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

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-47]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-47 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: October 7, 2008.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 61036)          ( print page 61037)          ( print page 61038)          ( print page 61039)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. E8-24400 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Criminal Action No. 11-cv-0429-RBJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

JOHN DOE, aka FARKHAD K. SHARIPOV,

Defendant.

AMENDED ORDER SETTING TRIAL, DATES AND DEADLINES

This matter has been rescheduled for a three-day jury trial on the docket of Judge R. 

Brooke Jackson in the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A702, 7th Floor, 

901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado, to commence March 26, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. It is 

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by February 10, 2012 and responses to 

these motions shall be filed by February 24, 2012. It is further

ORDERED that expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 shall be made 

no later than seven days before the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such 

experts shall be made by the pretrial motion filing deadline. It is further

ORDERED that disclosures regarding rebuttal expert witnesses shall be made one week 

after the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such experts shall be made no 

later than two weeks after the pretrial motions deadline. It is further 

ORDERED that counsel shall jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-

4694 or by email at Jackson_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov within five days after filing of pretrial motions to set the case for Motions Hearing. It is further
ORDERED that a Trial Preparation Conference is scheduled for March 9, 2012 at 10:00 

a.m. in Courtroom A702. Lead counsel who will try the case shall attend in person. 

During the Trial Preparation Conference the parties should be prepared to address: jury 

instructions, jury selection, witnesses and evidence, anticipated evidentiary issues, stipulations as 

to fact, and any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial.

For additional information, please review my practice standards located at 

www.cod.uscourts.gov/Judges/Judges.aspx.

If the parties reach a disposition, the Trial Preparation Conference will be converted to a 

Change of Plea Hearing. The deadline for submitting the plea agreement and statement of facts 

relevant to sentencing and the statement by defendant in advance of plea of guilty will be 48 

hours prior to the Change of Plea Hearing.

DATED this 9

th day of December, 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02721–MSK–KMT

BRUCE W. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MARK KELLAR, individually and in his official capacity as the health service Administrator at

FCI-Florence,

LISA MCDERMOTT, individually and in her official Capacity as Assistant Health Services

Administrator at FCI-Florence,

PETER BLUDWORTH, individually and in his official capacity as associate warden at FCIFlorence,

DR. DAVID ALLRED, individually and in his official capacity as clinical director of FCIFlorence,

DR. GEORGE SANTINI, individually and in his official capacity as staff Physician at FCIFlorenece,

MRS. A. VINYARD, individually and in her official capacity as Physician assistant at FCIFlorence,

GILBERTA TRUJILLO, individually and in her official capacity as secretary of medical at FCI

Florence,

MR. GRIFFIN, individually and in his official capacity as Correctional Officer at FCI-Florence,

JOHN DOE, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Health Programs at North Central

Region, Leavenworth, Kansas, and

DR. JAMES PELTON, individually and in his official capacity as Region Medical Director at

North Central Region, Leavenworth, Kansas,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery” (Doc. No. 150, filed April 4, 2013) is

DENIED. It appears Plaintiff requested documents from the defendants while this case was

stayed. Plaintiff states he received a disc containing documents, but it is unclear if he received

Case 1:11-cv-02721-MSK-KMT Document 153 Filed 04/08/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

the disc in response to his discovery requests at the time he made the request or whether he

recently received the disc. Regardless, Plaintiff did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) or

D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1. Plaintiff shall make a good faith effort, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(1), to confer with Defendants’ counsel, either by telephone or by mail, to resolve this

issue. To the extent Defendants have responded to Plaintiff’s previous requests for production of

documents and provided only a disc, Plaintiff, though his conferral efforts, shall request copies

of the documents at Defendants’ expense. To the extent Defendants’ counsel refuses to

cooperate with such a request, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to compel, in which he fully

complies with D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1. 

Dated: April 8, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02721-MSK-KMT Document 153 Filed 04/08/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCB Financial Corp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Ustaszewski,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ John A. Ustaszewski

John A. Ustaszewski
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
May 12, 2003





                                      23
178 La. 1068

#### STATE v. UP-TO-DATE SHOE REPAIRING CO., Inc.

No. 32410.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 29, 1934.

Charles J. Rivet, of New Orleans, for ap-' pellee.

ROGERS, Justice.

The state tax collector for the parish of Orleans sued the Up-To-Date Shoe Repairing Company, Inc., for an occupational license *907tax.- On the trial of the ease, the district court (rejected plaintiff’s demand, on the ground that defendant, being engaged in a mechanical pursuit, was exempt from the payment of any license tax. On appeal, this court annulled the judgment, and remanded the case for the purpose of permitting plaintiff to offer evidence to establish the amount of the license tax due by defendant. 175 La. 917, 144 So. 714.

. On the second trial of the case, defendant pleaded that the imposition of a license tax upon defendant was violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. On plaintiff’s motion, defendant’s plea of unconstitutionality was disallowed, and judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor for the amount of plaintiff’s demand. Defendant appealed, and plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal, which motion was denied. 178 La. -, 151 So. 74.

