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. 08-92]

# 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 08-92 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 61060)          ( print page 61061)          ( print page 61062)          ( print page 61063)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. E8-24403 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1916

AN ACT

To amend the Public Health Service Act to modify the program for the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees 

by terminating the authority for the removal of chimpanzees from the system for research purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1916 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chimp Haven is Home 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SANCTUARY SYSTEM FOR SURPLUS CHIMPANZEES; 

5 TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY FOR REMOVAL 

6 FROM SYSTEM FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first section 481C of the 

8 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287a–3a) (added by 

9 section 2 of Public Law 106–551) is amended in sub10 section (d)—

11 (1) in paragraph (2), in subparagraph (J), by 

12 striking ‘‘If any chimpanzee is removed’’ and all that 

13 follows; and 

14 (2) in paragraph (3)—

15 (A) in subparagraph (A)—

16 (i) by striking clause (ii); and 

17 (ii) by striking ‘‘except as provided’’ 

18 in the matter preceding clause (i) and all 

19 that follows through ‘‘behavioral studies’’ 

20 and inserting the following: ‘‘except that 

21 the chimpanzee may be used for 

22 noninvasive behavioral studies’’; 

23 (B) by striking subparagraph (B); 

24 (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 

25 subparagraph (B); and 
3

•S 1916 ES

1 (D) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesig2 nated), by striking ‘‘under subparagraphs (A) 

3 and (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘under subparagraph 

4 (A)’’. 

5 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Part E of title IV of 

6 the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is 

7 amended by redesignating the second section 481C (added 

8 by section 204(a) of Public Law 106–505) as section 

9 481D. 

Passed the Senate December 13, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1916

AN ACT

To amend the Public Health Service Act to modify 

search purposes.removal of chimpanzees from the system for rechimpanzees by terminating the authority for the the program for the sanctuary system for surplus
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATE OF CFO**     I, Leslye L. Grindle, Chief Financial Officer of Southern Community Bancshares, Inc. (the“Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge: (3) the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Registrant, to which this certificateis attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)); and  (4) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.     Dated: November 15, 2005   /s/ Leslye L. Grindle         Leslye L. Grindle, Chief Financial Officer
#### The State, ex rel. Squire, Supt. of Banks, *v.*Day, Treas. of State.

(No. 25588

Decided October 23, 1935.)

*Mr. John W. Bricher,*attorney general, *Mr. L. F. Laylin*and *Mr. Perry L. Graham,*for relator.

*Mr. John W. Bricher,*attorney general, and *Mr. J. Both*Crabbe,, for respondent.

Zimmerman, J.

Section 710-150, General Code, made it mandatory for the Union Trust Company to deposit with the Treasurer of State the sum of $100,-000 in cash or approved securities, before it could accept and execute trusts. It elected to deposit securities and retained the title thereto subject to the qualification contained in Section 710-161, General Code, that “the fund deposited with the treasurer of state as *158provided by law shall be held as security for the faithful discharge of the duties undertaken by such trust company in respect to any trust.”

The status of the Treasurer of State in relation to deposits of this kind is that of custodian, the release of all or any part thereof being dependent on the order or approval of competent authority.

Upon the insolvency of a bank, organized and existing under the laws of Ohio, Section 710-89, General Code, a part of the so-called Ohio Banking Act, authorizes the Superintendent of Banks to “take possession of the business and property” of such bank. Subsequent sections fortify this authority and outline a comprehensive procedure to be followed in the liquidating process by both superintendent and claimants, under the direction and supervision of the Court of Common Pleas.

We entertain the view that within the contemplation of the Ohio Banking Act the $100,000 in securities on deposit with the Treasurer of State represent property and assets of the Union Trust Company which the Superintendent of Banks should have in his role as statutory liquidator of such bank; to be held and applied by him, however, to fulfill the purpose for which they were originally placed with the Treasurer of State, before any other or different disposition can be made of them.

