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 Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - [Docket No. 041108311-5001-02; I.D. 092705A]

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of vendor to provide year 2006 cage tags.

# SUMMARY:

NMFS informs surfclam and ocean quahog allocation owners that they will be required to purchase their year 2006 cage tags from a vendor.  The intent of this notice is to comply with regulations for the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries and to promote efficient distribution of cage tags.

# ADDRESSES:

Written inquiries may be sent to Brian R. Hooker, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian R. Hooker, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9220; fax (978) 281-9135.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Federal Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries regulations at 50 CFR 648.75(b) authorize the Regional Administrator of the Northeast Region, NMFS, to specify in the Federal Register a vendor from whom cage tags, required under the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP), shall be purchased.  Notice is hereby given that National Band and Tag Company of Newport, Kentucky, is the authorized vendor of cage tags required for the year 2006 Federal                           ( print page 58696)                        surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries.  Detailed instructions for purchasing these cage tags will be provided in a letter to allocation owners in these fisheries within the next several weeks.                

Authority:                        Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801*et seq.*

Dated: September 30, 2005.

Alan D. Risenhoover,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 05-20298 Filed 10-06-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20626]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act 
of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 15 and July 27, 2005, the National 
Science Foundation published notices in the Federal Register of permit 
applications received. Permits were issued on October 5, 2005 to:
    J. Allan Campbell (Permit No. 2006-017).
    George Steinmetz (Permit No. 2006-020).

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-20626 Filed 10-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 32

                    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 Syntony Group, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), We, Michael Vardakis, President and Treasurer and Matthew C. Lords,
Vice President and Secretary 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.


Date: 5/15/2006                          /s/Michael Vardakis
     ----------                          ---------------------
                                         Michael Vardakis
                                         President, Treasurer and director


Date: 5/15/2006                          /s/Matthew C. Lords
     ----------                          ---------------------
                                         Matthew C. Lords
                                         Vice President, Secretary and
                                         director
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal executive officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, 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 Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Stephen R. LightStephen R. LightPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)


August 6, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 22 (Thursday, February 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2085]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-839]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea: Notice of Extension of 
Time Limit for 2003-2004 Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Yasmin Bordas, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
1174 or (202) 482-3813, respectively.

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department of Commerce (``Department'') to issue 
the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days 
after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a 
review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the 
date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not 
practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines 
to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.

Background

    On June 30, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
polyester staple fiber (``PSF'') from Korea, covering the period May 1, 
2003, through April 30, 2004 (69 FR 39409). The preliminary results for 
the antidumping duty administrative review of certain PSF from Korea 
are currently due no later than January 31, 2005.

Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results

    Because the Department requires additional time to review and 
analyze the supplemental questionnaire response, it is not practicable 
to complete this review within the originally anticipated time limit 
(i.e., January 31, 2005). Therefore, the Department is extending the 
time limit for completion of the preliminary results to not later than 
May 31, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 28, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-2085 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 14, 2020

No. 04-20-00399-CV

CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

Sydney BERRA, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lee Berra, and on 

behalf of his surviving parents, Philip Berra and Ellen Berra,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI01530

 Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s second motion to extend time to file the appellee’s brief is granted. We order 

the appellee’s brief due January 18, 2021. Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time 

will be granted absent a timely motion that: (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances 

justifying further delay; (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the 

brief; and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed 

by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy workload to 

be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of December, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
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 Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report), I, Irvin E. Richter, Chairman and 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:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Irvin E. RichterIrvin E. RichterChairman and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: August 7, 2008
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). LSS/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T CR AI G F. W EI GH ALL, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. D O U G W A D D I N G T O N , S up e r in te n d e n t, S ta f f o r dC r e e kC o rr e c tio n s C e n te r ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 35026 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 6 7 5 - RSM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R i c ar do S . M a rt i ne z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 16, 2010 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W as hi ng t on st at e pri soner C ra i g F . W ei gh al l appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s s u m m aryju d g m e n t in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te 

