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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (05-015)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA International Space Station Strategic Roadmap Committee. 

# DATES:

Wednesday, February 23, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Thursday, February 24, 2005, 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. 

# ADDRESSES:

Loews Annapolis Hotel, 126 West Street, Annapolis, MD 21401. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Stacey Edgington, 202-358-4519. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the meeting room. Attendees will be requested to sign a register. 

The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

—NASA Strategic Roadmap Overview. 

—ISS Development and Operations Status. 

—ISS Utilization Study Status. 

—Biomedical Studies for Exploration. 

—Technology Demonstrations for Exploration. 

—Integrated Space Operations Summit. 

—ISS Roadmap Committee Discussion. 

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. 

Dated: January 31, 2005. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05-2166 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
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 Gramercy Capital Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger M. Cozzi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ ROGER M. COZZI Name:  Roger M. Cozzi
Title:Chief Executive Officer


Date:
May 11, 2009

---



QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Miriam Blank v. Jack Nuszen

Appellate case number: 01-18-00379-CV

Trial court case number: 2008-51454

Trial court: 246th District Court of Harris County

On August 13, 2018, appellant, Miriam Blank, filed her appellant’s brief. Appellant’s brief 

contains “[s]ensitive [d]ata” as defined by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9(a) and requires 

redaction. See generally TEX.R. APP. P. 9.9 (privacy protection for documents filed in civil cases).

Accordingly, we STRIKE appellant’s brief filed August 13, 2018. Appellant is ORDERED 

to refile, within 7 days of the date of this order, a compliant brief containing appropriate redactions.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 13, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties II Limited Partnership 1997 year-end 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000319723
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,993
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      358
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          24,806
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,996
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F2>
<BONDS>                                          8,549
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,331
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,684
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,256
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       428
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    15.41<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### THE STATE OF NEVADA, Petitioner, v. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, in and for the County of Washoe, and THE HONORABLE JERRY CARR WHITEHEAD, District Judge, Respondents.

No. 23475

November 3, 1993

862 P.2d 422

*Dorothy Nash Holmes,*District Attorney, Washoe County, for Petitioner.

*Bible, Hoy, Trachok & Wadhams,*Reno; *Hamilton & Lynch,*Reno, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This original petition for a writ of certiorari or prohibition by the Washoe County District Attorney seeks an order from this court prohibiting the respondent district judge from giving certain *1022jury instructions in future criminal trials. The petition also requests that this court issue an administrative opinion or administrative rules governing the conduct of future criminal prosecutions.

We decline to order a district judge not to issue certain jury instructions in the future. Both the writ of certiorari and the writ of prohibition are only available when there is no plain speedy and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.020(2), NRS 34.330.

We are not persuaded that the correctness of jury instructions will evade review under the ordinary remedies at law. Neither are we willing to issue an injunction regarding some hypothetical future case. This applies to jury instructions, as well as to other alleged inappropriate trial actions.

We also hold that this petition is not the appropriate method for seeking administrative rule changes or additions. This court has adopted “The Nevada Rules on the Administrative Docket” which provide the appropriate method for the proposal and adoption of administrative rules.

Accordingly, we deny this petition in its entirety.1

1

The Honorable Cliff Young, Justice, did not participate in the decision of this matter.
EXHIBIT 23.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-07831, 333-07835, 333-28455, 333-28457, 333-28459, 333-63813, 333-63815, 333-41632, 333-41634, 333-41670, 033-88634, 333-53278, 333-86686, 333-86688, 333-126062, 333-144060 and 333-168613) on Form S-8 of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated August 1, 2013, relating to the consolidated financial statements, the effectiveness of Maxwell Technology, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, and schedules appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.   Our report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012.


/s/ BDO USA LLP


San Diego, California


October 10, 2013
#### MICHAEL FRANK RENARD, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 9831

June 28, 1978

580 P.2d 470

[Rehearing denied November 13, 1978]

*Patrick R. Doyle, R. Paul Sorenson,*and *Martin W. Becker,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *H. Leon Simon,*Chief Appellate Deputy, Clark County, for Respondent.

*369OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant plead guilty to an amended information charging him with attempted coercion (NRS 207.190; NRS 208.070).1 He was subsequently sentenced to three (3) years in the Nevada State Prison and now contends the district court abused its discretion in denying probation and imposing the maximum sentence. We disagree.

The district court is vested with wide discretion regarding sentencing and probation. *See*Cook v. State, 77 Nev. 83, 359 P.2d 483 (1961). Where, as here, “the sentence is within statutory limits, [citation omitted], and . . . there has been no proof of judicial reliance upon ‘impalpable or highly suspect evidence,’ [citation omitted], this court will refrain from interference with the trial court’s imposition of sentence.” Lloyd v. *370State, 94 Nev. 167, 170, 576 P.2d 740, 742 (1978). *Accord,*Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 545 P.2d 1159 (1976). “The fact that the sentence imposed by the court exceeded the sentence recommended by the Department of Parole and Probation is of no consequence.” McCullough v. State, 94 Nev. 51, 52, 574 P.2d 585 (1978). *Accord,*Lloyd v. State, *supra.*

Other issues raised by appellant are without merit.

Affirmed.

