alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 169 (Thursday, September 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52128-52129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17420]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--World Council of Optometry Global Commission on 
Ophthalmic Standards

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 20, 2005, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), World Council of Optometry Global 
Commission on Ophthalmic Standards (``WCO GCOS'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of 
business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature 
and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: World Council 
of Optometry Global Commission on Ophthalmic Standards, Elkins Park, 
PA. The nature and scope of WCO GCOS's standards development activities 
are: the WCO GCOS provides for voluntary, impartial ophthalmic product 
evaluation resulting in the issuance of a seal of acceptance for those 
ophthalmic products that meet published standards specifications 
developed by the WCO GCOS, including biological, laboratory, and/or 
clinical evaluations, or the issuance of a seal of certification for 
those ophthalmic products that meet standards already approved by 
accepted standards organizations and which are designated for use by 
the WCO GCOS. The WCO GCOS selects the categories of products to be 
evaluated and develops evaluation specifications/standards for those 
ophthalmic products using the American National Standard Institute's 
Third Party Certification Program Principles (ANSI Z34. 1-1993). 
Product categories for which the WCO GCOS currently has approved 
standards are: ultraviolet absorbers and blockers. Additional 
categories are always under review. The WCO GCOS abides by a strict 
Code of Conduct for reviewing any applications for seals of acceptance 
or certification and for developing

[[Page 52129]]

approved evaluation specifications/standards.

Dorthy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-17420 Filed 8-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
STANDLEY v. TOWN OF WOODFIN, et al.

No. 531A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 27, 2007.

Bruce Elmore, Jr., Asheville, for Standley.

Joseph Ferikes, Asheville, for Town of Woodfin, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of November 2007 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Standley) shall have up to and including the date upon which he is required to file a brief on the additional constitutional issues raised in the separate Notice of Appeal. By order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of November 2007."
STATE v. Wayne Thomas JOHNSON.

No. 119P00-16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney Generals, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of April 2007 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review Under G.S. 7A-31":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of June 2007."
Exhibit 31.2 

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) 

I, Michael E. Spicer, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of NovaDel Pharma Inc.; 

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The small business issuer’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)) 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 small business issuer, 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) [intentionally omitted] 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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 of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

| Date:  October 27, 2005 | By:    | /S/ MICHAEL E. SPICER       |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                    |   | Michael E. Spicer           |
|                    |   | Principal Financial Officer |

 

----
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

April 11, 2008

Mr. J. Kevin Carey

Law Office of J. Kevin Carey

429 South Ballinger Street

Fort Worth, TX 76104

Mr. Darrell L. Keith

Keith Law Firm, P.C.

1705 West Seventh Street

Fort Worth, TX 76102

Mr. J. Wade Birdwell

Wallach, Andrews & Stouffer, P.C.

550 Bailey Avenue, Suite 500

Fort Worth, TX 76107

RE:Case Number:  07-0174

Court of Appeals Number:  02-06-00105-CV

Trial Court Number:  048-214120-05

Style:CENTER FOR NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, P.A. AND GREGORY A. WARD, M.D.

v.

ROGER P. GEORGE AND JULIET A. GEORGE

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0174Page 1**
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-174]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 
20549.

Extension: Regulation D and Form D; OMB Control No. 3235-0076; SEC 
File No. 270-72.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation D sets forth rules governing the limited offer and sale 
of securities without Securities Act registration. The purpose of Form 
D notice is to collect empirical data, which provides a continuing 
basis for action by the Commission either in terms of amending existing 
rules and regulations or proposing new ones. In addition, the Form D 
allows the Commission to elicit information necessary in assessing the 
effectiveness of Regulation D and Section 4(6) as capital-raising 
devices for all businesses. Approximately 17,500 issuers file Form D 
and it takes an estimated 4 hours to prepare for a total annual burden 
of 70,000 hours. It is estimated that 25% of the total burden hours 
(17.500 reporting burden hours) is prepared by the company.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and 
suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities 
and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: December 28, 2004.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-174 Filed 1-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
# The Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2013 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2013 No. 761

Consumer Protection

# The Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2013 (revoked)F1

Made

26th March 2013

Coming into force

6th April 2013

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Order revoked (with application in accordance with reg. 1(2) of the amending S.I.) by The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/3134), **Sch. 4 para. 16** (with reg. 6)
#### Kenneth M. Cohen, Appellant, v Hani Y. Cohen, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 435]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated October 22, 2003, which, inter alia, directed him to pay 64% of the religious school tuition for the parties’ children, to continue to maintain health insurance benefits for the children and contribute his pro rata share of the children’s unreimbursed medical expenses, and to pay maintenance to the defendant in the sum of $250 per week for a period of three years.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A court may award educational expenses for private schooling “having regard for the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and in the best interests of the child” (Domestic Relations Law 240 [1-b] [c] [7]; *see Chalif v Chalif,*298 AD2d 348, 349-350 [2002]; *Chan v Kwan Chan,*267 AD2d 413, 414 *342[1999]; *Matter of Cassano v Cassano,*203 AD2d 563, 564-565 [1994], *affd*85 NY2d 649 [1995]; *Cohen v Cohen,*203 AD2d 411 [1994]; *cf. Saslow v Saslow,*305 AD2d 487 [2003]; *Manno v Manno,*196 AD2d 488 [1993]). Here, the parties led a religious life during the marriage, including enrollment of their children in full-time religious school. In view of this, as well as all of the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly ordered the plaintiff to pay a pro rata share of the children’s religious school tuition.

