alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 36086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17376]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-31,500, TA-W-31, 500C]

Andover Togs, Incorporated, South Boston, VA, and Stevenson 
Manufacturing, Stevenson, AL; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    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 October 18, 1995, applicable 
to all workers of Andover Togs, Incorporated located in South Boston, 
Virginia. The notice was published in the Federal Register on November 
9, 1995 (60 FR 56619). The certification was subsequently amended to 
include workers at Andover Togs, Incorporated facilities in Pisgah, 
Alabama and New York, New York. Those amendments were issued March 7 
and May 1, 1996, and published in the Federal Register on March 25, 
1996 (61 FR 12103) and May 16, 1996 (61 FR 24816), respectively.
    At the request of petitioners, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information provided 
by the company shows that worker separations have occurred at the 
subject firms' Stevenson Manufacturing production facility in 
Stevenson, Alabama. The workers are engaged in the production of 
children's apparel.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased 
imports of apparel. Accordingly, the Department is again amending the 
certification to cover the workers of Andover Togs, Incorporated, 
Stevenson Manufacturing, Stevenson, Alabama.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-31,500 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Andover Togs, Incorporated, South Boston, 
Virginia (TA-W-31,500), and Stevenson Manufacturing, Stevenson, 
Alabama (TA-W-31, 500C) engaged in employment related to the 
production of children's apparel who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after September 15, 1994 are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 26th day of June 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-17376 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 44773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17507]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 27, 2008, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Media Workflow 
Association, 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, Integrated Media Technologies, North Hollywood, CA; and 
Nielsen, Westport, CT, have been added as parties to this venture. 
Also, Convergent Media Labs, Marina del Rey, CA has withdrawn as a 
party to this venture.
    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 Advanced Media Workflow Association, 
Inc., intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all 
changes in membership.
    On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, 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 June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 21, 
2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 23, 2008 (73 FR 21984).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E8-17507 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```
Filed 6/17/09 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2009 ND 94

Asset Acceptance, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Zann K. Nash, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20080345

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Eeva M. Greenley, Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, 300 N.P. Avenue, Suite 105, P.O. Box 2427, Fargo, ND 58108-2427, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

John J. Gosbee (argued), 103 3rd Ave. NW, Mandan, ND 58554-3129, for defendant and appellant.

Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Nash

No. 20080345

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Zann Nash appeals a district court order denying her motion to vacate a default judgment.  On appeal, Nash asserts N.D.R.Prof. Conduct 3.7(a) was violated when a lawyer testified by affidavit as to the genuineness of an alleged account due to obtain the default judgment.  Nash also contends the default judgment should be vacated because it was obtained by the admission of incompetent evidence.

[¶2]The exclusive means for opening a default judgment is N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b).  Rydell GM Auto Center, Inc. v. Johnson, 2007 ND 75, ¶ 2, 734 N.W.2d 342 (citing Filler v. Bragg, 1997 ND 24, ¶ 8, 559 N.W.2d 225).  “The decision whether to vacate a default judgment will not be set aside unless the district court abused its discretion.”  Id. (citing Filler, 1997 ND 24, ¶ 9, 559 N.W.2d 225).  Nash did not present evidence or arguments demonstrating she is entitled to relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b).  We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nash’s motion to vacate the default judgment.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7),  Rydell, 2007 ND 75, ¶ 2, 734 N.W.2d 342.

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

**TARA MINERALS CORP.**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection with the transition report of Tara Minerals Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Francis Richard Biscan, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and David A. Bizzaro, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 operation of the company.

Date:   August 16, 2010

*         /s/ Francis Richard Biscan*

Francis Richard Biscan, 

Principal Executive Officer

Date:   August 16, 2010

*/s/ David A. Bizzaro*

David A. Bizzaro, 

Principal Financial Officer
#### Robert G. HAWKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 02-73096. IRS No. 11757-01 L.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 30, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert G. Hawks appeals pro se the tax court’s summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in Hawks’s action challenging a federal tax lien. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo the tax court’s summary judgment, *Miller v. CIR,*310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir.2002), and review for abuse of discretion its evidentiary rulings, *Hudspeth v. Commissioner,*914 F.2d 1207, 1213 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The tax court did not err in concluding that the appeals officer properly exercised his discretion by relying on computer-generated transcripts to determine the validity of the underlying assessment of Hawks’s tax deficiency, *see Koff v. United States,*3 F.3d 1297, 1298 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam), and that the requisite notices were given, *see Hansen v. United States,*7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam).

