and coordination between state  s and the federal government in order to promote federal consistency and  protect our nation's coastal resources.

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - ** CZMA:  Federal Consistency Overview

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




To the Board of Directors
New York Health Care, Inc. and Subsidiaries



We  consent  to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form  S-3/A  (No.  333-108761)  and  S-8 filed on September 11, 2003 of New York
Health Care, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 8, 2004, except for
Note  2 "Recent Developments" and the third paragraph of Note 6, which are as of
March  29,  2004,  with  respect  to  the consolidated balance sheet of New York
Health  Care,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  as of December 31, 2003, and the related
consolidated  statements  of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
the year ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003,
annual  report  on  Form  10-K  of  New York Health Care, Inc. and Subsidiaries.




                                                   Weiser  LLP



New York, New York
March 30, 2004


<PAGE>
STATE v. BROWN

No. COA04-395

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed October 19, 2004

Certification Date November 8, 2004

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
#### BROWN v. BROWN.

No. 11579.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 14, 1953.

Decided June 11, 1953.

Miss Lola Boswell, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Jesse Lee Hall, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In Kephart v. Kephart, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 380, 193 F.2d 677, 684, certiorari denied, 342 U.S. 944, 72 S.Ct. 557, 96 L.Ed. 702, this court held that the District Court “cannot modify or remit installments of alimony after they have become due by the terms of the original judgment which ordered their payment.”

The same principle applies to payments a husband has been ordered to make to his wife for the maintenance of their minor child. In the present case the court found that after the maintenance order was entered, and before the appellant husband moved to have it modified, the child was emancipated by being allowed to leave school and go to work. The court correctly held that it had no authority to modify or remit payments that became due after the child was emancipated and before the motion was filed.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 10.2**

 

**PHARMACOPEIA, INC.**

 

**AMENDEDAND RESTATED 2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN**

 

**Amendment No. 1**

 

Pursuant to the powerreserved to it in Section 17.7 of the PHARMACOPEIA, INC. AMENDED ANDRESTATED 2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (the “Plan”), effective as amended andrestated on May 3, 2007, the Board of Directors of Pharmacopeia, Inc.,a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby amends the Plan as follows:

 

1.      The first sentence of Section 6.1 is hereby amended andrestated in its entirety to read as follows:

 

*“Available Shares.*The maximum number of shares of Common Stock which shall be availablefor grant of Awards under the Plan (including Incentive Stock Options) duringits term shall not exceed 5,400,000.”

 

2.      This Amendment No. 1 to the Plan shall be effective onlyafter approval of the stockholders of the Company as set forth in Section 17.7of the Plan.

 

To record the adoption of this Amendment No. 1, the Company hascaused its authorized officer to affix its corporate name this 30th day of April, 2008.

 

 
|   | PHARMACOPEIA, INC. |
|--------|--------------------|
|   |               |
|   |               |   |
|   | By:      | /s/ Joseph A. Mollica,  Ph.D. |
|   |               | Joseph A. Mollica, Ph.D. |
|   |               | Chairman of the Board and  Interim President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
STATE v. Francisco LABOY.

No. 220P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 31, 2005.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of May 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Francisco Laboy) shall have up to and including the 30th day of June 2005 to file and serve his/her response with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 31st day of May 2005."
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Richard Charles Fininen, Appellant

No. 06

- 16

- 00039

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2015F00270 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter * participating. *Justice Carter, Sitting by Assignment

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Richard Charles Fininen, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 27, 201 6 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Paul A. VIERA, Petitioner v. FLORIDA;

No. 19-5059

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
# Official Journal L 236/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.236.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 236 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 537 September 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.236.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 236

English edition

Legislation

Volume 537 September 2010

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Regulation (EU) No 788/2010 of 6 September 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EU) No 789/2010 of 6 September 2010 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year | 3 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2010/481/EU, Euratom |
| | * | Commission Decision of 29 July 2010 amending Decision 2004/277/EC, Euratom as regards rules for the implementation of Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom establishing a Community civil protection mechanism
  (notified under document C(2010) 5090)

   (1) | 5 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Regulation (EU) No 788/2010 of 6 September 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

Commission Regulation (EU) No 789/2010 of 6 September 2010 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year

3

DECISIONS

2010/481/EU, Euratom

*

Commission Decision of 29 July 2010 amending Decision 2004/277/EC, Euratom as regards rules for the implementation of Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom establishing a Community civil protection mechanism
  (notified under document C(2010) 5090)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2010) 5090)

5

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# C_2017351EN.01001701.xml

| 19.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/17

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Modification of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 351/05)

| Member State | United Kingdom |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Tingwall/Sumburgh — Fair Isle;
  Tingwall — Foula;
  Tingwall — Papa Stour;
  Tingwall — Out Skerries |
| Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 30 December 1997 |
| Date of entry into force of modifications | 1 April 2018 |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained | ZetTrans |
| 6 North Ness Business Park |
| Lerwick |
| Shetland |
| ZE1 0LZ |
| UNITED KINGDOM |
| Tel. +44 1595744868 |
| Email: zettrans@shetland.gov.uk |
| Web: www.zettrans.org.uk |

Member State

United Kingdom

Route concerned

Tingwall/Sumburgh — Fair Isle;

Tingwall — Foula;

Tingwall — Papa Stour;

Tingwall — Out Skerries

Original date of entry into force of the public service obligations

30 December 1997

Date of entry into force of modifications

1 April 2018

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained

ZetTrans

6 North Ness Business Park

Lerwick

Shetland

ZE1 0LZ

UNITED KINGDOM

Tel. +44 1595744868

Email: zettrans@shetland.gov.uk

Web: www.zettrans.org.uk

---
Walter MILLER v. Terence Ray LILLICH and Cynthia Jane Lillich, Individually and as Guardian for R.L., a minor.

No. 63P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2005.

Michael S. Harrell, Raleigh, for Terence & Cynthia Lillich.

Debra J. Radtke, Fayetteville, for Walter Miller.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th day of January 2005 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*693"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2005."
##### 



GNC CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, David Heilman, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of GNC Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that 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 report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end if 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 recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: November 5, 2004
    /s/ David HeilmanDavid HeilmanChief Financial Officer Page 43 of 44
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial ExecutiveOfficer and Controller of GrayMark Productions, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBof the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2007 (the “Quarterly Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the QuarterlyReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 8, 2007 | /S/ MARK R. KIDD                         |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                 | Chief Financial  Officer  and Controller |

 

----