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 State

          - [Public Notice 5205] 

# SUMMARY:

The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee announces meetings of ITAC Study Group A to debrief the recent meeting of ITU-T Study Group 3 (Charging and accounting) and prepare for ITU-T Study Group 2 (Operational aspects of service provision, networks and performance). Members of the public may participate, and may join in the discussions. 

                        The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet on Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 2-4 p.m. There is one item on the agenda, a debrief of the outcome of the recently-completed meeting of ITU-T Study Group 3. Directions to the venue of the meeting may be obtained from Julian Minard,                         *minardje@state.gov*.                     

                        The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet by conference call on October 20, 2005 at 2 p.m. to discuss a contribution to ITU-T Study Group 2. Information on the call in number and passcode may be obtained from Julian Minard,                         *minardje@state.gov*.                     

                        The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 from 9 a.m. to noon to discuss further contributions to ITU-T Study Group 2. Particulars on this meeting may be obtained from Julian Minard,                         *minardje@state.gov*.                     

Dated: October 5, 2005. 

Anne D. Jillson, 

Director, FACA Support, International Communications & Information Policy, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 05-20548 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

Private Media Group, Inc. Subsidiaries

Name of Subsidiary                          Place of Incorporation
-----------------------------------         ----------------------
Cine Craft, Ltd.                            GIBRALTAR
Coldfair Holdings Limited                   CYPRUS
Fraserside Holdings Ltd.                    CYPRUS
Peach Entertainment Distribution AB         SWEDEN
Milcap Media Group S.L.                     SPAIN
Milcap Publishing Group Italy Srl           ITALY
Private Benelux B.V.                        THE NETHERLANDS
Private France SAS                          FRANCE
Private North America, Ltd.                 U.S. (California)
Barbuda B.V.                                The Netherlands
Ceresland S.L.                              Spain
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20493]


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

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
POLICY FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Friday, November 4, 2005.

Place:  The offices of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence 
in National Environmental Policy Foundation, 130 South Scott Avenue, 
Tucson, AZ 85701.

Status: This meeting will be open to the public, unless it is necessary 
for the Board to consider items in executive session.

Matters to Be Considered: (1) A report on the U.S. Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution; (2) A report from the Udall Center 
for Studies in Public Policy; (3) A report on the Native Nations 
Institute; (4) Program Reports; and (5) A Report from the Management 
Committee.

Portions Open to the Public: All sessions with the exception of the 
session listed below.

Portions Closed to the Public: Executive session

Contact Person for More Information: Christopher L. Helms, Executive 
Director, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701, (520) 670-5529.

    Dated: October 6, 2005.
Christopher L. Helms,
Executive Director, Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
National Environmental Policy Foundation, and Federal Register Liaison 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-20493 Filed 10-7-05; 10:10am]
BILLING CODE 6820-FN-M
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBIE GENE THOMAS

No. 725SC755

(Filed 20 December 1972)

Criminal Law § 106— corroboration of confession — proof of corpus delicti

Though the State is required to establish the commission of a crime, the *corpus delicti,*by evidence apart from, or *aliunde,*the confession, there is no requirement that defendant be connected with the commission of the crime, the *corpus delicti,*in addition to, apart from, or *aliunde,*the connection contained in his confession.

Appeal by defendant from *Wells, Judge,*17 July 1972 Session of Superior Court held in New Hanover County.

Defendant was charged in a warrant with larceny of property of a value of less than $200.00, a misdemeanor. He was found guilty in District Court and appealed. Upon trial *de novo*by jury in Superior Court he was found guilty and judgment of confinement was entered. Defendant appealed.

The facts necessary for an understanding of this appeal are set out in the opinion.

*Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Byrd, for the State.*

*Charles E. Rice 111 for the defendant.*

BROCK, Judge.

The State’s evidence tended to show the following: On 8 December 1971 a ten-wheel truck with storage bins around the bed was stored for the night within a fence enclosure. The individual storage bins on the truck were locked and the gate through the fence was locked. The truck and the equipment *153stored thereon were the property of Harrison-Wright Company. During the night of 8 December 1971 two of the storage bins on the truck were broken into and tools valued at $179.00 were taken. On 19 December 1971 defendant confessed to climbing over the fence, breaking into the two storage bins, and taking the tools. Defendant admitted disposing of the tools by sales to persons unknown. Defendant offered no evidence.

Defendant admits that the commission of the crime, the *corpus delicti,*was established by evidence *aliunde*the confession by defendant. He also admits that defendant duly confessed that he committed the crime. However, defendant argues that he is entitled to a nonsuit because the State failed to connect defendant with the *corpus delicti*by evidence apart from defendant’s confession. Defendant cites *State v. Thomas,*241 N.C. 337, 85 S.E. 2d 300, and *State v. Whittemore,*255 N.C. 583, 122 S.E. 2d 396, in support of his argument.

