alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7144]


In the Matter of the Designation of Wali Ur Rehman as a Specially 
Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 
13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Wali Ur Rehman 
committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism 
that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, 
foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: August 12, 2010.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-21851 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
Order filed April 28, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00780

- CR

____________ NORMA JEAN SANCHEZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. 1399973



### ORDER
Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has made known to this Court his desire to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v . California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 351st District Court to afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before May 7, 2015 ; that theclerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to

appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief with this cour t within thirty days
of that date.

PER CURIAM
II 

Calendar No. 503 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 231 

[Report No. 113–235] 

To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal 

Stamp. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2013 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. STABENOW, and 

Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

JULY 31, 2014 

Reported by Mr. CARPER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 

Semipostal Stamp. 

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


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 231 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Multinational Species 

3 Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization 

4 Act of 2013’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

6 Section 2(c)(2) of the Multinational Species Con7 servation Funds Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 (39 

8 U.S.C. 416 note) is amended by striking ‘‘2 years’’ and 

9 inserting ‘‘6 years’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 503 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 231 

[Report No. 113–235] 

A BILL 

Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp. 

To reauthorize the Multinational Species 

JULY 31, 2014 

Reported without amendment 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 13.2


906 Certification




Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549




Ladies and Gentlemen:




The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with the Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.




Andy Yang, the Chief Financial Officer of AU Optronics Corp., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and




2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AU Optronics Corp.




Date: March 24, 2015


By:
/s/ Andy YangName:
Andy YangTitle:
Chief Financial Officer


The foregoingcertificationis not deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act and is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6805

HARRY JAMES FOWLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROGER HUTCHINGS; LIEUTENANT HARTSO, a/k/a Marvin Hartso; DEPUTY CORNETT, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-9-5-2-MU) Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 13, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harry James Fowler, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Lee Davis, Jr., DAVIS & HAMRICK, L.L.P., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Harry James Fowler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Fowler v. Hutchings , No. CA-98-9-5-2-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 29, 2001; entered Apr. 4, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, James W. McLane, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Healthaxis Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant
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
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: May 12, 2004 By:
    
    /s/ James W. McLaneJames W. McLaneChief Executive Officer
 Page 23 of 25
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21587]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7137]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Chaos and Classicism: Art in France, Italy, and 
Germany, 1918-1936''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Chaos and Classicism: Art in France, 
Italy, and Germany, 1918-1936,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at the Guggenheim Museum, New York, NY, from on 
or about October 1, 2010, until on or about January 9, 2011, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered 
to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 23, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-21587 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Exhibit
        32.2
  
 **CERTIFICATION
        BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF**
 **THE
        MIDDLEBY CORPORATION**
 **PURSUANT
        TO RULE 13A-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**
 
 This
        certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and 18 U.S.C. 1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
 
 I,
        Timothy J. FitzGerald, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal
        financial officer) of The Middleby Corporation (the “Registrant”), certify, to
        the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on
        Form
        10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 of the Registrant (the “Report”),
        that:
 
 (1)
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Exchange Act; and
 
 (2)
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                  Registrant.
 
 Date:
        May
        10, 2007
 
 /s/
        Timothy J. FitzGerald
 Timothy
        J. FitzGerald
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ralph James KRECH, Appellant.

No. 34560.

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One.

Feb. 27, 1973.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Gene McNary, Pros. Atty., George R. Westfall, Asst. Pros. Atty., G. Michael O’Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Clayton, for respondent.

J. Kehlor Carr, Jr., Clayton, for appellant.

CLEMENS, Judge.

A jury found defendant guilty of second-degree burglary (§ 560.070)1 and the court sentenced him under the Habitual Criminal Act, (§ 556.280) to six years confinement. Defendant appeals on the grounds the verdict was not supported by the evidence and the trial court erred by giving a “hammer” instruction.

Law officers apprehended defendant and another man during the nighttime while prying open a vending machine in front of a service station. Defendant’s fingerprints were found in a car parked nearby; the other man’s fingerprints were found at the back door of the station which had been burglariously entered; the two men had been together all night. This was sufficient evidence to show defendant guilty of burglary. State v. Whitaker, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 316 [12-14]; State v. Cobb, Mo., 444 S.W.2d 408 [1, 2].

After the jury had deliberated over five hours the court gave a short, temperate instruction2 encouraging the jury to reach *124a verdict. The instruction was not coercive and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving it. Compare State v. Raspberry, Mo., 452 S.W.2d 169 [19, 20].

