alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008,      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except as otherwise noted in Item 4(A);      and                                        |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| 2.     | The      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for      the quarter ended June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Universal      Fog Inc., except as otherwise noted in Item  4(A). |

| By:    | /s/ Sun,      XinSun,      XinChairmanChief Financial      Officerand      Principal Accounting Officer |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |                                                                                                         |
|                  |                                                                                                         |
| Dated:                | August      14, 2008                                                                                         |
#### Margaret SEIDL, Petitioner/Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Lawrence G. SEIDL, Respondent/Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

Nos. 65773, 66710.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

May 2, 1995.

Aaron S. Dubin, Vines, Frankel, Rubin, Bond & Dubin, Clayton, for respondent in No. 65773 and appellant in No. 66710.

Timothy A. Graham, St. Louis, for appellant in No. 65773 and respondent in No. 66710.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Both parties appeal from an order of the trial court which equally divided shares of *222stock subsequent to the parties’ dissolution of marriage. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find the circuit court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Order filed January 14, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00850-CV

____________

THE ESTATE OF MARGARET KLOVENSKI, JAKE KLOVENSKI, AND 

MARY HASSLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS, 

Appellants

V.

DR. ASHISH KAPOOR, Appellee

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-31943

O R D E R

Appellants’ brief was due December 16, 2013. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellants file their brief with the clerk of this court on or before

February 7, 2014, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 
PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9510]



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

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD


Joint Panel Meeting on Perceived Risks and Socioeconomic Impacts

    Pursuant to its authority under section 5051 of Public Law 100-203, 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, the Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board's (the Board) Panel on the Environment & Public 
Health and Panel on Risk & Performance Analysis will hold a joint 
meeting May 23-24, 1995, in Las Vegas, Nevada. The meeting, which is 
open to the public, will be held at the St. Tropez Hotel, 455 East 
Harmon, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109; Tel (702) 369-5400; Fax (702) 369-
1150. The meeting will begin at 1:00 P.M. on Tuesday, May 23, recess at 
approximately 5:00 P.M., and continue on Wednesday, May 24, from 8:30 
A.M. to noon.
    The meeting will consist of a panel discussion by a diverse group 
of social scientists. The topic for discussion is peoples' beliefs 
about the risks associated with a potential high-level radioactive 
waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and how those beliefs might 
result in significant socioeconomic impacts. The Board is looking at 
this issue because socioeconomic impacts are addressed as part of the 
Department of Energy's site-suitability guidelines, 10 CFR 960.
    As with all the Board's meetings, time is set aside on the agenda 
for comments and questions from the public. In order to ensure that 
everyone wishing to speak is offered time to do so, the Board 
encourages those who have comments to sign the Public Comment Register 
located at the sign-in table. Written comments for the record also may 
be submitted to the Board staff at the sign-in table.
    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was created by Congress in 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 to evaluate the 
technical and scientific validity of activities undertaken by the DOE 
in its program to manage the disposal of the nation's high-level 
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. In that same legislation, 
Congress directed the DOE to characterize a site at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada, for its suitability as a potential location for a permanent 
repository for the disposal of that waste.
    Transcripts of the meeting will be available on computer disk or on 
a library-loan basis in paper format from Davonya Barnes, Board staff, 
beginning July 10, 1995. For further information, contact Frank 
Randall, External Affairs, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 1100 
Wilson Boulevard, Suite 910, Arlington, Virginia 22209; (703) 235-4473.

    Dated: April 13, 1995.
William Barnard,
Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
[FR Doc. 95-9510 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-AM-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney E., Appellant.

Adjudication unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon an understanding reached at a pretrial conference prior to defendant’s entry of a plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree, County Court agreed to defer sentencing for three months and to place defendant in a program of "interim probation”. The court advised defendant that, if he abided by the terms of his interim probation, he would be granted youthful offender status and would be sentenced to five years’ probation. Subsequently, the court determined that defendant failed to comply with the conditions and sentenced him as a youthful offender to a term of *iVz*to 4 years at a Department of Youth facility.

