alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15766]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,001]


Keihin IPT Manufacturing, Inc., Greenfield, IN; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on June 5, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Keihin IPT 
Manufacturing, Inc., Greenfield, Indiana.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition 
(TA-W-70,984) filed on June 5, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 23rd day of June 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15766 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# United States Court of Appeals

**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

___________

No. 24

- 10248

___________

**Chamber of Commerce for the United States of America, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce; Longview**  **Chamber of Commerce; American Bankers Association; Consumer Bankers Association; Texas Association of**  **Business,**

Plaintiffs

— Appellants

,

Versus

**Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Rohit Chopra,** in his official capacity as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

**,**

Defendants —Appellees

.

**______________________________**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:24

- CV

- 213

**______________________________**

**UNPUBLISHED ORDER**

Before **Stewart, Graves,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**.** Per Curiam:

**IT IS ORDERED** that the District Court’s transfer order is
administratively stayed until 5:00 PM on Tuesday, April 2, 2024. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

March 30, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk Case: 24-10248 Document: 62-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2024No. 24

- 10248

2 **IT IS FURTHER**  **ORDERED** that th is appeal and all pending
motions are expedited to the next oral argument panel. Case: 24-10248 Document: 62-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2024
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 Regal Life Concepts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

   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:  July 14, 2008


/s/ Eric Wildstein
-------------------------------------------
Eric Wildstein, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANTONIO A. TANKES , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 712

[ October 6, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 0 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Sherri L. Collins

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2004

- CF

- 004059

- AXXX

- WB

.
Antonio A. Tankes, Carrabelle, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allan R. Geesey, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C ONNER , C.J., and K UNTZ , J., concur.
W ARNER , J., dissenting with opinion.

W ARNER , J., dissenting

.
I would reverse the order prohibiting appellant from further pro se filing in the trial court. His claims as to the legality of his sentence appear to have been filed in good faith, and it is not clear that they were frivolous. The trial court has issued contradictory and confusing rulings with respect to whether appellant’s sentence is illegal, and it ruled only in its most recent order that appellant is estopped from attacking his sentence as illegal

. One of appellant’s claim s remains pending, but that claim brought a different challenge to his sentence. Although the claim is not meritorious, see Harris v. State

, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fl a . 1st DCA 2001), I would not find that the simple filing of the claim should prompt an order barring him from future fili ng. This is not the type of excessive filing which2 prompted our supreme court to establish the right of courts to bar litigants from further filing. See Rivera v. State

, 728 So

. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1998)

.

* * *

Not final until dispositi on of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6611

DARRICK H. HOOD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00422-WDK)

Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrick H. Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Darrick H. Hood seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hood has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. 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
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 1
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 2
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 3
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 4
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 5
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 6
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 7
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 8
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 9
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 10
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 11
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 12
Case 1:11-cv-00048-JHR-KMW Document 1 Filed 01/05/11 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 13
EXHIBIT
32.1


OFFICERS’
CERTIFICATIONS


Certification
of Chief Executive Officer







Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Douglas Emmett, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:






(i)
            the
      accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
      ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and






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







Date:  May
      5, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      JORDAN L. KAPLANJordan
      L. KaplanPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[L14200000.BJ0000-LLNM915000-2009]


Notice of Withdrawal of Filing of Plat of Survey; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of filing of Plat of Survey.

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

SUMMARY: The plat of survey described below was scheduled to be 
officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), Santa Fe, New Mexico, 30 calendar days from the date 
of the publication in the Federal Register, Volume 72, No. 133, dated 
July 12, 2007, per BLM Manual 2097, Opening Orders.
    The filing was stayed pending the outcome of a protest and appeal 
of the survey. The dependent resurvey has been remanded back to BLM and 
will not be officially filed.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico

    The plat of survey being readdressed represents the dependent 
resurvey and survey for Townships 9 and 10 North, Range 4 East, New 
Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted June 20, 2007, for Group 1062 NM.

Robert A. Casias,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
 [FR Doc. E9-1612 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Joint
      Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
      Required by Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Pure Vanilla eXchange, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Florian Schuhbauer,
      President and Principal Executive Officer, and John A. Cook, Principal Financial
      Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.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.




November
      14, 2006




/s/
      Florian Schuhbauer





Florian
      Schuhbauer


Principal
      Executive Officer








/s/
      John
      A. Cook





John
      A.
      Cook


Principal
      Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**









Keith
      Lowey, in the capacity of the officer who performs the functions of Principal
      Financial Officer, of Conihasset Capital Partners, Inc, a Delaware corporation
      (the “Registrant”), certifies that:




1.
      The
      Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
      2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.
      The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.







/s/
                Keith LoweyKeith
                LoweyChief
                Financial Officer




Date:
      November 14, 2006






37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHARLES A. ADERINSOYE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRANSUNION,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.:

11-0721 (PGS)

ORDER

A Report and Recommendation was filed on May 2, 2012 recommending that this Court (1)

dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for failure to comply with an order of the Court and (2) direct the Clerk of the Court to

administratively terminate Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal. [Docket No. 31]. The

parties were given notice that they had fourteen days from receipt thereof to file and serve objections

pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2). On May 16, 2012, Defendant filed an objection to the Report and

Recommendation, requesting that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and award

Plaintiff its reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees. [Docket No. 34]. No objection was

received from Plaintiff.1

Having carefullyreviewed the Defendant’s submission and theReport and Recommendation

de novo, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS on this 11th day of June 2012

ORDERED that the thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

1

Plaintiff was served via U.S. and certified mail, although Plaintiff never signed for the

certified mail. [Docket No. 35].