Hawks’s general objection to the accuracy of the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) computerized data does not constitute evidence sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that Hawks rebutted the presumption of correctness granted the IRS’s official records. *Id.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
| **Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses: Payroll Taxes Payable (Details) - USD ($)** | Sep. 30, 2018 | Dec. 31, 2017 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|
| **Details**                                                                          |          |          |
| Payroll Taxes Payable, Penalties                                                     | $ 17,476      | $ 5,485       |
| Payroll Taxes Payable, Interest                                                      | $ 3,438       | $ 634         |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Represents the monetary amount of Payroll Taxes Payable, Interest, as of the indicated date.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fil_PayrollTaxesPayableInterest**Namespace Prefix:**fil_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Represents the monetary amount of Payroll Taxes Payable, Penalties, as of the indicated date.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fil_PayrollTaxesPayablePenalties**Namespace Prefix:**fil_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_TextBlockAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT THOMAS VANCE GREGG, Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D22-3916
March 13, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Michael F. Andrews, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Michael W. Mervine, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Krystle Celine Cacci, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SLEET, C.J., and LaROSE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Dionicio Anthony CRUZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 019-83, 020-83 and 021-83.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Feb. 1, 1984.

Appeal from 144th District Court, Bexar County, H.F. Garcia, Judge.

Prior report: Tex.App., 645 S.W.2d 498 (1982).

Before the court en banc.

On appellant’s petition for discretionary review: judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed.

CLINTON, TEAQUE and MILLER, JJ., dissent.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 36082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17337]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration


Importation of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1008 of the Controlled Substances Import and 
Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the Attorney General shall, prior to 
issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a 
controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a 
regulation under Section 1002(a) authorizing the importation of such a 
substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk 
manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
    Therefore, in accordance with Section 1311.42 of Title 21, Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that on February 23, 
1996, Med-Pharmex Inc., 2727 Thompson Creek Road, Pomona, California 
91767, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration to be 
registered as an importer of pentobarbital (2270) a basic class of 
controlled substance listed Schedule II.
    The firm plans to import pentobarbital to manufacture an euthanasia 
product for animals.
    Any manufacturer holding, or applying for, registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of this basic class of controlled substance may file 
written comments on or objections to the application described above 
and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such 
application in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.54 in such form as 
prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than August 8, 1996.
    This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and 
independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1311.42 (b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice at 40 FR 43745-46 
(September 23, 1975), all applicants for registration to import a basic 
class of any controlled substance in Schedule I or II are and will 
continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1311.42 (a), (b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.

    Dated: July 1, 1996.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-17337 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Tay Chong
Weng, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Greater Asia Realty Holdings,
Ltd.;

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. The small
business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;

(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The small
business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

15

---



(b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: November
10, 2008

|                     | 
|-------------------- | 
|/s/ Tay
  Chong Weng | 
|                     | 

Tay Chong
Weng, President and CEO
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)


16

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN A. TABB,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 09-10027

v.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

COMMISSIONER OF MAG. JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

JUDGMENT

This matter having been remanded to the agency pursuant to Judgment entered

February 11, 2010; the proceedings having been adjudicated by an administrative law judge in

favor of the Plaintiff on March 31, 2011; and Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security,

having filed, with Plaintiff’s concurrence, a motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 58 on December 29, 2011,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision on remand is affirmed, and

JUDGMENT is therefore entered in this matter.

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

United States District Court Judge

Dated: January 12, 2012

2:09-cv-10027-GCS-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 01/12/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 378
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-5 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 3049
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 39 Att. 25

Dockets.Justia.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY J. HOXIE, 

 

Plaintiff(s),

Case No. 09-10725

vs. 

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

LIVINGSTON COUNTY,et al

Defendant(s).

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On today’s date the attorneys and parties of record placed a settlement

agreement on the record; 

This case hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court retains

jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and this case may be reopened, if necessary, by

motion of either party without the payment of additional fees or costs. Alternatively, the

parties may submit an order of dismissal with prejudice upon consummation of the

settlement.

SO ORDERED.

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 1, 2011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record on 

 December 1, 2011 by electronic mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-10725-GCS-MKM Doc # 203 Filed 12/01/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 3112
EXHIBIT 32.2
**CERTIFICATION**
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform andInvestor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), John LaBoskey,the Chief Financial Officer of BEI Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended October2, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the“Annual Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the endof the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations ofthe Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.
Dated December 16, 2004 /s/ John LaBoskey
Dismiss and Opinion Filed February 2, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01443-CV
ALAN BARON, Appellant V. H. JOSEPH ACOSTA, AND ACOSTA & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Appellees

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-08404



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellant’s January 22, 2015, motion to dismiss appeal. In the motion,
appellant states the claim subject of this a ppeal has been supersed ed by amended pleadings
below and he would like the appeal dismissed. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

141443F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

ALAN BARON, Appellant

No. 05-14-01443-CV V.

H. JOSEPH ACOSTA, AND ACOSTA & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Appellees On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-08404. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating.
Based on appellant’s January 22, 2015, motion to dismiss the appeal and in accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellees H. JOSE PH ACOSTA, AND ACOSTA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. recover their costs of this appeal from ap pellant ALAN BARON.

Judgment entered February 2, 2015.