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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:                         *ACApermits@nsf.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On October 9, 2014 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received. The permit was issued on November 9, 2014 to:                

## Permit No. 2014-006

Eric Stangeland, Quark Expeditions

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 2014-27090 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,010
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      110
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         90
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,268
<PP&E>                                           2,010
<DEPRECIATION>                                     234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              385
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<COMMON>                                            11
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,093
<SALES>                                            121
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   121
<CGS>                                              107
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (3)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (416)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (416)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (416)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We have issued our report dated March 14, 2005, accompanyingthe consolidated financial statements of QC Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of saidreport in the Registration Statement of QC Holdings, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-119167, effective September 21, 2004). 

 

 

 

/s/    Grant Thornton LLP 

Kansas City, Missouri 

March 29, 2005
#### Conley *v.*State.

Opinion delivered November *4,*1929.

*279
      *Eal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Robert F. Smith,*Assistant, for appellee.

Smith, J.

Appellant was convicted under an indictment charging him with the crime of grand larceny, which was alleged to have been committed by stealing a suitcase and its contents, the property of Mrs. Maggie McKinzie.

For the reversal of the judgment sentencing appellant to a term of one year in the penitentiary, it is first insisted that the verdict was arrived at by a consideration of extraneous matters having no relation to the question of appellant’s guilt; but this assignment of error may be disposed of by saying that there is nothing in the record to support it or to require its consideration.

It is assigned as error that, after the jury had reported that an agreement could not be reached, the court inquired how the jury stood as to numbers, without indicating how they stood as to parties. A juror answered that the jury was divided eight to four, and the court then directed that the jury further consider the case. The practical administration of the law in .jury trials, both civil and criminal, has made this practice by the trial courts both common and necessary. There was nothing in the question of the court to indicate that the court was attempting to coerce a verdict contrary to the deliberate and final conclusion of any juror, and there was, therefore, no error in asking the question. *Eady*v. *State,*168 Ark. 731, 271 S. W. 338.

*280The only other assignment of error in th© motion for a new trial is that the testimony is insufficient to 'Support the verdict. The testimony tending SO' to do was to the following effect. Mrs. MoKinzie kept a small hotel, and appellant was one of her guests. She had money and other valuables in a suitcase which she kept in herTOom. She left her room unlocked on one occasion, and as she went out of the room saw appellant standing in the hall into which the room opened. When she returned to her room appellant and the suitcase were gone. Search was made, and it was learned that appellant had gone to another hotel, where he had registered under an assumed name, and the suitcase was found in his room.

Judgment affirmed.
#### TOWN OF SEVEN DEVILS v. VILLAGE OF SUGAR MOUNTAIN

No. 189P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 692

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 338 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      January 27, 1998.
    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the 
Honorable Sonny Bono, a Representative from the State of California.
    Resolved, That the Clerk of the House communicate these resolutions to the 
Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
    Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark 
of respect to the memory of the deceased.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Ebenezer S. Eggleston v. Kent Circuit Judge.

*Lerne to file exceptions to special findings*— Laches.

Mandamus to compel a court to allow the filing of exceptions to special findings, was *denied*where no motion for leave to do so had been made until nearly two years after the findings had been filed and judgment rendered thereon, and the judge who had heard the case and entered judgment had gone out of office,

Mandamus.

Submitted Jan. 17.

Denied Feb. 27.

*E. S. Eggleston*in person, for relator.

*Godwin & Earle*for respondent.

Marston, J.

This is an application for a mandamus commanding the respondent to enter an order in a certain cause giving the relator leave to file exceptions to the findings of the court therein.

It appears that an action was commenced April 26,1878, *148by Eeturn Strong against Augustus D. Griswold and relator; that said cause was tided at the October term, 1878, and that on the 29th day of May, 1880, a written finding of the facts and law was filed by the court, and judgment rendered thereon the same day against the defendants.

The relator shows that he had no notice of the filing of such findings or rendition of judgment thereon, until about the 11th day of April, 1882, and that he thereupon caused a motion ■ to be made asking leave to make and file exceptions, which was denied. The relator also shows that he had made examinations and inquiry and could not learn that any judgment had been entered, there being no calendar entry thereof, and jiliat he was not present in court when said judgment was rendered.

The return shows that the judge of said circuit at the time said cause was tried and judgment rendered, ceased to hold that'position on the 1st day of January, 1882.

*We*are of opinion that the writ should not issue. In view of the time allowed to elapse after the judgment was rendered, and the change which has taken place in the court, the relator has not made such a showing of diligence on Ms part as would entitle Mm to the relief asked for.

