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

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of the meeting on June 9-10, 2009 is to review new start and continuing research and development projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1M. This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.

# DATES:

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 from 8 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. and Wednesday, June 10, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Allen/Mcghee/Page meeting room of the Washington Duke Inn, 3001 Cameron Blvd., Durham, NC 27705.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jonathan Bunger, SERDP Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by telephone at (703) 696-2126.

Morgan E. Frazier,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. E9-12041 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
**EXHIBIT 31.1	**

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

 

I, Richard Pietrykowski, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofSURFACE COATINGS, INC.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this amended report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

 

Dated: December 14, 2011

/s/ Richard Pietrykowski

Richard Pietrykowski President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7329

JOHNNY WADE JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

KEITH E. OLSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District

Judge. (CA-97-535-5)

Submitted: November 26, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998

Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Wade Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Olson, No. CA-97-535-5

(S.D.W. Va., July 18, 1997). 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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANGEL MEDEL LORENZO , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr
- 00279

- WO

- 1; 1:15

- cv
01006

- WO

- LPA )

Submitted : June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Angel Medel Lorenzo, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Angel Medel Lorenzo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012)

. The magistrate judge r ecommended
d enying Lorenzo’s motion and advised him that the failure to file timely objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based on the
recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985) ; see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985)

. Lorenzo has waived appellate review by failing to file objections afte r receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would n ot aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gerald NOBLE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-6084.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 28, 2009.

Gerald Noble, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Noble appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Noble,*No. 3:95-cr-00488-JFA-5 (D.S.C. Jan. 5, 2009). 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.*
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Edward M. Lambert, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hanover Direct,
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 officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we 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; and

         (c) 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;

5.       The registrant's other certifying officers 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; and

         (b) 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.

                       /s/ Edward M. Lambert
                     -------------------------
                          Edward M. Lambert
                     Executive Vice President and
                       Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 7, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Beyer, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the Annual Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor
Holdings I, Ltd.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Dated: February 4, 2010



/s/ RICHARD BEYERRichard BeyerChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring:

I concur in Judge Edmondson's opinion. The antitrust issues were addressed early in this

case through a decision on setting aside a preliminary injunction in and expanded on in a concurring

opinion authored by then Chief Judge Tjoflat, 887 F.2d 1535, 1539 (11th Cir. 1989) (Tjoflat, C.J.,

concurring).

There were contested issues as to whether defendants possessed market power in a relevant

market for temporary nursing services. The jury decided the contested relevant issue on which

plaintiffs had the burden. There were contested issues as to whether defendants had monopoly

"control over access to an essential element of competition" by means of the arrangement. Plaintiffs

had the burden to prove this and they failed in this burden.

Judge Edmondson points out, as Judge Tjoflat previously did in this case, that Northwest

Whole Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284 (1985), is key, and it

"prohibits the application of the per se rule to cooperative buying arrangements unless a court has

made certain preliminary findings of fact." Id. Northwest held that "[a]bsent a showing [of market

power or exclusive access to an element essential to effective competition] with respect to a

cooperative buying arrangement, courts should apply a rule-of-reason analysis." Northwest, 472

U.S. at 297, quoted in All Care Nursing Service, 887 F.2d at 1539; see also Areeda & Havenkamp,

Antitrust Law (1989 Supp.) ¶ 1511 (discussing Northwest and suggesting that plaintiffs must

establish market power of defendant before the court should finally decide per se or rule of reason

application).

In addition, this circuit has indicated that "[t]he presumption in cases brought under section

1 of the Sherman Act is that the rule-of-reason standard applies." Seagood Trading Corp. v. Jerrico,
Nos. 95-4714/5218 Page 2

All Care v. Bethesda

Inc., 924 F.2d 1555, 1567 (11th Cir. 1991). We observed in that case, moreover, that "[t]he Supreme

Court has made it clear that the per se label should be applied infrequently and with caution." Id.

The majority opinion has covered all of the questions in this case; I merely emphasize the

application of the rule-of-reason principle under the circumstances.
#### Kimberly Hurrell-Harring et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v State of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 11, 2010;

decided January 14, 2010

Reported below, 66 AD3d 84.

