alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN RE C.M.H.

No. COA05-1684.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 19, 2006

Certification Date October 9, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (05J125)

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.
#### In the Matter of James M. Barbato, Appellant, v Sarah M. Proskurenko, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[801 NYS2d 183]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (David G. Klim, J.), entered July 22, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded primary residential custody of the parties’ child to respondent and visitation to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Matter of Eric D.*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051 [1990]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  291,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,437,338
<PP&E>                                         303,828
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,288,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,816,495
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,694
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,404,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,288,010
<SALES>                                         37,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,911
<CGS>                                           17,697
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  427,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (406,918)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (406,918)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (406,918)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (406,918)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)



</TABLE>
CPI Aerostructures, Inc. 8-K


 


Exhibit 10.3


 





CPI AEROSTRUCTURES, INC.


91
Heartland Blvd.


Edgewood,
New York 11717


 


 


 


 


 


July
7, 2016


 


 


 


 


Mr.
Douglas McCrosson


 


 


Dear
Mr. McCrosson:


 


Reference
is made to the Employment Agreement between you and CPI Aerostructures, Inc. (the “Company”), dated March 5, 2014,
as amended (the “Employment Agreement”).


 


The
Employment Agreement is hereby terminated. From and after the date hereof, the Employment Agreement will be of no further force
or effect, and the rights and obligations of each of you and the Company shall terminate.


 


Your
employment by the Company as its President and Chief Executive Officer will continue on an at-will basis at your current annual
base salary. Your bonus compensation for calendar year 2016 will be determined in accordance with Schedule A of the Employment
Agreement. Your base salary, incentive bonus plan and other compensation for calendar year 2017 and thereafter will determined
by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.


 


Please
confirm your agreement with the foregoing by signing below where indicated.











 


 





	 	Sincerely, 
	 	 
	 	CPI
AEROSTRUCTURES, INC.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:	 	 
	 	 	Vincent Palazzolo
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer 



  


	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Douglas McCrosson
SETLIFF v. SUBWAY REAL ESTATE.

No. 413PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Norman Sloan, Clemmons, for Subway Real Estate.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of October 2006 by Plaintiff to Supplement and Amend the Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of March 2007."
STATE v. DESPERADOS, INC. and Perez.

No. 629A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 28, 2007.

Jeffrey S. Miller, for Desperados & Perez.

Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of February 2007 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to file Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 9th day of March 2007 to file and serve his/her brief *596with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 28th day of February 2007."

Justice HUDSON recused.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 580 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 580

 To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for a 
 120-day limit to the term of a United States attorney appointed on an 
     interim basis by the Attorney General, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 2007

   Mr. Berman (for himself, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Scott of Virginia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for a 
 120-day limit to the term of a United States attorney appointed on an 
     interim basis by the Attorney General, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.

    Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 
subsection (c) and inserting the following new subsections:
    ``(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this 
section may serve until the earlier of--
            ``(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for 
        such district appointed by the President under section 541 of 
        this title; or
            ``(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the 
        Attorney General under this section.
    ``(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the 
district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney 
to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the 
court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30076

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VINCENT THOMAS, also known as Goldie Thomas,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:11-CR-234-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Vincent Thomas 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). 

Thomas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 4, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-30076 Document: 00512825577 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2014
No. 14-30076

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-30076 Document: 00512825577 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2014
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certifications set forth below are being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended June 28, 2008 (the "Report") for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

John
A. Lederer, the Chief Executive Officer and John K. Henry, the Chief Financial Officer of Duane Reade Holdings, Inc., each certifies that:



/s/JOHN A. LEDERERJohn A. Lederer Chief Executive Officer/s/JOHN K. HENRYJohn K. HenryDate: August 8, 2008

Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a meeting on February 15, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

*Tuesday, February 15, 2005-8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business.*

                    The Subcommittee will continue review of the development of the TRACE thermal-hydraulic computer code. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and their contractors regarding this                           ( print page 4891)                        matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.                

Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

Dated: January 25, 2005.

John H. Flack,

Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.

[FR Doc. 05-1688 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
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 NorWesTech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Stanley L. Schloz, President, and Curtis J. Scheel, Secretary and Treasurer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our information and belief:





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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: September 27, 2011





/s/ Stanley L. SchlozStanley L. SchlozPresident/s/ Curtis J. ScheelCurtis J. ScheelSecretary and Treasurer
IN RE ACW

No. COA06-1159.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05JT987, 05JT988).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

                    The Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (Pub. L. 116-260) (“Economic Aid Act”) temporarily provides increased authority to Certified Development Companies (CDCs) participating in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Accredited Lenders Program (ALP) with respect to 504 loans that are not more than $500,000 and that are not made to a borrower in an industry with a high rate of default. The authority for ALP CDCs to make ALP Express Loans was implemented through an interim final rule published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 27, 2022 Vol. 97, No. 122 RIN 3245-AH74.                

