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.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the OPM Performance Review Board. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Teresa Floyd, Center for Human Capital Management Services, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-2309. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and considers recommendations to the appointing authority regarding the performance of the senior executive. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Linda M. Springer, 

Director. 

The following have been designated as regular members of the Performance Review Board of the Office of Personnel Management: 

Dan G. Blair, Deputy Director—Chair. 

Patricia L. Hollis, Chief of Staff and Director of External Affairs. 

Clarence Crawford, Chief Financial Officer. 

Robert F. Danbeck, Associate Director for Human Resources Products and Services. 

Nancy H. Kichak, Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources Policy. 

Marta B. Perez, Associate Director for Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability. 

Mark A. Robbins, General Counsel. 

William A. Jackson Jr., Deputy Associate Director for Human Capital Management Services—Executive Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. 05-20484 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325-45-P
Order entered January 24, 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01176

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

CHASE DUNCAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cau se No. MB12

- 15283

- E



### O RDER

The Court GRANTS appellee’s January 22, 2014 motion to extend time to file his brief.

We ORDER the appellee’s brief received on January 22, 2014 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6103

DAN OLIVER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-349-AM) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dan Oliver, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Dan Oliver seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Oliver v. Braxton , No. CA-01-349- AM (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 8, 2001 & entered Nov. 9, 2001). Oliver’s motion for return of legal documents is denied. 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.

DISMISSED
---

EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Reward Enterprises,
  Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30,
  2003, as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  Periodic Report), I, Joseph Vigliarolo, Chief Financial Officer
  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | the Periodic Report fully complies with
        the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934; and                              
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                             
|2. | in information contained in the Periodic
        Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of the Company.

Date: December 8, 2003

/s/ Joseph Vigliarolo

Joseph Vigliarolo

Chief Financial Officer

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Jeffery Daniel WAYCASTER

No. 294A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Dylan J.C. Buffum, Attorney at Law, for Waycaster, Jeffery Daniel.

Alexander G. Walton, Assistant Attorney General, Ted Bell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendant on the 11th of September 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

Accordingly, the new brief of the Defendant shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lonnie Stewart, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 843]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), rendered September 8, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence clearly disproved defendant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

*336The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting a police officer to testify that, based on his experience, he recognized the box cutter recovered from defendant as being of a type in which the blade is altered to facilitate its use as a weapon *(see, Senecal v Drollette,*304 NY 446, 449). Defendant’s remaining arguments concerning this testimony, and similar testimony by other witnesses, are unpreserved and waived and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal.

The challenged portion of the People’s summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Swift,*272 AD2d 126, *lv denied 95*NY2d 871).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
**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 Infosmart Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Parker Seto, Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
      as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
      Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
      knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.




Date:
                April 1, 2008
            
            /s/
                Parker SetoParker
                Seto
              Chief
                  Executive Officer
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4874 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to waive, if in the public interest, certain requirements relating 

to the letting of contracts, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2010 

Mr. ELLISON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Transportation to waive, if in the public 

interest, certain requirements relating to the letting of 

contracts, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER AUTHORITY. 

4 Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the 

7 following: ‘‘The Secretary may waive for a project 

8 any requirement under this subsection to award a 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4874 IH

1 contract by competitive bidding if the Secretary de2 termines, with respect to the project, that such waiv3 er is in the public interest.’’; and 

4 (2) in subsection (b)(1) by adding at the end 

5 the following: ‘‘The Secretary may waive for a 

6 project any requirement under this paragraph to 

7 award a contract by competitive bidding if the Sec8 retary determines, with respect to the project, that 

9 such waiver is in the public interest.’’. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Donnie BOUDREAUX, et al. v. Benjamin J. WIMBERLEY, et al.

No. 2003-C-1251.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Boudreaux, Donnie; Boudreaux, Tammy; Boudreaux, Tracy;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 97-C-2344-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 02-1064.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.
Opinion filed December 2, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00214-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.R.T., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-125,918

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his appeal. Appellant states that the 

parties have come to an agreement and that he no longer desires to pursue the appeal. The 

motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

December 2, 2010

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark L. Kay, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1.  I  have  reviewed   this  annual  report  on  Form  10-QSB  of   StrikeForce
Technologies, 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 we have:

a) designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant is made known to us by others
within the  Corporation,  particularly  during  the period in which this  annual
report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal
quarter that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a) all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design  or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.