Motion by District Attorneys Association of the State of New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and 24 copies filed within seven days.
<PAGE>
                                                                Exhibit 4.6

                             MODIFICATION AGREEMENT

         This Modification Agreement is entered into as of the 6th day of
October, 2004, by and between KAHIKI FOODS, INC., a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Ohio (the "Company"), and BARRON
PARTNERS LP, (the "Barron").

                                    RECITALS

         A. The Company and Barron have entered into a $2.25 Common Stock
Purchase Warrant and a $3.00 Common Stock Purchase Warrant, each dated February
27, 2004.

         B. The Company and Barron agreed to amend the provisions of the $2.25
Common Stock Purchase Warrant and the $3.00 Common Stock Purchase Warrant
pursuant to an Addendum dated as of March 1, 2004 (the "Addendum").

         C. The parties desire to modify certain of the provisions of the above
referenced Agreements.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in considerations of the premises and of the mutual
covenants and agreements, and subject to the terms and conditions herein
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         Section 1. Section 6 of the $2.25 Common Stock Purchase Warrant is
hereby deleted in its entirety.

         Section 2. Section 6 of the $3.00 Common Stock Purchase Warrant is
hereby deleted in its entirety.

         Section 3. The Adjustment for Earnings formula contained in Section 7d
of the $2.25 Common Stock Purchase Warrant, as amended by Section 3 of the
Addendum, is hereby deleted in its entirety.

         Section 4. The Adjustment for Earnings Formula contained in Section 7d
of the $3.00 Common Stock Purchase Warrant, as amended in Section 4 of the
Addendum, is hereby deleted in its entirety.

         Section 5. Except as modified in this Modification Agreement, the
Addendum, $2.25 Common Stock Purchase Warrant and $3.00 Common Stock Purchase
Warrant are and shall remain in full force and effect. Each party hereby
ratifies, confirms and approves such agreements as modified herein and that such
agreements so modified, constitute the valid and binding obligations and
agreements of each party, enforceable in the courts with their terms.

         Section 6. This Modification Agreement shall be governed by and
construed and enforced in the courts with the laws of the United States of
America and by the laws of the State of Ohio.


<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Barron have executed this
Modification Agreement, intending to be legally bound as of the date first above
written.

                                                KAHIKI FOODS, INC.



                                                By: /s/ Michael Tsao
                                                    -------------------------


                                                BARRON PARTNERS LP



                                                By: /s/ Andrew Barron Worden
                                                    -------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 592 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 592

To extend the contract for the Glendo Unit of the Missouri River Basin 
                    Project in the State of Wyoming.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2005

    Mr. Thomas (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Nelson of 
   Nebraska) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the contract for the Glendo Unit of the Missouri River Basin 
                    Project in the State of Wyoming.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Glendo Unit of the Missouri River 
Basin Project Contract Extension Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. GLENDO UNIT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN CONTRACT EXTENSION.

    Section 2 of the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 
(112 Stat. 2816, 117 Stat. 1854) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``December 31, 2005'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2007''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``beyond December 31, 2005'' and 
                inserting ``beyond December 31, 2007''; and
                    (B) by striking ``before December 31, 2005'' and 
                inserting ``before December 31, 2007''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Karen Allen Mullinax v. State of Texas

Appellate case numbers: 01-19-00881-CR

Trial court case number: 1616807

Trial court: 248th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Karen Allen Mullinax, has filed a third motion for extension of time to file her

motion for rehearing and en banc reconsideration. The motion is denied. Any motion for 

rehearing and en banc reconsideration must be filed by August 17, 2021 as previously ordered by 

the Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss___________________

Acting individually

Date: August 17, 2021
[918 NE2d 944, 890 NYS2d 432]

#### Eva Flores, Appellant, v Langsam Property Services Corp. et al., Respondents.

Decided October 20, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Raymond Schwartzberg & Associates, PLLC,*New York City *(Steven I. Brizel*of counsel), for appellant.

*McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP,*Brooklyn *{Patrick W. Brophy*of counsel), for respondents.

*812OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding defendants’ actual or constructive notice of the particular dangerous condition that allegedly caused her injuries *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 838 [1986]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30,
1999,  AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                1,780,000
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             1,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                             237,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      2,025,000
<PP&E>                                                  748,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                          102,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        2,822,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   227,000
<BONDS>                                                   9,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                 15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                            2,571,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          2,822,000
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        360,000
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1,678,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (1,318,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (1,318,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (1,318,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.09)


</TABLE>