# FI LED APR01 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSL SS/ Res ea r ch 09- 35026 2 i ndi f f e r e nc e t o hi s s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ag r an t o f s u m m aryju d g m e n t. T

og uchiv. Chung , 3 9 1 F .3 d1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e a f f irm . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r an te ds u m m aryju d g m e n t b e c au s e W e ig h a ll d id no tra i se a genui ne i ss ue of m at er i alfa ctas t o w hether the defendant s’ chosen c o u r s e o f tr e a tm e n t o f

h is a m p u ta tio n s ite w a s m e d ic a llyu n a c c e p tab le . Se e id. at 10 58 (hol di ng thata di ff er ence of op i ni on abou tthe bestcourse of m edi ca l tr e a tm e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e ) . AF F I RME D.
STATE v. Rontel Vincae ROYSTER

441A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 18, 2018

Geeta Kapur, Attorney at Law, for Royster, Rontel Vincae

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of December 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

*440"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of December 2018."
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 1, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00652

- CV

INTERNATIONAL MUSEUM CORPORATION d/b/a Southwest Museum of Art, Tony

Webber

, and John Schumacher, Appellants

v.

Char les TROIS

, Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 07417

Honorable Aaron Haas , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On September 30, 2022, International Museum Corporation d/b/a Southwest Museum of Art, Tony Webber, and John Schumacher filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s order signed on August 31, 2022. The clerk’s record shows the August 31, 2022 order grants a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of Charles Trois as to his claim for declaratory

re lief against Schumacher , severs the claim from the original cause, and assigns the claim a new

cause number: 2022

- CI

- 16882. However, the order does not dispos e of any of Trois’s claims against International Museum Corporation and Webber.

Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). When, as here, “there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually d isposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Id. “Severance does not make an interlocutory judgment final and appealable if the judgment merely disposes of a subset of the claims between the parties.” Duke v. Am. W. Steel, LLC , 526 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2017 , no pet. )

. Because the August 31, 2022 order disposes of only Trois’s declaratory judgment action against Schumacher, it does not appear final as to International Museum Corporation and

Webber. See id. (holding combination of partial summary judgment order and severance order does not automatically result in final and appealable judgment if it does not dispose of all claims against all parties in appeal).Accordingly, we order a ppellant s to file a written response in this court on or before

De cember 1 , 2022

, showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If appellant s fail to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal will

be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). If a supplemental clerk ’ s record is require d to establish this court’s jurisdiction , appellant s must ask the trial court clerk to prepare one and must notify the clerk of this court that such a request was made. All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of the court.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 35805

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THERON JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 483

Filed: May 26, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified five-year

sentence, with one-year determinate term, for possession of methamphetamine, 

affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Thompkins, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Theron Jones pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, I.C. § 18-2732(c), and the 

district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a one-year determinate term. The district 

court suspended the sentence and placed Jones on probation. Jones violated his probation and 

the district court revoked probation, but retained jurisdiction. Following successful completion 

of his retained jurisdiction, the district court again suspended the sentence and placed Jones on 

probation. This probation was subsequently revoked and the suspended sentence ordered into 

execution. On appeal, Jones does not challenge the district court’s decision to revoke probation, 
2

but argues only that this sentence is excessive and that the district court should have sua sponte 

reduced Jones’s sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). 

When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of 

probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original 

judgment. State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our 

review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring 

between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Applying these standards, 

and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its 

discretion.

Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Jones’s previously 

suspended sentence is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

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 MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David C. Choi, 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 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 operating results of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    DAVID C.
CHOI   
|David C. Choi          
|Chief Financial Officer

March 16, 2009
EXHIBIT 23



<PAGE>




                        Independent Accountants' Consent





The Board of Directors
Ridgewood Financial, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation  by reference in the previously  filed  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 File No.  333-71725 of  Ridgewood  Financial,  Inc. of our
report  dated  January 22,  2001,  relating to the  consolidated  statements  of
financial condition of Ridgewood  Financial,  Inc. and subsidiary as of December
31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
shareholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the years then  ended,  which  report
appears in the  December  31,  2000 Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of  Ridgewood
Financial, Inc.


                                                        /s/KPMG LLP
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        KPMG LLP


Short Hills, New Jersey
March 29, 2001