It is not often that a case is permitted to sleep so dong without inquiry being made to ascertain its status, and although the relator might not have succeeded in ascertaining the condition of the cause by making inquiry in one direction, still there were other channels open to which he. ought to have resorted.

The writ must be denied with costs.

Graves, C. J. and Cooley, J. concurred.
Agenda

Date: October 30, 2014

Topic: Proposed Updates to the

Mobile ID Device Best Practice Recommendations

9:30 Welcome and Orientation: 

Barbara Guttman

Director, Information Access Division, NIST

Shahram Orandi

Group Leader, Image Group, NIST

 

9:45: Project Overview

Brad Wing, NIST

Use Case Presentations

10:15 Forensics / Latent Print Photography

Mobile Time/Attendance and Certifications

Tactical Awareness and Biometrics Build

Other DHS S&T Use Cases

Patty Wolfhope, DHS S&T

Scenarios Developed in DHS Mobile ID Workshops

Rick Lazarick, contractor to DHS

10:45 Voice 

Mobile Voice Applications

Patrick Gibbs, contractor to DoD

11:00 DNA

FBI CODIS and RapidDNA

Kevin Ellis, FBI

11:15 Iris

Border Patrol Use of Iris in a Mobile Environment

Paul Good, DHS Border Patrol

11:30 WSABI Mobile Device Usability

Kristen Greene, NIST

11:45 FBI Mobile ID Scenarios

Peter Alex, FBI

12:00 – 12:45 (Lunch) 

Standards and Reference Materials

12:45 ANSI/NIST-ITL
Brad Wing, NIST 

1:00 Mobile ID Taxonomy

Eric Kukula, Noblis

1:00 ISO/IEC SC37 Pictogram Standards

Mary Theofanos, NIST

1:15 OASIS Biometrics Technical Committee Standards

Kevin Mangold & Ross Micheals, NIST

1:30 Break

Other issues

1:45 Glasses and the Impact on Facial Recognition

Delia McGarry, Noblis

2:00 FAP 10 and FAP 30 comparison

David Jones, FBI

2:15 Proposed FAP 55 for 3.2 x 2 capture area

Tom Buss, Integrated Biometrics

2:30 Wearable Biometrics (Google Glasses, Police Officer Video, etc.) and other 

innovative technologies 

Brad Wing, NIST

2:45 Iris Acquisition Guidance

Jim Cambier, Crossmatch

Group Discussion

3:00 Moderated by Brad Wing

Objectives:

Agree Upon General Format of the Document

Develop an Initial Timeframe

Define Working Groups

Select Working Group Leads

5:00 Adjourn
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 Pinnacle Foods Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 25, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, N. Michael Dion, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                                                                     
|----- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | March 24, 2006                                                      
|      | 
|      |  | /s/ N. MICHAEL DION                                                 
|      |  | N. Michael Dion Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
#### Wellington Clark v. Josiah Dunlap.

*Seplmm*— Personal *sermee without legy.*

Where defendant in replevin is personally served but nothing is taken on the writ, the action becomes merely personal; and by appearing and joining issue and allowing the case to be adjourned from time to time without objection, he waives the right to have the writ set aside for defects in the affidavit and bond.

*493Error to Shiawassee. (Newton, J.)

Apr. 27.

Apr. 27.

Replevin. Plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

*McBride & Miner*for appellant.

One who has pleaded the general issue, had three adjournments, gone to trial on the merits, been beaten, appealed the cause to the circuit court, and entered his appearance generally there, will not thereafter be allowed to make any objection to the manner in which he was brought into court: *Maxwell v. Deens*46 Mich. 35; *Hart v. Blake*31 Mich. 278; *Manhood v. Schott*37 Mich. 234; *Gott v. Brigham*41 Mich. 227.

*Albert Chandler*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Clark sued Dunlap in replevin before the recorder of Corunna, the latter acting as a justice of the peace. The recorder neglected to attach his signature to the jurat on the affidavit, and neglected also to require the surety to the bond to justify in writing as provided by the statute. Act No. 188 of the Laws of 1879. The writ was made returnable on the 8th of June and was returned personally served. The property was, however, not taken on the writ.

The parties appeared on the return-day and joined issue, and the cause was then continued from time to time until the 17th of August, the last continuance being on stipulation. No objections had been taken to the proceedings. But on that day, and when the case was ready for trial before a jury, the defendant moved to quash the writ on the ground that the bond was not approved as provided by statute. The motion was denied and the parties thereupon tried the cause on the merits, and the jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $20, and the recorder entered judgment on it.