Case 3:11-cv-00721-PGS-TJB Document 36 Filed 06/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 444
Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni is hereby adopted as the opinion of this Court; and

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice; and

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court administrative terminate Defendant’s Motion for

Sanctions and Dismissal.

s/Peter G. Sheridan 

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J. 

June 11, 2012

2

Case 3:11-cv-00721-PGS-TJB Document 36 Filed 06/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 445
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.1


                      STATEMENT BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
       PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) AND AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Phillip W. Arneson, certify that:

         The annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31,
2004 of Sorrento Networks Corporation fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended January 31, 2004 of Sorrento Networks Corporation fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sorrento
Networks Corporation.

                                              Subscribed and sworn to
                                              before me this 18 day of May, 2004


/s/ Phillip W. Arneson                        /s/  Claudia Warner
-------------------------                     ----------------------------
Name:  Phillip W. Arneson                     Notary Public Seal
Date:  May 18, 2004
#### Joseph Kane et al., Respondents, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 176]

The plaintiff Joseph Kane (hereinafter the plaintiff) fell and allegedly was injured while retrieving boxes from an elevated storage area located on property owned by the defendant and rented to Urban Pathways, a not-for-profit social services organization. The plaintiff and his wife, suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant, alleging, inter alia, that the storage area constituted a dangerous condition that violated numerous provisions of the New York City Building Code.

The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, finding that triable issues of fact existed as to whether the defendant had relinquished control of the premises, and had constructive notice of the alleged hazard. We affirm.

An out-of-possession landlord is generally not responsible for injuries that occur on its premises unless it has retained control over the premises or is contractually obligated to maintain or repair the alleged hazard *(see Couluris v Harbor Boat Realty, Inc.,*31 AD3d 686 [2006]; *Knipfing v V&J, Inc.,*8 AD3d 628, 628-629 [2004]; *Eckers v Suede,*294 AD2d 533 [2002]). Reservation of a right of re-entry for inspection and repair in a lease may, under certain circumstances, constitute sufficient retention of control to impose liability for injuries caused by an al*504leged hazard (see *Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co.,*69 NY2d 559, 566 [1987]). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting the entire lease and an affidavit of its physical plant manager, both of which demonstrated that it relinquished control of the leased premises and that it was not obligated under the terms of the lease to perform interior maintenance *(see Couluris v Harbor Boat Realty, Inc.,*31 AD3d 686 [2006]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant actually was an out-of-possession landlord which had relinquished control and whether the defendant had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition *(see Ingargiola v Waheguru Mgt.,*5 AD3d 732 [2004]; *Zappel v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*285 AD2d 389 [2001]; *Fucile v Grand Union Co.,*270 AD2d 227 [2000]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Covello, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60095 

Conference Calendar

 

LOUIS JAMES CLAY, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LILLIE BLACKMON SANDERS, Judge

Wilkinson County, Mississippi,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:98-CV-167-BrS

- - - - - - - - - -

October 20, 1999

Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Louis James Clay, Jr., Mississippi state prisoner # 08452,

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint based on a finding of absolute immunity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). On appeal, Clay argues that the district

court erred when it dismissed his § 1983 complaint and requests

appointment of counsel. He also argues that the district court

judge presiding over the case should have recused himself

pursuant to Clay’s motion to alter or amend judgment. See Fed. 
No. 99-60095

-2-

R. Civ. P. 59(e).

The issue whether the district court judge should have

recused himself pursuant to Clay’s Rule 59(e) motion is not

properly before this court. Clay filed a notice of appeal after

making the motion but before the district court ruled on the

motion. Clay did not file a subsequent notice of appeal, nor

amend the previously filed notice of appeal following the denial

of his Rule 59(e) motion. Such action is a prerequisite to this

court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). 

The district court properly concluded that Judge Sanders is

entitled to absolute immunity from suit. See Stump v. Sparkman,

435 U.S. 349, 356-64 (1978); Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284

(5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of

Clay’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) is

AFFIRMED. Clay’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 28(a)

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS TO THE MEMBERS OF WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Wellman
International Limited and subsidiaries at 31 December 1997 and 1996, and the
related consolidated profit and loss accounts, retained earnings, and changes
in financial position for each of the three years in the period ended 31
December 1997, all expressed in Irish pounds (not presented separately
herewith).  These financial statements are the responsibility of the
company's directors.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America.  Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures
in the financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above, expressed in
Irish pounds, present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of Wellman International Limited and subsidiaries at 31
December 1997 and 1996, and the consolidated results of operations and
changes in financial position for each of the three years in the period ended
31 December 1997 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America.


KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditors



Dublin, Ireland

29 January 1998