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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 2 p.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.

*The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:*

The Commission will consider whether to propose a rule to address “pay to play” practices by investment advisers. The proposal is designed, among other things, to prohibit advisers from seeking to influence the award of advisory contracts by public entities through political contributions to or for those officials who are in a position to influence the awards.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: July 15, 2009.

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-17234 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
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 accompanying Annual Report of SPEAR & JACKSON,
INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A2 for the year ending September 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Dennis Crowley, principal executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                               /s/ Dennis Crowley
                                               ---------------------------------
                                             Name: Dennis Crowley
                                            Title: Principal Executive Officer
                                            Dated: December 29, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ,

Respondent

v.

JOHN COLE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 18 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2018, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Application for Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
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 Quintek  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Andrew
Haag,  Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

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

Date:  September 28, 2006                               By: /s/ ANDREW HAAG
                                                            -------------------
                                                        Andrew Haag
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB  Reliant  Home  Warranty
Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Boyd
Soussana, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herby certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, to the best of his/her knowledge, 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 result of operations of
         the Company.

By:   /s/ Boyd Soussana
      -------------------------------------
            Boyd Soussana
            Chief Executive Officer

      April 02, 2007

This  certification   accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Subjex Corporation does
hereby certify that:
 
 (a) the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Subjex Corporation for the year ended December
31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (b)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Subjex
Corporation
 
 Date:
      August 29, 2008
              By:
              /s/  Andrew
      D. HyderAndrew
      D. HyderPresident,
      CEO and acting CFO
#### Bernabe Encarnacion, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 567]

Lahtinen, J.

Claimant brought this action contending, among other things, *1039that defendant was responsible for the value of items of personal property taken and not returned by employees of the Department of Correctional Services. He made a motion denoted as one for partial summary judgment (although he sought judgment on both liability and damages). The Court of Claims denied the motion and claimant now appeals.

The drastic relief of “[s]ummary judgment should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue” *(McIntyre v State of New York,*142 AD2d 856, 858 [1988]; *see Peterson v State of New York,*130 AD2d 813, 814 [1987]). The proof presented is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant *(see Card v Brown,*43 AD3d 594, 595 [2007]; *Walton v Albany Community Dev. Agency,*279 AD2d 93, 94-95 [2001]). Review of the record in the light most favorable to defendant reveals that factual issues abound. The issue of who owned the law books removed from claimant’s cell is not sufficiently established. The $100 that claimant contends was wrongfully deducted from his inmate account is disputed by defendant’s assertion that such amount was never taken from his account. The evidence is unclear regarding the alleged removal from claimant’s cell of legal materials in yellow envelopes and, if removed, whether such materials were returned to claimant. In light of the factual issues, the Court of Claims properly denied claimant’s motion.

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
#### In the Matter of Gordon Lee R., Also Known as Gordon R., Also Known as Gordon L., Jr., Also Known as Gordon F. MercyFirst, Respondent; Linda F., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1. ) In the Matter of Teena Marie F., Also Known as Teena F. MercyFirst, Respondent; Linda F., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2. ) In the Matter of Shakaya Lashae F., Also Known as Shakaya F. MercyFirst, Respondent; Linda F., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.)

[855 NYS2d 901]

*883Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court’s finding that she failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the suspended judgment was supported by the weight of the evidence *(see Matter of Christyn Ann D.,*26 AD3d 491, 492 [2006]; *see also Matter of Jordan Amir B.,*15 AD3d 477 [2005]; *Matter of Michael C.,*4 AD3d 423, 424 [2004]; *Matter of Joshua Justin T.,*208 AD2d 469 [1994]).

The evidence elicited at the dispositional hearing established by a preponderance of the evidence that it is in the best interests of the children Gordon Lee R. and Shakaya Lashae F. to terminate parental rights and free them for adoption *(see Matter of Jennifer R.,*29 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2006]; *Matter of Lemar H.,*23 AD3d 383, 384-385 [2005]; *Matter of Jeremiah Kwimea T.,*10 AD3d 691, 692 [2004]; *Matter of Joyce Marie B., 305*AD2d 589, 590 [2003]; *Matter of Tiffany A.,*242 AD2d 709 [1997]; *Matter of W. Children,*226 AD2d 385, 387 [1996]).

