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 Defense

###### Department of the Army

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following Committee Meeting:

*Name of Committee:*                         Army Science Board (ASB).                    

*Date(s) of Meeting:*                         17-18 January 2007.                    

*Time(s) of Meeting:*                         0700-1700, 17 January 2007; 0700-1700, 18 January 2007.                    

*Place:*                         Hampton Roads Convention Center, Hampton, VA.                    

                        1.                         *Agenda:*                         The FY07 study panels of the Army Science Board (ASB) are holding a Plenary Meeting on 17-18 January 2007. The meetings will be held at the Hampton Roads Convention Center, Hampton, VA. The plenary will begin at 0700 hrs on the 17th and will end at approximately 1700 hrs on the 18th. For further information on the FY07 ASB Plenary Meeting, please contact COL Heather Ierardi @ (703) 604-7474 or e-mail @                         *heather.ierardi@hqda.army.mil*.                    

Wayne Joyner,

Program Support Specialist, Army Science Board.

[FR Doc. 07-93  Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strategic American Oil Corporation on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Jeremy Glenn Driver, Chief Executive Officer of Strategic American Oil Corporation, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to his knowledge:
  (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: March 21, 2011
 
 By: /s/ Jeremy Glenn Driver
 
 Jeremy Glenn Driver
 Chief Executive Officer
 Principal Executive Officer
 
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Wolfe Creek Mining, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kristen
Paul, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
23rd day of April, 2008.


/s/ Kristen Paul
---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
#### INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO and its Local 1000, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARKLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 78-1477

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 11, 1978.

Frank S. Manitzas, San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

*10Hardberger, Branton & Herrera, Frank Herrera, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH and HILL, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc.*v. *Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et*al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Markle Manufacturing Company contests the validity of an arbitrator’s decision ordering the reinstatement with back pay of two employees dismissed for alleged intimidation of nonunion employees. On cross motions for summary judgment the district court entered an order pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, enforcing the arbitrator’s award. This is an appeal by Markle from the adverse district court decision.

The collective bargaining agreement between Markle and the Union established the standard for the arbitrator’s review of the Company’s decisions. Markle contends that the arbitrator erred in his interpretation of the standard mandated by the agreement. Article IX, Section 4, of the agreement reads in pertinent part: “If the Arbitrator finds that the Company had substantial reason for arriving at its decision and for taking action in any matter before him then the Company’s decision and/or action shall stand.” Markle argues that “substantial reason” defines a standard analogous to the “substantial evidence” standard employed by United States Courts of Appeal in reviewing decisions of the National Labor Relations Board under section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). Under this view the arbitrator could not disturb the Company’s decisions unless he found them unsupported by substantial evidence. On consideration of the agreement as a whole the arbitrator rejected this interpretation of the standard of review.

We need not express an opinion on the proper interpretation of the above quoted clause. Interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, like findings of fact, is a matter within the province of the arbitrator. “[S]o far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts have no business overruling him because their interpretation of the contract is different from his.” *United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp.,*363 U.S. 593, 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1362, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960); *Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc.,*5 Cir., 1977, 557 F.2d 521; *International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers v. Leona Lee Corp.,*5 Cir., 489 F.2d 1032, cert. *denied,*419 U.S. 829, 95 S.Ct. 51, 42 L.Ed.2d 54 (1974). Moreover, in the instant case the arbitrator specifically found that even under the standard advanced by the Company the dismissals failed to pass muster. The judgment is therefore

AFFIRMED.
# C_2011020EN.01000802.xml

| 21.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5778 — Novartis/Alcon)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 20/04

On 9 August 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 32010M5778. 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 32010M5778. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
---

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



The undersigned, Jag Sandhu, President and Chief Executive Officer and a Director of Nava Resources, Inc. (the Company), and Johnny Astorino, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  November 10, 2009



By:/s/ Jag Sandhu

Name: Jag Sandhu

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)



By: /s/ Johnny Astorino

Name: Johnny Astorino

Title: Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting

Officer)





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.



---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

GREGORY ROLAND,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00034-MP-GRJ

JAMES T BROWNING,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint against James T

Browning (Doc. 1), which is not accompanied by a filing fee or a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (without prepayment of court costs). (Doc. 1). 

As an initial matter, local court rules provide that no "civil action commenced by

pro se litigants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 2000e (Title VII), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1346,

shall be considered by the court unless the appropriate forms have been properly

completed, signed and filed by the litigant." N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.1(J)(2). Plaintiff must,

therefore, submit an "Amended Complaint," clearly designated as such, on court forms

which will be provided to him by the Clerk of Court.

