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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 28, 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Norwegian eStandards Project, Oslo, Norway; and University of Maryland University College, Adelphi, MD have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Industry Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada has withdrawn as a party to this venture. In addition, FD Learning has changed its name to Tribal Technology, Sheffield, United Kingdom.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 1, 2005. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50407).                

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-23319 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
EXHIBIT B 

Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 18-4 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 18-4 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 18-4 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 3 of 3
71806 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Notices 

be sent to Ms. Toppings, WHS/ESD/ 

Information Management Division, 1777 

North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, 

Arlington, VA 22209–2133. 

Dated: November 22, 2005. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 05–23487 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 06–15] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

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 06–15 with 

attached transmittal and policy 

justification. 

Dated: November 23, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Notices 71807 


EN30NO05.069</GPH>
71808 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Notices 


EN30NO05.070</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Notices 71809 

[FR Doc. 05–23483 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 


EN30NO05.071</GPH>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                              Ending
Class       Interest        Principal      Losses            Balance
<S>            <C>             <C>           <C>               <C>
A1        1409271.27        602539.21           0       286151403.95
A2        1535415.84                0           0          312951000
AR           81910.4              100           0                  0
B1          23361.97                0           0            4629000
B2          12460.72                0           0            2469000
B3          15579.69                0           0            3087000
B4          15579.69                0           0            3087000
B5           9341.76                0           0            1851000
B6           9338.76                0           0          1850405.1


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 12, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00697

- CR

Christopher Arthur MAROUDAS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 9, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 364789 Honorable Walden Shelton, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on January 6, 2014 . The appellant’s first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to February 5, 2014 . On February 7, 2014 , the appellant filed a motion requesting an additional

extension of time to file the brief until March 5, 2014 , for a total extension of approximately sixty days. By order dated February 10, 2014, the motion was granted, extending the deadline to

file th e brief to March 5, 2014. The order stated, “ THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF

TIME THAT THE APPELLANT WILL BE GRANTED .” The brief has not been filed.

Pursuant to rule 38.8(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we abate this case

to the trial c ourt and ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to answer the following questions:

(1) Does appellant desire to prosecute his appeal?

(2) Is appellant indigent? If appellant is indigent, the trial court shall take such measures as may be necessary to assure the effective assistance of counsel, which may include the appointment of new counsel.

(3) Has appointed or retained counsel abandoned the appeal? Because sanctions may be necessary, the trial court should address this issue even if new couns el is retained or substituted before the date of the hearing.The trial court may, in its discretion, receive evidence on the first two questions by sworn affidavit from the appellant. The trial court shall, however, order the appellant’s counsel to be

pr esent at the hearing.

The trial court is further ORDERED to file supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records in this court, no later than April 10, 2014, which shall include: (1) a transcription of the hearing and copies of any documentary evidence adm itted, (2) written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (3) recommendations addressing the above enumerated questions.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 12th day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case 1:07-cv-03503-RMB Document 5 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03503-RMB Document 5 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 13 of 13
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7494
TORINO BONEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID CLARKE; EDDIE PEARSON; B. QUINN; MS. ROGERS; D. ORMOND; E. ALSTON; BIRDSONG; DARLENE COLES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-279) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 5, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Torino Boney, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Torino Boney appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeBoney v. Clarke , No. CA-03-279 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2003). 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
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATIONS OFTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERUNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe filing by ARTISTdirect, Inc. (the “Registrant”) of its Annual Report onForm 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Annual Report”)with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Jonathan V. Diamond, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           TheAnnual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theRegistrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| Date:     April 30,  2007 | By:    | /s/ JONATHAN V. DIAMOND       |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                                               |   | Jonathan V. Diamond           |
|                                               |   | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                                               |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
#### WHITFIELD v. WINSLOW

No. 4 PC

Case below: 48 N.C. App. 206

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 November 1980.
Order entered July 13, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00562-CV

CITY OF RICHARDSON, TEXAS, Appellant

V.

DEBORAH SLAVER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-10490

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 11, 2018 motion for an extension of time to file a 

brief. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER the brief tendered to this Court by appellant on 

July 11, 2018 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 36-3 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 24 of 24
#### STATE v. CHARLES LEONARD JOHNSON.

