alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Presidential Documents

43825 

Federal Register 

Vol. 82, No. 180 

Tuesday, September 19, 2017 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of September 18, 2017 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism 

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, the President declared 

a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to 

commit, or support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) to deal with the unusual and 

extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy 

of the United States constituted by grave acts of terrorism and threats of 

terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on 

September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, 

and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United 

States nationals or the United States. 

The actions of persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism 

continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, 

foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the 

national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 

2001, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, 

must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2017. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), 

I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons 

who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism declared in Executive 

Order 13224. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

September 18, 2017. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20127 

Filed 9–18–17; 12:30 pm] 

Billing code 3295–F7–P 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with O0Trump.EPS</GPH>
Petitioner,

v.

JAMES SALMONSEN, Acting Warden,

Respondent.

Clerk of Supreme Coult

State of Montana

ORDER

Petitioner Miguel Gardipee moves this Court for appointment of counsel and

provides a proposed order. In August 2020, Gardipee petitioned this Court for habeas

corpus relief alleging illegal incarceration because of a 2014 sentence.

Gardipee is not entitled to representation of counsel in his original proceeding.

There is no right to the appointrnent of counsel in a proceeding for postconviction relief,

although a court may order the assignment of counsel under the specific criteria outlined

in § 46-8-104(1), MCA. Gardipee has not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances

to justify such appointment here. Section 46-8-104(1)(e), MCA. Even though his case is

still pending before this Court, Gardipee does not need to do anymore or submit any other

argurnents. The State of Montana is due to file a written response this rnonth. After this

Court receives the response, it will issue a decision in due course. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Gardipee's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to

Miguel Gardipee personally.

DATED this day of December, 2020.

For the Court,

Chief Justice
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 10, 2021

NO. 03-19-00087-CR

Appellant, The State of Texas// Cross-Appellant, Saul Jaquez

v.

Appellee, Saul Jaquez// Cross-Appellee, The State of Texas

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal and cross appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s

judgment. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court and 

in the court below.
NUMBER 13-18-00044-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JAMES LOVERDE, M.D., Appellant,

v.

REGIONAL EMPLOYEE 

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 13th District Court 

of Navarro County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant, James LoVerde, M.D., filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 

13th District Court of Navarro County, Texas, in cause number D-16-24991-CV. 1 

 1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco pursuant to a 

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). 
2

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties 

have entered into an agreement resolving the dispute between the parties. Appellant 

requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s unopposed 

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is 

hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) 

("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

/s/ Rogelio Valdez

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed the

19th day of April, 2018.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7549

JIMMY G. BLAKELY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusCOUNTY OF GREENVILLE; GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; GERALD SEALS; JIM DORRIETY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-2468-0-24) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy G. Blakely, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy G. Blakely appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Blakely v. County of Greenville , No. CA-98-2468-0-24 (D.S.C. Oct. 29, 1999). 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>


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                         OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              DBS INDUSTRIES, INC.
                             A DELAWARE CORPORATION

         DBS INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"),

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST: That, at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation,
resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, declaring said amendment to be
advisable and submitting the matter to the vote of the stockholders of the
Corporation. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

         RESOLVED, that Section 5.01 of DBS Industries, Inc.'s Certificate of
Incorporation is amended to read as follows:

         The aggregate number of shares which the Company shall have authority
         to issue is Fifty-Five Million (55,000,000). Fifty Million (50,000,000)
         shares shall be designated "Common Stock" and shall have a par value of
         $0.0004. Five Million (5,000,000) shares shall be designated "Preferred
         Stock" and shall have a par value of $0.0004. All shares of the Company
         shall be issued for such consideration, expressed in dollars, as the
         Board of Directors, may, from time to time, determine.

         SECOND: That the stockholders of the Corporation holding a majority of
the voting power of the Corporation, by written consent in accordance with
Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware, voted in favor of the
amendment.

         THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.


                                      -1-
<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its authorized officer this ___ day of April, 1999.