The Superintendent of Banks has elected to invoke the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to obtain these securities. It is incumbent upon him to show not only that his right to this relief is clear, but that respondent has refused to perform an act which the law *specially enjoins*as a duty resulting from his office. Section 12283, General Code. 25 Ohio Jurisprudence, 995 to 997, Sections 22 and 23. This the relator has not done. While the statutes contain the plain implication that relator is entitled .to such securities to enable him fully to perform his duties as liquidator *159of the defunct Union Trust Company, they do not specially enjoin the respondent to surrender them.

Our conclusion is that a mistaken remedy has been pursued by relator and that consequently the demurrer to the petition should be sustained.

*Demurrer sustained.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.

Williams, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the June 30,
1997 financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         545,072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               560,238
<PP&E>                                           2,882
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,882)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,504,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,640
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,359
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,504,238
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,983
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,035
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                254,948
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   254,948
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .049
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .049
        












</TABLE>
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 Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 230 Marion Ave., Linden, NJ 07036, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov*. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*.                     

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on May 03, 2007. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2010. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. 

Dated: January 31, 2008. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E8-2405 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,054
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             232
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    142,864
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          39,533
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            39,586
<LOANS>                                        201,142
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (2,114)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 402,919
<DEPOSITS>                                     263,006
<SHORT-TERM>                                    67,958
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,152
<LONG-TERM>                                     40,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,533
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 402,919
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,944
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,876
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    33
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,852
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,395
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,613
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,239
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      225
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   8
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,027
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,027
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.33
<LOANS-NON>                                        300
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,931
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     (46)
<RECOVERIES>                                         4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,114
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,114
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Walter Larry GIBBS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44157.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1971.

Percy Foreman, Houston, (on appeal only), for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., William W. Burge, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery by assault. After a verdict of guilty by the jury, the judge assessed the punishment at twenty-five years.

The indictment charged the appellant with robbery by assault of Katherine Sco-pel. A paragraph of the indictment alleged that appellant had been convicted on the 16th of December, 1966, in the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Harris County, Texas, in Cause No. 123078 for an offense of like character and the same nature as that charged against him in this cause, the offense of burglary.

The sole contention of the appellant is that the trial court should not have considered the prior conviction for any purpose because it was not shown that it was bur*209glary with intent to commit theft and not an offense of like character to that of robbery.

Appellant relies upon Farris v. State, 155 Tex.Cr. 261, 233 S.W.2d 856, where this Court held that the only burglary that was of like character to robbery would be a burglary with intent to steal. The Court also held in Farris that the allegation of the prior conviction was “[for] the offense of burglary, an offense of the same nature as charged in paragraph one (robbery by assault)” was sufficient.

The appellant, joined by his attorney, and the prosecutor stipulated that the “defendant himself * * * Walter Larry Gibbs named in the judgment, Cause No. 123,078, and sentenced in State’s Exhibit No. 5 is the same Walter Larry Gibbs seated here and on trial today, the judgment dated December 16, 1966 and that that conviction was a final conviction.”

It is not necessary to decide if the stipulation showed the prior conviction was for an offense of like character, because evidence of the prior conviction at the penalty stage of the trial was properly before the Court under Article 37.07, Section 3(a), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., which provides:

> “Regardless of the plea and whether the punishment be assessed by the judge or the jury, evidence may be offered by the state and the defendant as to the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general reputation and his character. The term prior criminal record means a final conviction in a court of record, or a probated or suspended sentence that has occurred prior to trial, or any final conviction material to the offense charged.”

The judge, evidently, did not enhance punishment under Article 62, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.

No error has been shown. The judgment is affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., not participating.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-112056) of MTC Technologies, Inc. and theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-111537 and No. 333-104013) of MTC Technologies, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MTC Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNGLLP 

 

Dayton, Ohio 

March 1, 2004
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bon. E. A. Watson 

Couhtg Attorney 

Crosbyton, Texae 

Dear Sir: 