The trial judge was dearly correct in refusing to pass upon the plea of unconstitutionality filed by defendant after the case had been remanded to the district court. The case was remanded solely for the purpose of permitting plaintiff to offer evidence to sustain the state’s demand. And it is well settled that no new issue can be raised after a case has been remanded by the appellate court for the restricted purpose of admitting evidence on a particular issue of fact. Stark v. Burke, 9 La. Ann. 344; In re Quaker Realty Co., 127 La. 208, 53 So. 526; Lehman Dry Goods Co. v. Lemoine (On Rehearing), 129 La. 382, 56 So. 324; Davis v. New Orleans Public Belt R. R., 159 La. 431, 105 So. 421.

In Stark v. Burke, which was expressly approved in Lehman Dry Goods Co. v. Lemoine, Slidell, C. J., speaking for the court, well said:

> “The time of a court of justice should not be occupied with determining a cause on the general merits, only to reach the fruitless result of setting aside its decree, not because it is erroneous in the case presented, but because the litigant desires to present a new question which he might have-presented before.”

Defendant formally admitted that its annual receipts for the years for which the license tax is claimed were correctly set forth in plaintiff’s demand, and the judgment under review is based on the admission.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment ap pealed from is affirmed.

O’NIELL, O. J., absent.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
            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)

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), the
undersigned officer of AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

          Dated:  November 10, 2006           /S/ ANDREW R. PERZ
                ---------------------      ---------------------------
                                           Chief Financial 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.
```
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 8, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.131 Funding Corporations1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**EXHIBIT 32**
**CERTIFICATION**
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifiesin his capacity as an officer of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) that the AnnualReport of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition of the Company at the end of such period and results of operations of the Company forsuch period.        Date: July 13, 2005 By:  /s/ Donald L. Denney       Donald L. Denney    President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)        Date: July 13, 2005 And:  /s/ William C. Kurtz       William C. Kurtz    Senior Vice President and Treasurer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

U.S. Magistrate Judge Gudrun J. Rice

Criminal Case No.: 11-po-00042-GJR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIRGINIA C. SCHLAX,

Defendant.

ORDER

 

Judgment has entered against this Defendant. Defendant has paid the ordered

criminal monetary penalties. The Case has been terminated (see docket entry # 9).

Attorney for the Defendant filed a notice of withdrawal, which will be considered,

for the purposes of this proceeding, a motion to withdraw in accordance with District of

Colorado, Criminal Rules, Rule 57.5(D).

For good cause shown, the Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED.

DATED: January 10, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/ Gudrun J. Rice

_______________________________

Gudrun J. Rice

U.S. Magistrate Judge
J

- A33020

- 15 2016 PA Super 203

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. MARK WEBB, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF SABINO WEBB,

DECEASED

Appellant

v.

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VOLVO CARS CORPORATION, GRACO CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS, INC. (D/B/T/A NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INC.), WILLIAM JULIAN, AND ANA (WEBB) SOARES

Appellees :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1367 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 26, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No: 110500208

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

CONCURRING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2016

I agree with and jo in the Majority’s erudite disposition of this matter

holding that Appellant is entitled to a new trial based on the trial court’s

erroneous jury instruction. My joinder includes the Majority’s discussion of

Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. , 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2 014). I write separately

to note my position that, in light of the Majority’s holding, it is unnecessary

and perhaps confusing to address the remaining issues on appeal. To say

that an evidentiary ruling is not an abuse of discretion does not preclude th e

possibility that the opposite ruling also would not be an abuse of discretion.

Therefore, I respectfully concur.
Exhibit 13.1Certification by Chief Executive Officer of Annual ReportCERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORTI, Donald W. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of Mitel Networks Corporation (“Mitel”), certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:(1) the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Mitel, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2007, filed withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or78o(d)); and(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Mitel.        Date:  October 23, 2007 /s/ Donald W.  Smith   Name:  Donald W. Smith   Title:  Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24288]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--ASTM International--Standards

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 9, 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''), ASTM International 
(``ASTM'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions 
or changes to its standards development activities. 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, ASTM has provided an updated list of 
current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between May 2008 
and September 2008 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM 
Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at 
http://www.astm.org.
    On September 15, 2004, ASTM 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 November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 16, 
2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on June 17, 2008 (73 FR 34327).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E8-24288 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

WHITNEY BANK

VERSUS

HENRY RAYFORD

NO. 2022 CW 0097

FEBRUARY 16, 2022

In Re: Henry Rayford, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd

Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington, No. 

108044. 

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., PENZATO AND HESTER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

VGW

AHP

CHH

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTWRKOF COURT

FOR THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            1664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1671
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               79
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1671
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    73
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       20
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (97)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (97)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (97)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.64)
        

</TABLE>
|**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**                                           
|**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**                    

In connection with the Annual Report of The International White Tea
Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof or immediately
thereafter (the "Report"), I, Diane J. Harrison, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                    
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company

|/s/ DIANE J. HARRISON                                               
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Diane J. Harrison, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
|May 11, 2004                                                        

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

|
|