Defendant has completely misread the cases he cited. Both *Thomas*and *Whittemore*hold that an extrajudicial confession standing alone is not sufficient to warrant a conviction; the State is required to establish the commission of a crime, the *corpus delicti,*by evidence apart from, or *aliunde,*the confession. They also hold that full, direct, and positive evidence of the *corpus delicti*is not indispensable. There is no requirement that defendant be connected with the commission of the crime, the *corpus delicti,*in addition to, apart from, or *aliunde,*the connection contained in his confession. *See State v. Macon,*6 N.C. App. 245, 170 S.E. 2d 144.

No error.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Britt concur.
NORTH CAROLINA AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER ASSOCIATION, Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, and Compass Surgical Partners, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Defendant.

No. COA17-701

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 21, 2018

DISMISSED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 21, 2011 

p0118 

Order 

 

January 21, 2011 

142326 & (15)(16) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142326 

 COA: 300753 

Wayne CC: 10-006355-FH 

AARON LEONARD GRABLE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

NEXTGEN BIOLOGICS, I NC.,

Appellant

v.

AXOLOTL BIOLOGIX, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2018

- 2016

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.

91236432.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

G ERARD B ENCEN

, Patent

- Arts, PLLC, Gainesville, FL,

argued for appellant.

W ILLIAM J. U TERMOHLEN , Oliff & Berridge, PLC, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. Also represented by

P ETER T HOMAS E WALD

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, M AYER

, and L OURIE

, Circuit

Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 15, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF THECEO(1)**

Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Favrille, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),to which this Certification is attached to as Exhibit 32.1, I, John P.Longenecker, President and Chief Executive Officer of Favrille, Inc., certifythat, to the best of my knowledge:

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

2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofFavrille, Inc. for the period covered by the Report.

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to Favrille, Inc. and will beretained by Favrille, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
| Date   | November 14,  2006 |                                   | By | /s/ John P.  Longenecker |   |
|--------|--------------------|----------------------------------------|----|-------------------------------|--------|
|   |               | John P.  Longenecker, Ph.D.,           |
|   |               | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----

(1)This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemedfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of Favrille, Inc. under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whethermade before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.

----
Exhibit 13.1  Section 906 Certificate, Chief Executive Officer



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Amendment No.1 of TM Group Holdings PLC (the Company) on
Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended November 29, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Amendment No.1), I, James Lancaster, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Amendment No.1 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 Amendment No.1 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /S/    JAMES LANCASTER 
|Name:  |  | James Lancaster        
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
|       | 
|Date:  |  | January 31, 2005
STATE of North Carolina v. Kendrick Louis ROBINSON, Defendant.

No. COA17-1262

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 20, 2018

NO ERROR.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-4 No. 333-43005) and the Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-83117)
of Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. for the registration of its 9.25% Senior
Subordinated Notes due 2007 of our report dated February 25, 2003, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Cleveland, Ohio
March 25, 2003
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4991 

To amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 to require the 

Bureau of Land Management to provide a claimant of a small miner 

waiver from claim maintenance fees with a period of 60 days after 

written receipt of 1 or more defects is provided to the claimant by 

registered mail to cure the 1 or more defects or pay the claim maintenance fee, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2010 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 

to require the Bureau of Land Management to provide 

a claimant of a small miner waiver from claim maintenance fees with a period of 60 days after written receipt 

of 1 or more defects is provided to the claimant by 

registered mail to cure the 1 or more defects or pay 

the claim maintenance fee, 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, 


SMARTINEZ on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4991 IH

1 SECTION 1. SMALL MINER WAIVERS TO CLAIM MAINTE2 NANCE FEES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 10101(d)(3) of the Omni4 bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (30 U.S.C. 

5 28f(d)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘for any reason, the 

6 claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of 

7 written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau 

8 of Land Management to:’’ and inserting ‘‘for any reason 

9 (including the failure to timely file a small miner’s mainte10 nance fee waiver application or an affidavit of annual labor 

11 associated with the application and required application 

12 fees), the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after 

13 receipt of written notification of the 1 or more defects pro14 vided by the Bureau of Land Management by registered 

15 mail to’’. 

16 (b) TRANSITION RULES.— 

17 (1) The claimholder of claims numbered 

18 AA023149, AA023163, AA047913, AA047914, 

19 AA047915, AA047916, AA047917, AA047918, and 

20 AA047919 (as of December 29, 2004) shall be con21 sidered— 

22 (A) to have received a first half final cer23 tificate for application AA072648 (associated 

24 with the claims) before September 30, 1994; 

25 and 


SMARTINEZ on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4991 IH

1 (B) to qualify for relief under section 

2 10101(d)(3) of the Omnibus Budget Reconcili3 ation Act of 1993 (30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(3)) and 

4 have the opportunity to cure under that section 

5 for any prior period for which 1 or more defects 

6 existed or there was a failure to pay claim 

7 maintenance fees. 