February 13, 1939 
Bon. E. A. Ratson, February 15, 1939. Page 2 

allowed to iytaln shall rsaoh the maximum 

provtded for in this ohaptar. In oasae 

where the compensation and exoess fees 

which the officers are allowed to retain 

shall not reaoh the maximum prorlded for 

in this chapter,. the Commissionersi Court 

shall allow compensation for ex offloio 

services when, in their judgment, 'such ao!apensatioa is neoeasary, .prorlded, euah 

oompensation ror ex 0fri0i0 serrioes allowed shall not itwreaee the awosatlon or 

the oftioial bsyoml the a of oompeneation and exmss twa allmod to h8 mfair& by hia under this obapter. ,Pro+idod, 

howarar, the ax offiaio hen%& amthorlsed 

8ball be allow& only after an opportorrlt~ 

for a pub110 bearing aad oaly upon tha ritirmative4 rote ar at lea8t thres me~be*~' 

Of the oomaiesloMr8* oourtr* 

We assail froa moor lbtkr that moh aXlomn80 

.WUe by the Co~~Msalonerfl)' Goart by or&or &.ly aa&, 

i"a not for say suah spatial lmd mmioe8 ukd fhtm boing true, saoh allowanoa ir more ti tba natara o? m adYMM or aoqonoatloa apon the maxImum tee8 allowe by 

law to bty ntahted by the ~ff~~lal. &tie10 SSSS pl80~ 

a liritatlon upon auoh oampan#tisrr ia that *id m' 

all- with the excess fee8 wbish nld Offloor ray Wtain shall not exeaed the maxlam areolrt oi ,mapen#ation 

and sxoas8 fess allowad to'k ntaiaod. 

CQ~U,$'J As We aaQsrHaad the oplalon in tba .Tiltun 

ease, re 1 erred to in your letter, the Mtut point8 out 

that Artiola 3095, a nd a6 it l r l8ted prior to it8 uendnent, w&Us iinlting the anount of ooapenaatian, the 

lirltatioa 01% the authority of #a Oarrisabionerst Cdurt 

to illor ex-offioi0 atmpanratlcn ms aot enlargad or 

dlrialshed by the amendment but axleted the sama as 

prior thereto. 

In dataminlag the urirrm oapanaatloa, it is 

neseeeary to read together Artlolaa %tM aud 3c191, as 

amended. It is erldent by the plain and rrearblgaoua language used that &rtlole 3895 I8 neat to be e0mmea wltb 

enmh'feas allowad under thaaa artlolee. our lnterpmta- 
Hon:X. A. Watson, February 15, 1939, Page 3 

tion in the veltman ease is to the eiieot that Artiole 

3895 vested authority in the Conmissioners* Courtin 

the matter of allowiq, an estimated amunt of oanpensation to be paid within its own judgment but subjeot to 

the limitations as expressed thereln. 

We respeotfully refer you to'the ease 0r Anderson County vs. Hopkins, Ifi7 Si 1019 aonstruing aXofficio aompensation under Article 3898 prior to Its 

amendment in 1933 in which it is held that sush axofficio ooapensation is not considered "exoess rees" or 

0rri0e, 

It IS thersfore, tho oplnlsn ot this Dspartmsntthat ana&manoo ofeompsnsatlos bytbsCoP1IPissionsrs* Oourt under &Male 3605, whan addsdtotb undl8- 

putsd rees allsusd and rstalned undsr Artlols 5f3Wouuwt 

axoead the nmxirnum expressed In ArtIols 3592, Whsn this 

ae suoh. 

Trusting that this 8nsners YOUT ia&Ty, um 

remain
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7390

In Re: RONALD FLOYD JACKSON,

Appellant,

CHARLES LEE STUBBS,

Plaintiff,

versus

CHARLES E. FOLEY, Sheriff of Marlboro County;

COUNTY OF MARLBORO, Respondeat Superior; RUSTY

PARRISH, Deputy Sheriff; CHARLES LEMMON,

Deputy Sheriff; HENRY ABRAHAM, Deputy Sheriff;

EARL HOOD, Warden, Marlboro County Jail,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-92-2165-3-20BC)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Ronald Floyd Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order declining to

substitute the Appellant for the deceased plaintiff in this action.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the

district court. Jackson v. Foley, No. CA-92-2165-3-20BC (D.S.C.

July 18, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED