alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 239 (Thursday, December 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70926-70927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6037]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Fifth Meeting, Special Committee 215 Aeronautical Mobile 
Satellite (Route) Services Next Generation Satellite Services and 
Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Notice of RTCA Special Committee 215, Aeronautical Mobile 
Satellite (Route) Services, Next Generation Satellite Services and 
Equipment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
second meeting of RTCA Special Committee 215, Aeronautical Mobile 
Satellite (Route) Services, Next Generation Satellite Services and 
Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held January 22-23, 2007, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Continental Airlines, 600 
Jefferson Street, Concourse Level--Training Room C, Houston, TX 77002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org for directions. POC: Mr. David 
Pitoniak, Phone: 713-324-3907. Note: Dress is Business Casual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is 
hereby given for a Special Committee 215 meeting. The agenda will 
include:
    <bullet> January 22:

<bullet> Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and 
Administrative Remarks, Review and Approval of Agenda for Fifth 
Plenary.
    <bullet> Review and Approval of Fourth Meeting Summary (215-045; 
RTCA Paper No. 295-07/SC215-011).
    <bullet> Review of Action List Outstanding Actions.
<bullet> DO-262 Normative Appendix.
    <bullet> Report from DO-262 Working Groups.
    <bullet> Review and Discussion of Remaining Sections.
<bullet> DO-270--Normative Appendix.
    <bullet> Overview of Approach for Normative Appendix.
    <bullet> Review of DO-270 Normative Appendix.
<bullet> Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Schedule Next Plenary 
Meeting, Adjourn--Wednesday, January 23, 2007; 12 noon).

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability.

[[Page 70927]]

With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present 
oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements 
or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present 
a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 7, 2007.
    Editoral Note: This document was received at the Office of the 
Federal Register December 7, 2007.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee (Acting).
[FR Doc. 07-6037 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
DONNA NAGRABSKI

,

Appellant,

v.

BEVERLY WILSON, FRED WILSON, AND RICHARD
NAGRABSKI

,

Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0451

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 9, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County

. W. Howard LaPorte , Judge

.

William J. Ritchie of Pleat, Perry & Ritchie, P.A., Destin , for Appellant.

Clayton B. Adkinson of Adkinson Law Firm, LLC, DeFuniak Springs , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., BENTON and LEWIS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

VICTOR WHITEHEAD,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv08/RS-CJK

GULF COAST HYPERBARICS,

INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Notice of Settlement (Doc. 35). Pursuant to Local Rule

16.2(D), it is ordered:

1. This case is dismissed from the active docket of the court.

2. In the event that the settlement is not consummated, the court reserves

jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days of the date of this Order, to

amend or vacate and set aside this Order and reinstate the case.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file of this case for administrative

purposes, and upon the expiration of sixty days without activity, the clerk is directed to

close the case in its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on August 5, 2011. 

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00008-RS-CJK Document 36 Filed 08/05/11 Page 1 of 1
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 on Form 10-Q of Genesis Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Anthony J. Cataldo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.





Dated:  August 14, 2012
By:
/s/ Anthony J. CataldoAnthony J. CataldoChief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5317 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 650
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5317

                          [Report No. 115-363]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2018

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

                           November 14, 2018

               Reported by Mr. Hoeven, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To repeal section 2141 of the Revised Statutes to remove the 
     prohibition on certain alcohol manufacturing on Indian lands.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ALCOHOL MANUFACTURING ON 
              INDIAN LANDS.

    Section 2141 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 251) is repealed.

SEC. 2. NO EFFECT ON TAXATION OR STATE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ALCOHOL 
              WITHIN STATE BORDERS.

    (a) No Effect on Taxation.--Nothing in section 1 or the repeal made 
by section 1 shall affect State or Federal taxation.
    (b) State Authority Unaffected.--Nothing in section 1 or the repeal 
made by section 1 shall diminish, enlarge, or otherwise affect a 
State's authority to regulate the importation and sale of alcoholic 
beverages within its own borders, including State authority over the 
manufacture, distribution, transportation, or sale of intoxicating 
liquors.
                                                       Calendar No. 650

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5317

                          [Report No. 115-363]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To repeal section 2141 of the Revised Statutes to remove the 
     prohibition on certain alcohol manufacturing on Indian lands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 14, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LACARVIA DARNELL GAMBLE,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv374-WS

MR. HANNON, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation docketed

November 24, 2010. See Doc. 9. The magistrate judge recommends that the plaintiff's

complaint and this case be dismissed as malicious. The plaintiff has filed objections

(doc. 10) to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 

The magistrate judge bases his recommendation to dismiss the case upon the

plaintiff's having abused the judicial process by not providing the court with complete

responses regarding his previous lawsuits. As noted by the magistrate judge, the

plaintiff failed to disclose two prior cases, one filed in 2000 and one filed in 2009. While

the plaintiff has explained that his memory failed him as to the earlier case, he has

provided no adequate explanation for his failure to disclose the mandamus action that

he initiated in 2009 in the Middle District of Florida.

Having reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in light of the

plaintiff's objections, the court has determined that the report and recommendation
Page 2 of 2

should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 9) is ADOPTED and

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. The plaintiff's complaint and this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE based on the plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of January , 2011.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

JAMES DODD, 

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 10-cv-00299

v. 

WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS, 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

 JAMES DODD (Plaintiff), by his attorneys, KROHN & MOSS, LTD., and pursuant to 

FRCP 41(a)(1)(i) (Dismissal of Actions - Voluntary Dismissal By Plaintiff Without Court 

Order) voluntarily dismisses, with prejudice, WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS (Defendant), in 

this case. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

 By: /s/ Nicholas J. Bontrager

 Nicholas J. Bontrager 

 Krohn & Moss, Ltd 

 10474 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 401 

 Los Angeles, CA 90025 

 Phone: (323) 988-2400 x229 

 Fax: (866) 802-0021 

 nbontrager@consumerlawcenter.com 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

1

Case 3:10-cv-00299-WS-EMT Document 6 Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 2
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

2

Case 3:10-cv-00299-WS-EMT Document 6 Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT V ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00432-MP -WCS

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 11, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was not filed within 4 years

of the date when Plaintiff was informed of the Parole Commission’s final decision that is

relevant to this case. In Docs. 14 and 15, the Plaintiff objected to the Report and

Recommendation and argues that he filed various appeals of the 2005 notification from the

Parole Commission which rendered the Parole Commission decision not final until 2007. 

In order to fully address these claims, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

This Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is rejected and this matter

referred back to the Magistrate Judge to consider the claims in Docs. 14 and 15 and to

consider whether to grant Doc. 15.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ALEXANDER M ALBRITTON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00014-MP-GRJ

J ELLIS,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 3, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that this petition be dismissed as an unauthorized successive

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner has filed objections, Doc. 4, in which he claims

that the instant petition is not successive because the first, in 1:00-cv-00099-MP-WCS, was

dismissed as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, rather than on

the merits. This argument has been expressly rejected by the Eleventh Circuit. See, e.g., In re

Hutcherson, 468 F.3d 747 (11th Cir. 2006)(deeming second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to

be successive when the first was dismissed as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act.) Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein. The petition in this case is dismissed as an unauthorized

successive petition. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of June, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00014-MP-GRJ Document 5 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JAMES MCMANIS and

KIMBERLY MCMANIS, 

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-218/RS-MD

MARK A. ETHERIDGE and 

LINDA ETHERIDGE, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me is Plaintiffs’ Notice of Settlement (Doc. 4). Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. 

16.2 it is ordered: 

1. The case is dismissed from the active docket of the court. 

2. In the event that the settlement is not consummated, the court reserves 

jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days of the date of this 

Order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order and reinstate the case. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file of this case for administrative purposes, 

and upon the expiration of sixty days without activity, the clerk is direct to 

close the case in its entirety for all purposes. 

ORDERED on September 14, 2010

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MARTIN WARNER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv20-SPM/WCS

SHERIFF LARRY CAMPBELL,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation dated March 1, 2011. Doc. 7. Plaintiff has been furnished

a copy and has filed objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). Doc. 8. Despite the objections, I have determined that the report and

recommendation is correct and should be adopted. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 7) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed with prejudice as malicious for failing to

disclose all prior cases and because Plaintiff already had this claim dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Page 2 of 2

1915(e)(2).

3. The clerk shall note on the docket that this case was dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

4. Plaintiff remains responsible for paying the filing fee in this case in

accordance with the Order Granting Leave to Prcoeed In Forma Pauperis. Doc.

9. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO. 4:11cv20-SPM/WCS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:09cv301/RS-EMT

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT

3600 SW 19TH AVE, UNIT 12, GAINESVILLE,

FLORIDA,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

The United States shall file a status report on this case not later than June 21, 

2010. The report shall address whether a final order of forfeiture should be 

entered. If a final order of forfeiture is appropriate, the United States shall also 

submit a proposed final order.

ORDERED on June 7, 2010.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### The Ballston Refrigerating Storage Company, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.

Reported below, 181 App. Div. 960.

(Argued September 30, 1918;

decided October 8, 1918.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered December 31, 1917, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the exceptions were frivolous; that no question of law was raised, and that the appeal was taken solely for purposes of delay..

*Frank H. Brown*for motion.

*H. Leroy Austin*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements.
EXHIBIT 32

WRITTEN CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned,
the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of EFJ, Inc. (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to the best of each of their knowledge:

the Companys Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ending December 31, 2005 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 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/S/    MICHAEL E.
JALBERTMichael E. JalbertChief Executive OfficerMarch 9, 2006/S/    JANA AHLFINGER
BELLJana Ahlfinger BellChief Financial OfficerMarch 9, 2006


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 12-2 Filed 10/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00241-CV

TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS,

Appellant

V. 

CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, Appellee

§

§ 

§ 

§

On Appeal from County Court at Law 

No. 1

of Tarrant County (2020-007041-1) 

December 23, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial court is 

affirmed. 

It is further ordered that the Town of Westlake shall pay all costs of this appeal, 

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel 

 Justice Dabney Bassel
Exhibit 31.2  Section 302 Certification of Chief Financial Officer   I, Carol Laufer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Laufer Bridge Enterprises, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: May 19, 2009  /s/ Carol Laufer Carol Laufer Title: Chief Financial Officer
# C_2010312EN.01000902.xml

| 17.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6001 — Aker/Lindsay Goldberg/EPAX Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 312/04

On 12 November 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6001. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6001. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---