8 (2) The claims numbered AAFF057833, 

9 AKFF057834, AKFF057840, AKFF084389, 

10 AKFF085204, AKFF096323, AKFF086324, 

11 AKFF086267, AKFF084387, and AKFF084388 

12 shall be— 

13 (A) considered to qualify for relief under 

14 section 10101(d)(3) of the Omnibus Budget 

15 Reconciliation Act of 1993 (30 U.S.C. 

16 28f(d)(3)); and 

17 (B) given notice of defect and the oppor18 tunity to cure. 

Æ 


SMARTINEZ on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Joel Mark DE SMET, Appellant.

No. 71-2811.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 11, 1972.

Joel Shawn (argued), of Lukes & Bassoni, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Stephen E. Clark (argued), of Athearn, Chandler, & Hoffman, James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CHAMBERS and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of conviction in this selective service case is affirmed.

We decide here that if there was some irregularity in the “call” process, there is no evidence of prejudice to De Smet.

However, we reject the contention that there was irregularity in the “calling.”
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES EDWARD STURDIVANT

No. 7520SC293

(Filed 2 July 1975)

Appeal by defendant from *Kivett, Judge.*Judgment entered on 12 December 1974 in Superior Court, Anson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 12 June 1975.

Defendant, together with one Fred Pegues, was charged in an indictment with the armed robbery, by the use of a knife, of Purcell Tillman. Defendant pled not guilty, a jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of not less than 12 nor more than 18 years, he appealed.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Donald A. Davis, for the State.*

*Henry T. Drake for the defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

Purcell Tillman, the victim of the alleged robbery, testified substantially as follows: On 10 August 1974, at approximately 5:00 p.m., he was waiting for his sister to arrive at the bus station in Wadesboro. While waiting he was walking up and down the street. It was daylight and he could see. He entered an alley and Fred Pegues grabbed him and “throwed a knife around (his) neck.” The point of the knife was against his throat. At about the same time, defendant grabbed him around the waist and reached into his pocket. When defendant grabbed him- around his waist he was looking squarely into defendant’s face. They “slammed” Tillman against the wall, took his wallet, and “slammed” him down. Tillman managed to get away and ran down the street with Pegues in pursuit. Pegues was stopped by a policeman and arrested for public drunkenness. Defendant came up to the policeman and asked that Pegues be released. The officer refused. While the officer was taking Pegues to the station, Tillman “flagged” the officer and told him that Pegues and defendant had robbed him.

In his brief,- defendant contends (1) the bill of indictment is defective, (2) the court commented on the evidence in viola-, tion of G.S. 1-180, (3) the court erred in allowing the district *534atto'rney to lead the State’s witness, and (4) the court erred in failing to grant defendant’s motion for a mistrial. It suffices to say that we have carefully considered each of the contentions and find no merit in any of them. We hold that defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Martin concur.
#### Dolores June Thompson WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 71-1709.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 25, 1972.

Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and Mc-WILLIAMS and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The initial review of this case prompted its assignment to the summary calendar. We informed the appellant, Dolores Wilson, and her attorney, that we were contemplating summary affirmance on our own motion and afforded her an opportunity to submit a memorandum addressing the underlying merits. See Rule 8(d), Revised Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (1970).

*688A memorandum has not been received. Nevertheless, we have now carefully reviewed the files and records in this case and are thoroughly convinced that the judgment of the district court is correct. The findings are more than amply supported by the evidence, as a reading of the transcript readily discloses. Concluding that there is no need for further argument, the judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court in 339 F.Supp. 126 (W.D.Okl.1971).

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                         INSIGNIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

                             401(K) RESTORATION PLAN

                                 Amendment No. 1


         Pursuant to Section 21, the Plan is hereby amended, effective June 1,
2000, by adding to the end of the last sentence in the second paragraph of
Section 4, the following new clause and additional sentence:


         provided that an Executive may terminate an election for the balance of
         the Plan Year for the purpose of suspending all future deferrals for
         such Plan Year. Following such a suspension, an Executive may not elect
         subsequent deferrals under this Plan for the balance of the Plan Year
         but shall be free to change any election under the Company's 401(k)
         plan pursuant to the terms of the 401(k).



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this plan amendment as of
June 1, 2000.


         Dated                              INSIGNIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
              ----------------------


                                            By  /s/ Adam B. Gilbert
                                              --------------------------------

                                            Title  Executive Vice-President
                                                 -------------------------------