(Filed 23 May 1962.)

Criminal Law § 72; Husband and Wife § 21—

In this prosecution of a husband for abandonment and wilful refusal to provide support, testimony of a wife that she advised her husband by telephone that the children did not have food and that she was without funds to purchase food, and that in reply the husband stated that she would have to go to court to see what she could do and that he was through, *is held*competent as an admission by defendant.

Appeal by defendant from *Bickett, J.,*December 1961 Criminal Term, Dueham Superior Court.

The defendant was tried and convicted in the Recorder’s Court of Durham County upon a two-count warrant charging abandonment and wilful failure to provide adequate suport (1) for his wife, Callie Dean Johnson, and (2) for his three children, naming them, ages 3, 2, and 1. From the judgment imposed, he appealed to the superior court. From a verdict of guilty by the jury after a trial *de novo,*the court imposed road sentences of 18 months on each count, to run concurrently. However, the court suspended the execution of the sentences for five years on condition the defendant pay into court each week the sum of 110.00 for the wife and $20.00 for the children. The defendant appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, G. A. Jones, Jr., Asst. Attorney General for the State.*

*Blackwell M. Brogden for defendant appellant.*

*281Pee Cueiam.

The State’s evidence tended to show the defendant and his wife had separated a number of times during which the defendant’s parents made contributions to the support of the wife and children. Over objection, the wife testified: “I called him (defendant) up on Friday after he had been gone a week and told him the children didn’t have any milk and I didn’t have any money to buy any with and he said, ‘Well you will have to go to court and see what you can get ... I am through.’ ... He had not provided any support since that time.”

The evidence was clearly competent as an admission of the defendant and, with the other evidence, made out a case for the jury. The defendant did not offer testimony. His complaint that the charge was overbalanced in favor of the State and the other objections are without merit.

No error.
#### STATE v. SANDERS

No. 158 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 33.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 January 1975.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-K of Northern Border Pipeline
Company (the "Partnership") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
William R. Cordes, as President of Northern Plains Natural Gas Company, Operator
(functional equivalent to the Partnership's principal executive officer), hereby
certifies, 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
            section 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 Partnership.


Dated:  March 11, 2005                 /s/ William R. Cordes
                                    ----------------------------------
                                           William R. Cordes
                                           President, Northern Plains Natural
                                           Gas Company


This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
not for any other purpose.
#### FARR v. CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT

No. 66 PC.

Case below: 10 N.C. App. 128.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeal denied 2 February 1971.
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 Keystone  Consolidated  Industries,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
we, David L. Cheek,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  and
Bert E.  Downing,  Jr.,  Vice  President,  Chief  Financial  Officer,  Corporate
Controller and Treasurer 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 result of  operations of the
Company.




/s/  David L. Cheek                    /s/  Bert E. Downing, Jr.
-------------------------------------  -------------------------
David L. Cheek                         Bert E. Downing, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
March 31, 2006                         Corporate Controller and Treasurer
                                       March 31, 2006



Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
**Exhibit 99.8**

 

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Platinum Group Metals Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended August 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frank R. Hallam, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company. |

 

 
|   | /s/   Frank R. Hallam                  |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Frank   R. Hallam                      |
|   | Chief   Financial Officer and Director |
|   | November 25,   2014               |

 

----
#### Patrick Phelan and Patrick W. Snowhook v. Mary Cuddy.

1. Master’s *Report—When Not a Part of the*Record.—A master’s report does not become a part of the record by being incorporated therein by stipulation of the parties.

Memorándum.—Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Samuel P. McConnell, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.

Opinion filed March 5, 1895.

Frank H. Graham, attorney for appellants.

Weig-ley, Bulkley *&*Gray, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justioe Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The certificate of the clerk to the transcript of the record brought here is, that it is true, perfect and complete, except as to the master’s report, “ the original of which being incorporated herein by the stipulation of the parties hereto.”

*591The master’s report is, therefore, no part of the record, and there appears no cause for reversing the decree. Carey v. Scherer, No. 5289, filed December 6, 1894.

It will therefore be affirmed.