                    Section 328(b) of the Economic Aid Act further requires that SBA annually identify the industries with a high rate of default. Accordingly, on an annual basis, SBA will list the industries that it has determined have a high rate of default in a notice published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , with the first list published after the publication of the interim final rule, and annually thereafter.                

To comply with this requirement, SBA defines “industries with a high rate of default” as an industry that for the past 5 fiscal years has 50 or more approvals/year and an annualized default rate of 5% or above. Using SBA's ALP Express risk identification methodology, SBA has determined there are no industries with a high rate of default in the 504 program based on prior SBA 504 portfolio performance. SBA will review and update its analysis and publish an updated list annually through September 20, 2023.

For SBA's analysis, the industries are analyzed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Subsector Title and three-digit subsector code.

Isabella Casillas Guzman,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2022-15015 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
Randall SWINEY v. ARVIN MERITOR, INC.

No. 235P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Richard B. Kale, Jr., Greenville, SC, Daniel B. Eller, for Arvin Meritor, Inc.

*218J.A. Kerr, Jr., Asheville, for Randall Swiney.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd day of May 2006 by Defendant 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 42180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15084]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[CDC-2022-0066; Docket Number NIOSH-346]


Draft National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) Healthcare Personal Protective Technology (PPT) Targets for 
2020 to 2030; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Agency: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an 
Operating Division of the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS), announces the extension of the comment period to obtain public 
comment on draft personal protective technology (PPT) targets for 2020 
to 2030.

DATES: The comment period is extended through August 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2022-0066 and 
docket number NIOSH-346, by either of the following two methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Mail: National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health, NIOSH Docket Office, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-34, Cincinnati, 
Ohio 45226-1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Susan M. Moore, NIOSH NPPTL, 
Building 141, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236; Telephone: 
412-386-6111.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 16, 2022, NIOSH published a notice in 
the Federal Register (87 FR 29748) announcing a draft document entitled 
Draft NIOSH Healthcare Personal Protective Technology (PPT) Targets for 
2020 to 2030 available for public comment. Written comments were to be 
received by July 15, 2022. In response to a request from the public, 
NIOSH is extending the public comment period to August 31, 2022.

John J. Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-15084 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
IN RE J.L.D.

No. COA06-44

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Wake (05J140).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Veron Briggs, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 435]

Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of *1219Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered December 5, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant was arrested following allegations that he robbed a young boy at knife point in the City of Albany. At the time of his arrest, defendant was carrying a bag, a subsequent search of which revealed a jacket containing two small packages of cocaine. Based upon these events, defendant was charged with, among other crimes, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the cocaine, which the People alleged was recovered pursuant to a routine inventory search. County Court denied the motion and defendant thereafter entered a guilty plea to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in full satisfaction of the indictment, preserving his right to appeal from the denial of the suppression motion. He now appeals, contending that the admission of the cocaine was improper.

To be valid, an inventory search must be both reasonable and conducted pursuant to established police agency procedures that are designed to meet the legitimate objectives of the search while hmiting the discretion of the officer in the field *(see People v Galak,*80 NY2d 715, 716 [1993]; *People v Griffin,*251 AD2d 693, 694 [1998], *lv denied 92*NY2d 879 [1998]; *People v Washington,*233 AD2d 684, 686 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 1042 [1997]). Based upon the record before us, we find that the People satisfied their burden of proving that the search of defendant’s bag was reasonable under the circumstances and conducted pursuant to standardized police procedures. Police Officer Patrick Fox testified that he transported defendant’s bag to central booking in his patrol car following defendant’s arrest. Fox noted that he processed defendant’s bag “as normal” by checking the inside of the bag for personal property, recording the nature of the contents inside and storing it in a secure area. Among the other assorted clothing noted in the standard property report, Fox recovered a jacket containing two packages of cocaine in the pocket. Notably, Fox indicated that he was checking the bag only to catalog defendant’s personal property and had no grounds to believe that he would find contraband inside. Inasmuch as the discovery of the cocaine evolved pursuant to a familiar police routine and not from a pretextual search for evidence, there was no basis to suppress the evidence found by the inventory search and County Court properly denied defendant’s motion *(see People v Schwing,*13 AD3d 725, 725-726 [2004]; *People v Rhodes [Rodney],*206 AD2d 710, 711 [1994], *lvs denied*
      *122084 NY2d 1014, 1015 [1994]). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.