Motion by the attorney for the child Teena Marie F. on appeals from three orders of the Family Court, Kings County, all dated January 6, 2006 (one as to each child), inter alia, to dismiss the appeal filed under Appellate Division docket No. 2006-01983. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 4, 2007, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the appeal was held in abeyance and referred to the Justices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the submission of the appeals, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal is denied as academic in light of our determination on that appeal *[see*decision herein]). Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Carni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 551 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 551

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain other textile printing 
                               machinery.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain other textile printing 
                               machinery.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN OTHER TEXTILE PRINTING MACHINERY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.01.93    Textile printing  Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     machinery                                                               31/2005          ''
                     (provided for                                                                             .
                     in subheading
                     8443.59.10)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


Name of Subsidiary                                  Jurisdiction of Organization
------------------                                  ----------------------------

Spear & Jackson plc                                         England
Bowers Group plc                                            England
Offertower plc                                              England
Magnacut Limited                                            England
Coventry Gauge Limited                                      England
Neill Tools Limited                                         England
James Neill Holdings Limited                                England
Eclipse Magnetics Limited                                   England
Markbalance plc                                             England
Spear & Jackson Holdings Limited                            England
Societe Neill France S.A.                                   France
Spear & Jackson Garden Products Limited                     England
Spear & Jackson France S.A.                                 France
James Neill Canada, Inc.                                    Canada
Spear & Jackson (Australia) Pty Limited                     Australia
Spear & Jackson (New Zealand) Limited                       New Zealand
James Neill USA, Inc.                                       Illinois
Bowers Metrology Limited                                    England
Bowers Metrology (UK) Limited                               England
CV Instruments Limited                                      England
Spear & Jackson, Inc.                                       Florida
S and J Acquisition Corp.                                   Florida
Mega Tools Ltd                                              Canada
Megatools USA, Inc.                                         Washington
CV Instruments Europe BV                                    The Netherlands
Bowers Eclipse Equipment Shanghai Co. Limited               China
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 632 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 632

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that the rate of 
  reimbursement for motor vehicle travel under the beneficiary travel 
program of the Department of Veterans Affairs shall be the same as the 
     rate for private vehicle reimbursement for Federal employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that the rate of 
  reimbursement for motor vehicle travel under the beneficiary travel 
program of the Department of Veterans Affairs shall be the same as the 
     rate for private vehicle reimbursement for Federal employees.

    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 ``Veterans Travel Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT RATE UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS BENEFICIARY TRAVEL PROGRAM.

    (a) Rate.--Section 111(g) of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(5) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) 
and any other provision of this section, the rate of reimbursement 
under this section for travel by a privately owned motor automobile 
shall be the rate in effect under section 5704 of title 5.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to travel after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,970-01

EX PARTE MARCO ANTONIO LOZANO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. DC78-CR2019-0167*1 IN THE 78 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM WICHITA COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and was placed on deferred

adjudication probation. Following the State’s motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt, alleging

that Applicant had violated his probation conditions. The trial court found a number of those

allegations true, adjudicated Applicant guilty, and sentenced Applicant to eighteen months’

imprisonment in state jail. Applicant did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this application

for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this

Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends, among other things, that adjudication counsel was ineffective for failing

to request a competency evaluation, present mitigating evidence at sentencing, and file a notice of
2

appeal. Applicant also alleges that he is incompetent and was incompetent when he pleaded guilty

and when his guilt was adjudicated. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to

relief. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Argent, 393 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for

findings of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order both plea

counsel and adjudication counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims. In developing the record, the

trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a

hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be

represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately

notify this Court of counsel’s name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether adjudication

counsel’s performance was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court shall also make

specific findings as to whether Applicant was incompetent when he pleaded guiltyand when his guilt

was adjudicated. The trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it deems

appropriate in response to Applicant’s claims.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.
3

Filed: November 02, 2022

Do not publish
# 2017 pop adjustment effect
#### Evelia CAMPUZANO-BLANCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-73915.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Evelia Campuzano Blanco, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Jesse David Lorenz, Esquire, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Evelia Campuzano-Blanco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Campuzano-Blanco’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over nine months after the BIA’s order dismissing the underlying appeal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Campuzano-Blanco failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,*600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2010) (“Asylum is not available to victims of indiscriminate violence, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s November 2, 2009, order dismissing Cam-puzano-Blanco’s appeal from the immigra*650tion judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See Singh v. INS,*815 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2008).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). *See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,*633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir.2011).

Finally, we reject Campuzano-Blanco’s contention that her removal results in the deprivation of her children’s due process rights. *See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales,*423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|Name                               |  | Jurisdiction of Organization        
|---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|ActivCard, Inc.                    |  | California, United States of America
|ActivCard Europe S.A.              |  | France                              
|Safe Data System S.A.              |  | France                              
|ActivCard Asia Pte. Ltd.           |  | Singapore                           
|American Biometric Company Limited |  | Canada                              
|ActivCard K.K.                     |  | Japan                               
|ActivCard Ireland Ltd.             |  | Ireland                             
|Authentic8 International Inc.      |  | Australia                           
|ActivCard South Africa Pty Ltd.    |  | South Africa
Case 2:11-cr-00525-SDW Document 11 Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 23
Case 2:11-cr-00525-SDW Document 11 Filed 11/04/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 24