Judgment affirmed.

DOWD, C. J., and WEIER and McMIL-LIAN, JJ., concur.

1

. Statutory references are to RSMo 1969, Y.A.M.S.

2

. “At this time, after you have been deliberating, I give you this additional instruction. It is desirable that there be a verdict in every case. It costs considerable money and time and effort to try any lawsuit and the parties are entitled to have their rights determined once and *124for all in every ease, and the twelve jurors chosen to try this case shall be well qualified to do so as any other twelve that might hereafter be chosen. Open and frank discussion by you in your jury room of the evidence in this case may aid you in agreeing upon the facts, however, no juror should ever agree to a verdict that violates the instructions of the Court, nor find as a fact that which under the evidence and his conscience he believes to be untrue, yet each of you should respect the opinions of your fellow jurors as you would have them respect yours, and in a spirit of tolerance and understanding endeavor to bring the deliberations of the whole jury to an agreement upon a verdict.”
|                                           |             | EXHIBIT 99(a) 
|------------------------------------------ | ----------- | --------------
|HSBC Finance Corporation                   |             |               
|Household Automotive Trust, Series  2001-3 |             |               
|                                           |             |               
|                                           |             |               
|Original Principal                         |             |               
|Class A-1                                  | 200,000,000 |               
|Class A-2                                  | 147,000,000 |               
|Class A-3                                  | 290,000,000 |               
|Class A-4                                  | 183,000,000 |               
|Number of Bonds (000's)                    |             |               
|Class A-1                                  | 200,000     |               
|Class A-2                                  | 147,000     |               
|Class A-3                                  | 290,000     |               
|Class A-4                                  | 183,000     |               
|                                           |             |               
|                                           |             |               
|                                           |             | 2004 Total    
|                                           |             |               
|                                           |             |               
|CLASS A                                    |             |               
|Class A-1 Principal Distribution           |             | 0.00          
|Class A-1 Interest Distribution            |             | 0.00          
|                                           |             |               
|Class A-2 Principal Distribution           |             | 0.00          
|Class A-2 Interest Distribution            |             | 0.00          
|                                           |             |               
|Class A-3 Principal Distribution           |             | 135,665,338.78
|Class A-3 Interest Distribution            |             | 2,573,129.87  
|                                           |             |               
|Class A-4 Principal Distribution           |             | 0.00          
|Class A-4 Interest Distribution            |             | 7,997,100.00
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       22
<ALLOWANCES>                                         6
<INVENTORY>                                        407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   818
<PP&E>                                           6,633
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              599
<BONDS>                                          1,764
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,380
<SALES>                                          1,901
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,936
<CGS>                                            1,707
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    34
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 117<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (9)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (13)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (13)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
<FN>
<F1>Net of interest income,  $10 million, and capitalized interest, $4 million.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2369 

To require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to consider 

Brunswick County, North Carolina to be part of the same metropolitan 

statistical area as Wilmington, North Carolina. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2014 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget to consider Brunswick County, North Carolina 

to be part of the same metropolitan statistical area as 

Wilmington, North Carolina. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BRUNSWICK COUNTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, for the purpose of the delineation of metropoli6 tan statistical areas, the Director of the Office of Manage7 ment and Budget shall consider Brunswick County, North 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2369 IS

1 Carolina to be part of the same metropolitan statistical 

2 area that contains Wilmington, North Carolina. 

3 (b) SUNSET.—Subsection (a) shall cease to be effec4 tive on January 1, 2021. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 21, 2019

No. 04-18-00709-CR

Kayro MORENO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CRS001128D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's brief was originally due to be filed on March 21, 2019. This court notified 

appellant's counsel of the deficiency on March 27, 2019, but no response was filed. By order 

dated April 16, 2019, this appeal was abated to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. The 

trial court conducted the hearing, and supplemental records were filed containing the trial court’s 

findings. By order dated May 21, 2019, the appeal was reinstated on the docket of the court, and 

appellant’s brief was ordered to be filed no later than June 20, 2019.

On June 20, 2019, appellant’s attorney filed an unopposed motion for extension of time 

requesting an additional extension of time due to a series of events beyond the attorney’s control 

which prevented him from completing the brief. The motion is GRANTED. Given the prior 

abatement and the original due date for the brief, THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF 

TIME THAT APPELLANT WILL BE GRANTED. The Appellant’s brief must be filed by 

July 20, 2019.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of June, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court