alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54770-54771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18412]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Workforce Investment Act Native American Employment and Training 
Council

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and section 166(h)(4) of the 
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) [29 U.S.C. 2911(h)(4)], notice is hereby 
given of the next meeting of the Native American Employment and 
Training Council as constituted under WIA.
    Time and Date: The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. Eastern Daylight 
Time (EDT) on Wednesday, October 12, 2005, and continue until 5 p.m. 
EDT that day. The period from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. EDT on October 12 will 
be reserved for participation and presentation by members of the 
public. The meeting will reconvene at 9 a.m. EDT on Thursday, October 
13, 2005, and adjourn at approximately 12 noon EDT on that day.
    Place: All sessions will be held at the Grand Hyatt Washington, 
1000 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    Status: The meeting will be open to the public. Persons who need 
special accommodations should contact Ms. Athena Brown, Chief, Division 
of Indian

[[Page 54771]]

and Native American Programs, on (202) 693-3737 by September 30, 2005.
    Matters To Be Considered: The formal agenda will focus on the 
following topics: (1) Strategic Planning for Economic Development, (2) 
Workgroup Reports, (3) Unemployment Insurance Wage Study-Findings and 
Recommendations, and (4) Training and Technical Assistance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Athena Brown, Chief, Division of 
Indian and Native American Programs, Office of National Programs, 
Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room 
C-4311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
    Telephone: (202) 693-3737 (VOICE) (this is not a toll-free number), 
or (202) 693-3841.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of September, 2005.
Emily Stover DeRocco,
Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-18412 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
F. WILLIAM NIELSEN



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON





To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission





I, Frederick William Nielsen do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 24, 2005 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.

Exploration and Drilling Program on the Bisha Property, dated February, 2004, as amended April, 2004;

2.

Technical Report on the Segala Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004;

3.

Technical Report on the Tabakoto Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004;

(collectively, the Technical Reports)

Dated this 18 day of March, 2005

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF or the 40-F of the Issuer contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.

signed

__________________

F. William Nielsen

[Seal or Stamp]
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of DirectorsJos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.:

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-103962, 333-85426,333-57492 and 333-20363 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated April 11,2006, relating to the financial statements of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control for financialreporting, appearing in this annual report on Form 10-K of Jos. A. BankClothiers, Inc for the year ended January 28, 2006.

/s/ Deloitte &Touche LLP

Baltimore, MarylandApril 11, 2006

----
Sandra Watson, Employee, Plaintiff, v. Johnston County Emergency Services, Employer, Self-Insured, Carrier (Key Risk Insurance Company, Servicing Agent), Defendant.

No. COA15-1304

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
In the Matter of S.S.L.B.

No. COA16-41.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 398 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 398

To reduce the rate of pay for Members of Congress by 10 percent and to 
            eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2013

    Mr. Loebsack (for himself and Mrs. Kirkpatrick) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
   Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and 
 Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reduce the rate of pay for Members of Congress by 10 percent and to 
            eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Halt in Pay Increases 
and Cut Congressional Pay Act''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN PAY.

    (a) In General.--Section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 601. (a) Effective as of the beginning of the first 
applicable pay period commencing after the date on which is held the 
next regularly scheduled general election for Federal office following 
the date of the enactment of the Congressional Halt in Pay Increases 
and Cut Congressional Pay Act, the annual rate of pay for--
            ``(1) each Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, 
        and Delegate to the House of Representatives, and the Resident 
        Commissioner from Puerto Rico,
            ``(2) the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority 
        leader and the minority leader of the Senate, and the majority 
        leader and the minority leader of the House of Representatives, 
        and
            ``(3) the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
shall be equal to the annual rate of pay for that position as of the 
date on which such general election is held, reduced by 10 percent.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect as of the 
date on which is held the next regularly scheduled general election for 
Federal office following the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Geneva T. BULLARD, Administratrix of the Estate of Vonnie Lee Bullard, Plaintiff, v. PEAK STEEL, L.L.C., Defendant.

No. COA15-188.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Develocap, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nguyen Quoc Khanh, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: September 14, 2009/s/ Nguyen Ouoc KhanhNguyen Quoc Khanh
President
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                      PROJECT SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

              STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                Type of Security
                                ----------------                       Fully
                                                                       -----
COMPANY, FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,           Primary            Diluted
1994: (in thousands, except share and per          -----------       -----------
share data)                              

<S>                                                <C>               <C>        
Weighted average common shares outstanding .         6,858,513         6,858,513
Common stock equivalents ...................            83,909           104,298
                                                   -----------       -----------
                                                     6,942,422         6,962,811
                                                   -----------       -----------
Historical net income ......................       $     2,315       $     2,315
Historical net income per share ............       $      0.33       $      0.33
Pro forma net income .......................       $     2,601       $     2,601
Pro forma income per share .................       $      0.37       $      0.37