The Supreme Court also properly directed the plaintiff to continue to maintain health insurance benefits for the children and to contribute his pro rata share of their unreimbursed medical expenses *(see Granade-Bastuck v Bastuck,*249 AD2d 444 [1998]; *Vlak v Nelissen,*206 AD2d 521 [1994]; *Wilson v Wilson,*203 AD2d 558 [1994]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, there is no reason to disturb the maintenance award. The overriding purpose of an award of maintenance is to enable the receiving spouse to achieve financial independence *(see Bains v Bains,*308 AD2d 557, 559 [2003]; *Ventimiglia v Ventimiglia,*307 AD2d 993, 995 [2003]; *Schenfeld v Schenfeld,*289 AD2d 219, 220 [2001]; *Granade-Bastuck v Bastuck, supra*at 446). Inasmuch as the defendant was attending evening college classes to become a certified teacher, the three-year award of spousal support was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion *(see Ventimiglia v Ventimiglia, supra*307; *Unterreiner v Unterreiner,*288 AD2d 463 [2001]). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL DERRICK PENINGER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00034-DCN-1)

Submitted: August 20, 2021 Decided: January 20, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Derrick Peninger, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Derrick Peninger appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step 

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review a court’s 

denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). Upon review of the record, we conclude that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Peninger’s motion. See United 

States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187-91 (4th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Peninger, No. 2:09-cr-00034-DCN-1 

(D.S.C. Dec. 16, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
TEAGUE v. DOT.

No. 281P-06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 25, 2007.

Tina Krasner, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of December 2006 by Plaintiff for Writ of Supersedeas:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 25th day of January 2007."
EXHIBIT 32.2**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Buono, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 1. The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and  2. The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financialcondition and results of operations ofthe Company.       /s/ John Buono         John Buono    Chief Financial Officer    November 12, 2007
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Evelyn Cuevas et al.

, * From the 385 th District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CV51195

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00157

- CV * July 27 , 2017

Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P.

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

t here is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The

costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Appellant s

.
BE IT REMEMBERED:

THAT at the term of the Honorable Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of the State of Texas, begun and holden at Waco on the 1st day of January, 2015, present Chief Justice TOM GRAY and Justices REX D. DAVIS and AL SCOGGINS

In the cause

No. 10-15-00145-CR

IN RE ROBERT ALLEN BYRD

Original Proceeding

the following Judgment was entered on the 28th day of May, 2015:

“Came on to be heard the original Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed in this Court on April 23, 2015, by Relator Robert Allen Byrd, and the same having been considered, because it is the opinion of the Court that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus should be denied; it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus be, and hereby is, denied.  It is further ordered that the Relator Robert Allen Byrd, pay all costs in this behalf expended and incurred in this Court.”

I, SHARRI ROESSLER, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of Texas, at the City of Waco, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Judgment entered herein by this Court in the above entitled and numbered cause as appears of record in Minute Book 13, Page 493.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Court at Waco, this 28th day of May A.D. 2015.

SHARRI ROESSLER, Clerk

						By: ___________________________

							Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk

# image1.jpeg

# image2.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             512
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,908
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        354
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,005
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,976
<LOANS>                                         65,131
<ALLOWANCE>                                        164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,280
<DEPOSITS>                                      53,611
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                822
<LONG-TERM>                                         81
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,255
<OTHER-SE>                                          10
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  71,280
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,232
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   30
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    23
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,285
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 647
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 712
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              573
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        9
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    266
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    318
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         318
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       210
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     3.3
<LOANS-NON>                                         50
<LOANS-PAST>                                       510
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   155
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  164
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               164
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. COUNTY OF DURHAM.

No. 63P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Curtis Massey, Assistant County Attorney, for County of Durham.

Spurgeon Fields, III, James M. Stanley, Jr., Assistant Attorney Generals, for NCDOT.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 638 S.E.2d 577.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd day of February 2007 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:

*649"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."

HUDSON, J., recused.
Accordingly, we temporarily suspend Lobello from the practice 

of law and refer this matter to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

for the initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings in which the sole issue 

to be determined is the extent of discipline to be imposed. See SCR 111(7), 

(8). 

It is so ORDERED. 

Saitta 

J. 

cc: Phillip J. Pattee, Assistant Bar Counsel 

Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

John Lusk, Esq. 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

2