We reject defendant’s argument that he was illegally sentenced because the interim probation program is not expressly authorized by statute and because he was not afforded an evidentiary hearing to dispute the allegations of the interim probation progress report. There can be no doubt that the court had authority over this action and the issuance of orders relating to its disposition *(see, Matter of Jacobs v Altman,*69 NY2d 733). The imposition of a fair and just sentence in a criminal case presents a most difficult and troublesome chai*1014lenge to the sentencing Judge. "The determination of an appropriate sentence requires the exercise of discretion after due consideration given to, among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation and deterrence” *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305).

There is no rule of law, nor should there be one, that restrains a court, in the exercise of its grave responsibility, from imposing conditions upon the conduct of a defendant who is permitted to be unincarcerated while he awaits sentence after his guilt has been determined. While it appears that the interim probation program is not expressly authorized by law, the Probation Department, nevertheless, is required to include in its presentence report "any matter the court directs to be included” (CPL 390.30 [1]; *see also,*9 NYCRR 350.7 [a]). That the Department complied with the court’s directive provides no basis for disturbing the sentence imposed upon defendant.

Additionally, the court did not err in declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing to enable defendant to dispute the allegations contained in the interim probation progress report. At sentencing, defendant was given a full opportunity to refute those aggravating factors which negatively influenced the court *(see, People v Perry,*36 NY2d 114, 119). The sentence imposed by the court is, in all respects, proper. (Appeal from adjudication of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—youthful offender.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8930]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP91-26-013]


El Paso Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Report of Amounts Due

April 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 24, 1995, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso) submitted, in accordance with authorizations granted by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) in orders issued 
November 2, 1994, at Docket No. RP91-26-010 and February 8, 1995, at 
Docket No. RP91-26-012, its report of amounts that each affected 
customer was billed.
    El Paso states that on February 15, 1995, it invoiced each affected 
customer its portion of the revised amounts plus the additional 
interest charged from the 26th of the month following the activity 
month through February 25, 1995, which was billed to each affected 
customer.
    El Paso states that it invoiced amounts totalling $4,918,643.71, 
inclusive of interest, comprised of the following: $1,555,413.59 
invoiced to sales customers subject to a direct bill; $195,288.09 
invoiced to sales customers who paid a bundled, city-gate sales rate 
which included the throughput surcharge; and $3,167,942.03 invoiced to 
transportation customers. The applicable periods for assessment of the 
revised charges are as follows: direct bill--December 1, 1988, through 
December 31, 1991 (when bundled, city-gate sales service ceased); and 
transportation--December 1, 1988, through March 31, 1992.
    El Paso states that each customer received its pertinent detail 
(included in Volume No. 2) when it received its monthly invoice. El 
Paso state that it is not furnishing the complete Volume No. 2 to all 
affected customers since it contains information commercially sensitive 
to individual customers.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 
of the Commission's Regulations. All such protests should be filed on 
or before April 13, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make protestant parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the 
Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8930 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15556-15557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7250]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 11291-000]


Notice of Application

March 20, 1995.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission

a. Type of Application: Minor License.
b. Project No.: 11291-001.
c. Date Filed: March 6, 1995.
d. Applicant: Star Mill, Inc.
e. Name of Project: Star Milling Project.
f. Location: On the Fawn River in Lima Township, LaGrange County, 
Indiana.
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Secs. 791(a)-
825(r).
h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Richard K. Muntz, 109 South Detroit 
Street, LaGrange, Indiana 46761, (219) 463-2151.
i. FERC Contact: Charles T. Raabe (dt) (202) 219-2811.
j. Comment Date: Within 35 days of the date filed shown in paragraph 
(c).
k. Description of Project: The existing operating project consists 
of: (1) A 4-foot-high concrete and earthen dam; (2) a reservoir; (3) 
a powerhouse containing a 187 KVa generating unit and a 125 KVa 
generating unit; (4) a tailrace; and (5) appurtenant facilities.

