alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 05-36]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 05-36 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: September 29, 2005.

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer Department of Defense.

      ( print page 58198)          ( print page 58199)          ( print page 58200)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 05-19899  Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
#### Joseph Giardino et al., Appellants, v Samuel L. Beranbaum, M.D., et al., Respondents.

[720 NYS2d 3]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about October 4, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

In this action, plaintiff Joseph Giardino alleges that a radiological technologist employed by defendant told him, after taking X-rays of his arm, that everything was fine and that he merely had a bruise. The technologist then advised plaintiff to take Tylenol and return to work. Relying upon this information, plaintiff allegedly delayed necessary surgical treatment for his injured bicep, a delay that rendered his injury irreparable. Supreme Court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, concluding that, because the technologist’s statement was hearsay, plaintiffs would be unable to establish their cause of action. This was error.

The statement at issue is not hearsay since plaintiffs did not seek to offer it to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein, namely, that plaintiff Joseph Giardino merely suffered from a bruised bicep *(see, Provenzo v Sam,*23 NY2d 256, 261). Rather, it was offered to demonstrate that the technologist gave him advice, where, if the jury believed such advice was given, this would establish an element of plaintiffs’ cause of action *(see, Heller v Peekskill Community Hosp.,*198 AD2d 265). The fact that plaintiffs will seek to establish through other independent evidence that the advice given was erroneous does not convert the statement into hearsay.

Finally, although defendant alleges that the technologist was not authorized to speak on its behalf, this fact does not bar admission of the statement since it was not offered as a vicarious admission *(see generally,*Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-208 [Farrell 11th ed]). As correctly noted by plaintiff, the proper inquiry is whether the advice was given within the scope of the technologist’s employment so as to render defendant vicariously liable for the technologist’s negligence, which is a question to be resolved by a jury *(see, Riviello v Waldron,*47 NY2d 297, 303). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
STATE v. Thomas Earl GRIFFIN

270A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 24, 2018

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Griffin, Thomas Earl

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Daniel O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of August 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of August 2018."
No. 17,304.

#### Sutley *v.*Davis et al.

(279 P. [2d] 848)

Decided January 31, 1955.

Mr. William R. Bartlett, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Gordon H. Rowe, Jr., for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Knauss

delivered the opinion of the Court.

W. B. Sutley, who alleged he was the owner of certain farm land included in the San Luis Valley Irrigation District, and entitled to divert irrigation water for use on his land, filed his petition to condemn a right-of-way for a ditch across the lands of Glenn C. Davis *76and Roy S. Lofton. By answer, these respondents denied the necessity of the taking of their land. Pursuant to statute, commissioners were appointed by the court and made report that there was no necessity for the taking of respondents’ land. Counsel for petitioner then moved the court to set aside the findings of the commissioners. On September 12, 1953 the court denied this motion and declared that a rehearing thereof was unnecessary. Within the time limited by the court, counsel for petitioner tendered and had the record and reporter’s transcript of the evidence before the commissioners approved by the trial judge.

Nothing further appears in the record before us. No judgment of dismissal of the petition or final determination of the action is shown by the record.

The action of the trial court in refusing to set aside the report of the commissioners, while no doubt considered as such, is not a final judgment from which a writ of error will lie. We have repeatedly held, that unless a final judgment, pursuant to Rule 112 (a) R.C.P. Colo., appears in the record, the writ of error will be dismissed.

No final judgment or determination of this action being shown, the writ of error is dismissed.

Mr. Justice Holland dissents.

Mr. Chief Justice Alter concurs in the result.
---

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(A)/15d-14(A) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 AND 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

I, William Dunavant, Chief Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of Intrepid Global Imaging 3D Inc certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Intrepid Global Imaging 3D Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this annual 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 annual
report;

4. I am 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 to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Presented in this annual report my
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies in the
design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there
were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

/s/ William Dunavant

By: William Dunavant Chief Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer

April 17, 2008

---
AZURE DOLPHIN, LLC, et al. v. BARTON, et al.

128A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 15, 2018

Peter J. Juran, Attorney at Law, M. Rachael Dimont, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Chad A. Archer, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Azure Dolphin, LLC, et al.