1

 NRS 207.190 provides, in pertinent part:

> “1. It is unlawful for any person, with intent to compel another to do or abstain from doing an act which such other person has a right to do or abstain from doing, to:

> “(a) Use violence or inflict upon such other person or any of his family, or upon ids property, or threaten such violence or injury; or

> “(b) Deprive such person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder him in the use thereof; or

> “(c) Attempt to intimidate such person by threats or force.

> “2. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 shall be punished:

> “(a) Where physical force or the immediate threat of such force is used, by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than 1 year nor more than 6 years.”

NRS 208.070 provides, in pertinent part:

> “An act done with intent to commit a crime, and tending but failing to accomplish it, is an attempt to commit that crime; and every person who attempts to commit a crime, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, shall be punished as follows:

> “1. If the crime attempted is punishable by death or life imprisonment, the person convicted of the attempt shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years.

> “2. In every other case he shall be punished by imprisonment in such manner as may be prescribed for the commission of the completed offense, for not more than half the longest term, or by a fine of not more than half the largest sum, prescribed upon conviction for the commission of the offense attempted, or by both such fine and imprisonment. ...”
```

                                                                     EXHIBIT 32

                          **CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                         SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF
                      TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Navistar  Financial  Corporation
(the   "Corporation"),   subsidiary   of   International   Truck   and   Engine
Corporation,  on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Pamela  Turbeville,  Principal  Executive  Officer and I,  Andrew J.  Cederoth,
Principal  Financial  Officer  of  the  Corporation,  certify,  pursuant  to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant  §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 results of operations
           of the Corporation.

**/s/ PAMELA TURBEVILLE**
    Pamela Turbeville
    Principal Executive Officer
    September 10, 2004

**/s/ ANDREW J. CEDEROTH**
    Andrew J. Cederoth
    Principal Financial Officer
    September 10, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant  to §906  of   the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Corporation for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as  amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This  certification  shall  also not
be deemed to be incorporated by  reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as  amended,  or  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
except  to  the  extent  that  the  Corporation specifically incorporates it by
reference.
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of T & G2, Inc.
(the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     A.   the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10QSB for the period ended
          March 31, 2003 fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     B.   the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.




Dated: May 20, 2003



/s/ James Farinella
-----------------------------------------------
James Farinella
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | • | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter                ended                March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission                (the                “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: June 21, 2006                                                                        |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                       |   |   |   |
| /s/ Keith              Walz                                                           |   |   |   |
|                                                                                            |   |   |        |
| Keith              WalzChief Financial Officer(Principal                Financial Officer) |   |   |   |

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

11-15903

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYE ELLEN STILES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

PARAGON REALTY, DBA TPI Vista

Montana, LLC; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15903

D.C. No. 4:07-cv-00670-RCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Raye Ellen Stiles appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in her action alleging, among other claims, housing discrimination. We have

FILED

JUL 20 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15903

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm the

district court on any ground supported by the record. Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d

730, 733–34 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

Summary judgment on Stiles’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional

distress, aggravation of preexisting conditions, and public humiliation was proper

because she already litigated these claims in Arizona state court, and, thus, res

judicata precludes her from bringing such claims in federal court. See Sunkist

Growers v. Fisher, 104 F.3d 280, 283–84 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that under

Arizona law a litigant may not bring a claim identical to one she has previously

litigated).

Summary judgment on Stiles’ federal claims and her state law conspiracy

claims based on her eviction was also proper because Stiles is collaterally estopped

from relitigating the issue of whether her landlord had a valid, non-pretexual

motive for evicting her. See Chaney Bldg. Co. v. Tucson, 716 P.2d 28, 30 (Ariz.

1986) (discussing the differences between issue and claim preclusion). 

Summary judgment on Stiles’ claim that defendants failed to repair her

apartment out of discriminatory or retaliatory animus in violation of the Federal

Housing Act was proper because she failed to raise a material dispute of fact as to

whether there was disparate treatment based upon a federally protected ground. 
3 11-15903

See Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690, 711

(9th Cir. 2009); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986)

(plaintiff may not survive summary judgment based on conclusory allegations in

complaint).

Stiles’ other contentions, including those concerning discovery issues and

alleged attorney misconduct, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit10.2**

** **

** **

**SECOND AMENDMENT TO THEAMENDED AND RESTATED**

**1989 STOCK-BASED INCENTIVE PLAN OF**

**INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION**

**EFFECTIVE AS OF JULY 1, 2002**

 

                The Amended andRestated 1989 Stock-Based Incentive Plan of International Multifoods Corporation(the “Plan”) is amended, effective as of July 1, 2002, as follows:

 

                The definitionof  “Automatic Grant” appearing inSection 1 of Part II of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

 

“Automatic Grant” shall mean a Non-Qualified StockOption to purchase 2,500 shares of Stock granted to each Non-Employee Directorpursuant to Section 3 of Part II of the Plan.”

 

 

----
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 Cubic Energy,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the period  ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  I, CEO and CFO,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

Date: December 12, 2005
Signature: /s/ Calvin A. Wallen, III
          --------------------------
          Calvin A. Wallen, III, CEO

Date: October 4, 2005
Signature: /s/ Jon Stuart Ross
          --------------------------
           Jon Stuart Ross