/s/ Mark L. Kay
----------------
Mark L. Kay
Chief Executive Officer

November 21, 2005
Aisha D. FLOOD, Administrator of the Estate of Maurice A. Harden, Plaintiff, v. Jonathan Henry CREWS, individually, and Jonathan Henry Crews, in his capacity as a member of Raleigh Police Department, and City of Raleigh, Defendants.

No. COA17-740

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

AFFIRMED.
# Official Journal C 139A/19 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 139A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4719 May 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 139A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4719 May 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | European Parliament |
| 2004/C 139A/2 | | 3 |
| 2004/C 139A/3 | | 13 |
| 2004/C 139A/4 | | 14 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

European Parliament

2004/C 139A/2

3

2004/C 139A/3

13

2004/C 139A/4

14

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4631 

To amend section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, to require that 

annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide certain 

information regarding companies in which the Government holds stock, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 22, 2010 

Mr. ALEXANDER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, 

to require that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide certain information regarding 

companies in which the Government holds stock, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4631 IH

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL REQUIRED INFORMATION IN 

2 BUDGET SUBMISSIONS REGARDING COMPA3 NIES IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HOLDS 

4 STOCK. 

5 Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following new para7 graph: 

8 ‘‘(37) a statement that sets forth the debt of 

9 each bank, Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), 

10 and publicly traded or privately held company in 

11 which the Government holds common stock, pre12 ferred stock, or warrants to purchase common stock 

13 (equity) equaling at least ten percent of the com14 pany’s total outstanding common stock.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### 9-10 Auden Place, L. L. C., Appellant, v Thomas Chen, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 697]

In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring a lease null and void, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered November 18, 1999, which denied its motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon his failure to appear or answer, and granted those branches of the defendant’s cross motion which were, in effect, to extend his time to appear and to dismiss the complaint, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered March 24, 2000, as, upon granting its motion, in effect, for renewal, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered November 18, 1999, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered March 24, 2000, made upon renewal; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered March 24, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff landlord commenced this action, *inter alia,*for a *619judgment declaring the defendant tenant’s lease for a rent-stabilized apartment to be null and void. The plaintiff alleged that the lease was the product of a fraud committed by the defendant and the previous landlord. However, in support of that branch of his cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint, the defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff had raised this same allegation in a proceeding between the parties before the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR). In that proceeding, wherein the defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to tender a renewal lease, the allegation of fraud was found to be without merit. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue before the DHCR, and accordingly the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel *(see,*CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; *Grassini v Paravalos,*270 AD2d 52).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Anthony Lee MCNAIR

230P17-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, for McNair, Anthony Lee.

Michael T. Wood, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Anthony Lee McNair, for McNair, Anthony Lee.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of December 2018 by Defendant for All Writs Act:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
STATE v. Robert Dwayne LEWIS

141PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2018

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, For Lewis, Robert Dwayne

Milind Kumar Dongre, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General

Thomas J. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General

The following order has been entered on the joint motion filed on the 13th of December 2018 to Consolidate:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of December 2018."
<Page>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited
1284 South Road
CLOVELLY PARK SA 5042
AUSTRALIA

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
on Form F-3 (No. 333-13160) of DaimlerChrysler North America Holding Corporation
and the registration statements of Form S-8 (Nos. 333-5074, 333-7082, 333-8998,
333-86934 and 333-86936) of DaimlerChrysler AG of our report dated 1 May 2002,
with respect to the consolidated statement of financial position of Mitsubishi
Motors Australia Limited as of 31 December 2001, and the related consolidated
statements of financial performance and cash flows for the year then ended,
which report appears in the 31 December 2001 annual report on Form 20-F/A of
DaimlerChrysler AG.

                                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers

                                                                        Adelaide

25 September 2002