Alan M. Ruley, Attorney at Law, Andrew A. Freeman, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Barton, Justin, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of August 2018 by Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant to Withdraw as Appellate Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of August 2018."
#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Dan W. SUSI, Respondent.

No. 733 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 9, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2003, upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Emergency Temporary Suspension Order and Related Relief, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Respondent is placed on temporary suspension until further definitive action by this Court;

2. Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.; and

3. The President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, in accordance with Rule 217(g), Pa.R.D.E., take such further action and make such further orders as may appear necessary to protect the rights and interests of respondent’s clients.

This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline within the meaning of Rule 402, Pa.R.D.E., pertaining to confidentiality.
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19725]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from GATX 
Rail (WB512-11--9/2/05), for permission to use certain data from the 
Board's Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained 
from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and 
Administration.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, 
Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of 
the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are 
codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
    Contact: Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541.

Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19725 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
```
#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Mary McNeill ZELL, Respondent.

No. 795 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 4, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2003, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated April 4, 2003, it is hereby

ORDERED that MARY McNEILL ZELL be and she is SUSPENDED from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day, retroactive to November 18, 2002, and she shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217 Pa. R.D.E.

It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
   /s/ Curt Hecker
    
    
    
    /s/ Doug WrightCurt Hecker 
Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Doug Wright
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CertificatePursuant to Rule 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Paul Block, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of MerisantWorldwide, Inc. (the “registrant”);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)                                Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)                               Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)                                Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)                                Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)                               Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: August 10, 2007
|        |   | /s/ Paul Block                 |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Name: Paul Block               |
|   |   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
STATE v. Jeffrey Robert PARISI

65A17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 25, 2018

John W. Congleton, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Michele A. Goldman, Attorney at Law, for Parisi, Jeffrey Robert.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of June 2018 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of June 2018."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6658

MAURICE WHITE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MS. BALLDOWN; L. SMITH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-05-137-3)

Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 6, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Maurice White appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See White v. Balldown, No.

CA-05-137-3 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 2005). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE v. Aaron Ross TAYLOR

237P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 2, 2018

Ms. Hannah H. Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Taylor, Aaron Ross

Mr. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Ms. Kathryn E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of August 2018 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of August 2018."
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6885

LARRY JACOBS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
WALTER A. BURCH, a/k/a Sticky, individually and in his capacity as former Sheriff of Guilford County, North Carolina; ROBERT COTE, individually and in his capacity as former Jailer of the Guilford County Detention Center; UNIDENTIFIED JAILER, individually and in her official capacity; B. J. BARNES, in hisofficial capacity; GUILFORD COUNTY; THE GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; WALLACE C. HARRELSON, member of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, in his official capacity; W. G. DUNOVANT, member of the Guilford CountyBoard of Commissioners, in his official capacity; JOE E. BOSTIC, JR., member of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, in his official capacity; ROBERT MOORES, member of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, in his official capacity; WARREN DORSETT, member of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, in his official capacity; JOHN PARKS, member of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, in his official capacity; STEVE ARNOLD, member of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, in his official capacity; MARGARET ARBUCKLE,member of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, in her official capacity; BOB LANDRETH, member of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, in his official capacity; CHUCK WINFREE, member of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, in his official capacity; MELVIN ALSTON, member of the Guilford CountyBoard of Commissioners, in his official capacity; PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety for Sheriff Burch; SANDRA AYERS, individually and in her official capacity,2 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-95-428-2)
Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 5, 1997
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. James Edwin Pons, Susan Moore Lewis, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Greensboro, North Carolina; George W. Miller, HAYWOOD, DENNY, MILLER, JOHNSON, SESSOMS & PATRICK, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief onhis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jacobs v. Burch , No. CA-95-428-2 (M.D.N.C. May 15 & May 30, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Telefônica Brasil S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20‐F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eduardo Navarro de Carvalho, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(i)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 21, 2018By:

   /s/ Eduardo Navarro de CarvalhoName:    Eduardo Navarro de CarvalhoTitle:       Chief Executive Officer






---
In the MATTER OF: J.N.S., A.J.S.

No. COA17-807

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

AFFIRM.
IN-RE: Olander R. BYNUM

No. 109P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

Olander R. Bynum, for Bynum, Olander R.

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 30th of August 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Pender County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Marvin Louis MILLER, Jr.

No. COA17-216

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

NO ERROR.