As a secondary problem, Plaintiff has failed to file a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) and affidavit of financial status or pay the filing fee. The Clerk shall send

the form motion and affidavit, which must be completed in full, and returned with the

complaint form. Plaintiff’s case will not proceed until he has either paid the filing fee

($350.00) or been granted leave to proceed IFP.

As a final note, the Court has done a cursory review of the “Complaint,” which is
Page 2 of 2

submitted on one page, contains no facts, requests no specific relief, and asserts only

“Issues Denied (1) Bond reduction and (2) Excessive Bond.” (Doc. 1). The Court notes

that Plaintiff filed three lawsuits on the same date against different defendants, but with

similar deficiencies. (Case Nos. 1:11cv34, 1:11cv35 and 1:11cv36). Thus, a similar

order will be entered in all three cases.

ORDERED:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to forward to Plaintiff one (1) § 1983 complaint

form for non-prisoners, as well as a form motion for leave to proceed IFP and an

Affidavit of Financial Status. 

2. Plaintiff shall have until March 14, 2011, to file an amended complaint on the

proper forms, and either: (1) file a motion for IFP, or (2) pay the full $350.00 filing fee.

 4. Failure to respond to this order as instructed will result in a

recommendation of dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to

comply with an Order of this Court. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 25 day of February, 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-00034-MP -GRJ
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HARRY MICHAEL WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

MORRIS YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER

On December 6, 2011, Defendants Keyshonda Thompson and Lamonte

Peterson filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim. 

(Doc. 22.) N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(C)(1) provides “Each party opposing a motion shall

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the motion in which to file and serve

a responsive memorandum with citation of authorities in opposition to the motion.” As

of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has neither filed a response nor filed a motion for an

extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff shall respond to the Motion To Dismiss filed by Defendants

Keyshonda Thompson and Lamonte Peterson (Doc. 22) on or before January

30, 2012.

2. Failure to comply with this Order in the allotted time will result in a

recommendation to the district judge that the motion to dismiss be granted

pursuant to N.D.Fla.Loc. Rule 7.1(C) for failure to file a responsive

memorandum. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 9 day of January 2012. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 23 Filed 01/09/12 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011196EN.01000501.xml

| 5.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6102 — Wienerberger/Tondach Gleinstätten)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 196/02

On 10 July 2011, 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 German 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 32011M6102. 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 32011M6102. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
EXHIBIT
23





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











The Board
of Directors


Stewardship
Financial Corporation





We
consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(File Nos. 333-20793, 333-31245, 333-87842 and 333-135462) and the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-20699, 333-54738, 333-133632, 333-157630
and 333-158714) of our report dated March 26, 2010 appearing in this annual
report on Form 10-K for Stewardship Financial Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 2009.








/s/ Crowe Horwath
LLP


Livingston,
New Jersey


March 26,
2010
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of
Open Joint Stock Company Vimpel-Communications (the Company), does hereby certify to such officers knowledge that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 8, 2010



|                    |  |                           
|------------------- |  | --------------------------
|By:                 |  | /s/ Alexander Y. Torbakhov
|Name:               |  | Alexander Y. Torbakhov    
|Title:              |  | General Director          
|                   
|Date: April 8, 2010
|                    | 
|By:                 |  | /s/ Boris Nemsic          
|Name:               |  | Boris Nemsic              
|Title:              |  | Chief Executive Officer   
|                   
|Date: April 8, 2010
|                    | 
|By:                 |  | /s/ Elena A. Shmatova     
|Name:               |  | Elena A. Shmatova         
|Title:              |  | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2011122EN.01000602.xml

| 20.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6112 — Good Energies/NEIF/Newco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 122/05

On 13 April 2011, 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 32011M6112. 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 32011M6112. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PERRY GENE VANDERFORD,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:11cv17-WS

R. TIFFT, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

January 26, 2011. See Doc. 5. The magistrate judge recommends that the plaintiff's

complaint and this case be dismissed under the "three strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). The plaintiff has filed no objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. 

This court having considered the record, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 5) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

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

PREJUDICE under the "three strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of March , 2011.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:11cv17-WS
# C_2011203EN.01000201.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6226 — Media-Saturn/Redcoon)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 203/03

On 23 June 2011, 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 German 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 32011M6226. 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 32011M6226. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---