COMPANY, FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1995: (in thousands, except share and per
share data)
Weighted average common shares outstanding..         8,530,882         8,530,882
Common stock equivalents ...................           314,864           329,420
                                                   -----------       -----------
                                                     8,845,746         8,860,302
                                                   -----------       -----------
Historical net income ......................       $     5,629       $     5,629
Historical net income per 
share.......................................       $      0.64       $      0.64

COMPANY, FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1996: (in thousands, except share and per
share data)
Weighted average common shares outstanding..         9,602,710         9,602,710
Common stock equivalents ...................           449,198           481,571
                                                   -----------       -----------
                                                    10,051,908        10,084,281
                                                   -----------       -----------
Historical net income ......................       $    10,046       $    10,046
Historical net income per share ............       $      1.00       $      1.00
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18945]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Southwest Research Institute: Cooperative 
Research Group on High Efficiency Durable Gasoline Engine

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 10, 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''), Southwest Research 
Institute: Cooperative Research Group on High Efficiency Durable 
Gasoline Engine (``HEDGE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI; Nissan 
Motor Co., Ltd., Kasagawa, JAPAN; Renault s.a.s., Soci[eacute]t[eacute] 
par Actions Simplifi[eacute]e, Boulogne-Billancourt, FRANCE; and Valeo 
Systemes de Controle Moteur, Cedex, FRANCE have been added as parties 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and HEDGE intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 10, 2005, HEDGE filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 7, 
2005 (70 FR 39339).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-18945 Filed 9-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# C_2008301EN.01006705.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/67

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 September 2008 — Abba and Others v Parliament

(Case F-15/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/134)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006, p. 37.

1

---
1600.

#### Shirley *v.*The State.

Powell, J.

1. The verdict is authorized by the evidence.

2. In order that this court may consider an exception to the judge’s refusal to give a request to charge, it must appear not only that it was in writing, but also that it was tendered to the court before the jury retired “to consider of their verdict.” *Judgment affirmed.*

*612Conviction of shooting at another, from Babun superior court— Judge Kimsey. November 27, 1908.

Submitted January 26,

Decided February 9, 1909.

*W. S. Paris,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. A. Charters, solicitor-general,*contra.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             164
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,916
<PP&E>                                         301,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 287,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,477
<BONDS>                                         44,081
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         30
<COMMON>                                           162
<OTHER-SE>                                     217,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   287,827
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,868
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,963
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,644
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,644
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-86457, 333-93516, 333-32713 and 333-60651) and
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-19197, 333-60079 and 333-60619) of Winston Hotels, Inc. of
our report dated January 18, 2002 relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 6, 2002
NO. 12-08-00338-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL KENNEDY, § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant Michael Kennedy filed a notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction for

burglary, a felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c), (d) (Vernon 2003). Included in his

notice of appeal is a request for an out of time appeal. 

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the only court with jurisdiction to consider a request

for an out of time appeal. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim.

App.1991). Moreover, on April 18, 1985, in our cause number 12-84-0138-CR, we issued an

opinion affirming the judgment Appellant attempts to appeal. That judgment became final after the

court of criminal appeals denied Appellant’s petition for review. We issued our mandate on

August 5, 1985. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, article 11.07 provides that a challenge to a final

felony conviction, in a case in which the death penalty is not imposed, must be by an application for

writ of habeas corpus, returnable to the court of criminal appeals. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art.

11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2008); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Eighth Court of Appeals,

910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction in such

matters. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (Vernon 2004). Accordingly, this appeal and

Appellant’s request for an out of time appeal are dismissed.
2

Opinion delivered September 3, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
STATE v. Brandon WILLIAMS

227P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Brandon Williams, Pro se.

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of July 2016 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Daitrieyuaon PARKER, Defendant.

No. COA16-524

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

NO ERROR.
# C_2008285EN.01003202.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-401/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 285/54)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7677** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ALTON CHARLES MAY, a/k/a Chuckie, a/k/a John Dieudonne, a/k/a Nieem , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Roger W. Titus , Senior District Judge. ( 8:12

- cr - 00278

- RWT

- 1; 8:14

- cv - 02999

- RWT )

Submitted : February 12 , 2015 Decided: February 19 , 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Alton Charles May, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Bressack, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this ci rcuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alton Charles May seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion s . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of app ealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
pr isoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 32 2, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion or underlying habeas application states a debatable claim of the den ial of a constitutional right. Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004)
. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that May has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
In the Matter of: R.G.B. and V.J.B.

No. COA16-328

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

AFFIRMED.