The defendant took a special appeal and the circuit court quashed the writ, with costs against the plaintiff, on the ground that the affidavit and bond were void. We are not able to concur in this view. As no property was taken on the writ the action was merely personal and was substan*494tially a case of trover. By appearing and joining issue and adjourning the cause from time to time without any objection whatever, the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction and waived all right to set aside the writ.

The judgment quashing the writ must be reversed with costs, and the case will stand for trial in the circuit court on the merits.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 453 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          June 4, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) proposing an amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States restoring religious freedom. The joint 
resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed 
in the joint resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as amended, and on any 
further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
(1) two hours of debate on the joint resolution, as amended, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary; (2) the further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution, which may be offered only by the Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Teegarden, a Minor, Appellant, *v.*Teegarden et al., Appellees.

(No. 138

Decided November 6, 1947.)

*Messrs. Cummins & Boiler*and *Mr. Royon G. Hess,*for appellant.

*Mr. Richard Faulkner*and *Mr. E. J. Garmhausen,*for appellees.

By the Court.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of ■Shelby county. This action was one for a divorce, the petition alleging that on the 19th day of November 1945 the plaintiff and Clifton A. Teegarden, the defendant, entered into a contract of marriage in Hamil■ton county, Ohio; that the contract was thereafter consummated; and that plaintiff and the defendant lived together as husband and wife. To the petition the defendant filed an answer' denying the marriage contract. As far as this appeal is concerned we need not consider the interests of the other two defendants.

The matter was tried to the court which rendered a written opinion general in character upon both conclusions of law and fact. No separate findings of fact *518were made by the court and the opinion was not made-a part of the record. On the issues joined the court, found in favor of the defendant and ordered the plaintiff’s petition to be dismissed. The only issue presented for our consideration is whether the lower court, erred as a matter of law in determining that no common-law marriage existed.

The record discloses that the bill of exceptions was-not duly filed and a motion to strike it from the files-was sustained. We, therefore, have no bill of exceptions and our determination must be based solely upon the record before us. Counsel for the plaintiff make-reference to the facts as related in the opinion of the-trial court. This, however, is not a part of the record, and is not subject to consideration in error proceedings. *Baldwin*v. *State,*23 Ohio Law Abs., 147; *In re Ruhl,*36 Ohio Law Abs., 250, 43 N. E. (2d), 760; *Treiber*v. *Jaster, Dir.,*55 Ohio App., 64, 8 N. E. (2d), 581; *Eagleson*v. *McKee,*33 Ohio Law Abs., 38, 33 N. E. (2d), 417.

The plaintiff is urging that, from the facts disclosed' and the opinion of the trial court, the judgment is contrary to law. In order to pass upon this question, it is-necessary that we have a bill of exceptions as it is-only through that channel that the evidence can be considered by this court.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is-affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Wiseman, P. J., Miller and Horn beck, JJ., concur-
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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 Quarterly Report of United Pan Am Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ray Thousand, certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 

 

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

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hashereunto signed this Certification as of August 1, 2005.
#### Phillip Webster *v.*R. S. Gadlin.

New Trial — Decided Preponderance of Evidence.

The verdict was not sustained by the evidence, but there was a decided preponderance of evidence against it.

APPEAL FROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT.

December 21, 1871.

*B. G. Mitchel, for appellant.*

*J. K. Robinson, Howell, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

We perceive no essential error in the action of the court, as to instructions, given or refused. But we are constrained to reverse the judgment for the reason that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the evidence.

Giving to the circumstances proved, as pointing to the appellant as guilty of the trespass alleged, their greatest weight, they do not, in our opinion prove the charge with any reasonable certainty; but whatever might have been their effect, we regard it as neutralized by the positive statements of the defendant, proved and rendered competent by the action of the plaintiff; and the court ought to have granted a new trial because the verdict was not sustained by the evidence, but there was a decided preponderance of the evidence against the verdict.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. .
Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS   Document 300-1   Filed 09/20/19   Page 1 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS   Document 300-1   Filed 09/20/19   Page 2 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS   Document 300-1   Filed 09/20/19   Page 3 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS   Document 300-1   Filed 09/20/19   Page 4 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS   Document 300-1   Filed 09/20/19   Page 5 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS   Document 300-1   Filed 09/20/19   Page 6 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS   Document 300-1   Filed 09/20/19   Page 7 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS   Document 300-1   Filed 09/20/19   Page 8 of 8