    1. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the 
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO), as required by Sec. 106, 
National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.
    m. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's 
regulations, if any resource agency, SHPO, Indian Tribe, or person 
believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in 
order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of 
the application on its merits, the resource agency, SHPO, Indian 
Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the 
Commission. We are waiving the Section 4.32(b)(7) required time to 
respond to this notice and request that any request for studies be 
provided no later than 35 days [[Page 15557]] from the filing date 
and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7250 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18419-18420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10201]



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

[[Page 18420]]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-32,130]


Pope & Talbot, Incorporated, Port Gamble, Washington; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on April 1, 1996 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed by the Western Council of Industrial Workers, Local Shop No. 
2633, on behalf of workers and former workers at Pope & Talbot, 
Incorporated, located in Port Gamble, Washington (TA-W-32,130).
    The investigation revealed that workers at Pope & Talbot, 
Incorporated, located in Port Gamble, Washington are currently covered 
under an existing certification (TA-W-29,852).
    Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of April 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services; Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-10201 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARIKA HAYES, AKA Swiss Barbie Bone, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KANYE WEST, 

Defendant, 

and 

VIACOM INC., Erroneously Sued as 

Viacom; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 13-55836 

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-07974-GWMAN 

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

 

* 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).

FILED

FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-55836 

Arika Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her 

copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe 

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hayes’ action because Hayes failed to 

allege facts sufficient to show she was the owner of a valid copyright. See 17 

U.S.C. § 411(a) (no action for infringement of the copyright shall be instituted 

until “preregistration or registration of the copyright claim shall have been made in 

accordance with this title”); L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 

841, 852 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Copyright registration is a precondition to filing a 

copyright infringement action.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Hayes’ 

motions for reconsideration because Hayes failed to file a new or amended notice 

of appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); TAAG Linhas Aereas 

de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(concluding that “an appeal specifically from the ruling on the [Rule 60(b)] motion 

must be taken if the issues raised in that motion are to be considered by the Court 

of Appeals”). 

We reject as without merit Hayes’ contention that the district judge was 

biased.
3 13-55836 

Hayes’ request filed on May 9, 2014, and her motion filed on January 4, 

2017, are denied.

AFFIRMED.
KHAMRON ROBINSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. 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 17

- 1898

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed December 4, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Leandra G. Johnson , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR

.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9809]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-29,956]


Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc.; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In the matter of: Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. (Formerly 
Known as Unibar Energy Services, Inc.), Sidney, Montana and 
operating at various locations in the following states: TA-W-29,956A 
Utah, TA-W-29,956B Colorado, TA-W-29,956C Wyoming, TA-W-29,956D 
North Dakota, TA-W-29,956E South Dakota, TA-W-29,956F Montana (exc 
Sidney).

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on September 23, 1994, 
applicable to all workers of the subject firm in Sidney, Montana. The 
Notice was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 1994 (59 FR 
54632).
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show that 
worker separations occurred in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, 
South Dakota and in Montana. Other findings show that Unibar Energy 
Services, Inc. was the predecessor-in-interest firm. Unibar Energy 
Services, Inc., was purchased by Anchor Drilling Fluids, USA in 
October, 1992.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
include all workers of the subject firm including those who had their 
unemployment insurance (UI) taxes paid to Unibar Energy Services, Inc.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-29,956 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Anchor Drilling Fluids, USA, Inc. (Formerly known 
as Unibar Energy Services, Inc.), Sidney, Montana and operating at 
various other locations in the following states: Utah, Colorado, 
Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana (except Sidney) who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
May 6, 1993 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 10th day of April, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-9809 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION




OF




CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER




AND




CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER




PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Richard Man Fai LEE, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of China
Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise,
Inc.




I, Joseph Tik Tung WONG, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of China
Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise,
Inc.




May
      28, 2010
                By:
                /s/ Richard Man Fai LEERichard
      Man Fai LEEChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      28, 2010
                By:
                /s/ Joseph Tik Tung WONGJoseph
      Tik Tung WONGChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary




This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q/A to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise,
Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-Q/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
in such filing.