                                            DBS INDUSTRIES, INC.,
                                            a Delaware Corporation

                                            By:
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Fred Thompson, President

                                        Attest:
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Michael T. Schieber, Secretary


                                      -2-
f8k021111ex10ii_westergaard.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


Supply Agreement


 


Contract No.: 20100712


Place of Signing:Jinjiang


Date: 7/20/2010


Buyer: Fujian Jinjiang Chendai Ansheng Shoes&Clothing Co., Ltd.


Seller: Fujian Hongwei Shoes Plastic Co., Ltd.







1. Name, Specification, Quantity, Price, Delivery Schedule and Quality of the Product



	
Item

	
Specification

	
Unit

	
Quantity

	
Price(RMB)

	
Amount(RMB)

	
Delivery Schedule


	
MD sole

	
 -

	
pear

	
318,288

	
 23.75

	
7,559,340.00

	
 -


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 












2. Quality and Technical Standards, Period and Condition of Quality Guarantee:


Subject to the sample provided after the order is confirmed.







3. Method and Place of Delivery: Ansheng’s warehouse







4. Method, Destination and Cost of Transportation:


The Seller shall bear all the shipping cost.







5. Package Standard, Supply and Recovery of the Packing Material:


Subject to the order.







6. Standard and Method of Inspection and Acceptance, Period for Objection:


Subject to the sample and quality control manual supplied by the Seller.







7. Period and Method of Payment:


When requested by the Buyer, the Supplier shall deliver the products with the ordered quality and quantity to the place designated by the Buyer along with the necessary invoices and documents. The Buyer shall make the payment within 2 month after the delivery.







8. Breach of Contract:


If there is any damage or loss caused by a) delay of delivery; b) quality problem; and/or c) lack of quantity, the Supplier shall bear the liability.







9. Dispute Settlement:


By friendly consultations.







10. Miscellaneous







11. There are two counterparts of this Agreement. This Agreement shall take effect at the date hereof.








	
Buyer

	
Seller


	
/s/ Fujian Hongwei Shoes Plastic Co., Ltd.


Company Name:  Fujian Hongwei Shoes Plastic Co., Ltd.

	
/s/ Fujian Jinjiang Chendai Ansheng Shoes&Clothing Co., Ltd.


Company Name:  Fujian Jinjiang Chendai Ansheng Shoes&Clothing Co., Ltd.


	
Address: Pengtou, Chendai Town, Jinjiang

	
Address: Andou Industry Park


	
Legal Representative:

	
Legal Representative:


	
Agent:

	
Agent:


	
Tel: 0595-85199389

	
Tel:0595-85187788


	
Bank Name:

	
Bank Name:


	
Bank Account:

	
Bank Account:


	
Taxpayer Identification Number:

	
Taxpayer Identification Number:
Order entered November 2 3 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 01017
- CV KALA DHARMA, Appellant

V. WHITLEY PENN, LLP, Appellee On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. DF
- 12
- 12551



### O RDER
We GRANT court reporter Tanner Joy Feast’s November 17, 2015 motion to extend time to file the reporter’s record and ORDER the record be filed no later than December 17,
2015

.
/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

483 KA 10-01267 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

WILLIAM TUTTLE, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAMS, HEINL, MOODY & BUSCHMAN, P.C., AUBURN (RYAN JAMES MULDOON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered March 15, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

                I,Borivoje Vukadinovic, Principal Executive Officer and Principal FinancialOfficer of Retrospettiva, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that:

 

                1.  I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-QSBof the Company;

 

                2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report; and

 

                3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the period presentedin this quarterly report.

 
| Date: February 13, 2008 |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
| /s/ Borivoje  Vukadinovic    |
| Borivoje Vukadinovic         |
| Principal Executive Officer  |
|                         |
| /s/ Borivoje  Vukadinovic    |
| Borivoje Vukadinovic         |
| Principal Financial Officer  |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 11**

 

**STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS**

 

Basic earnings per common share of $0.06 for the three months ended June 30, 2004 were calculated by dividing net income of $183,000 for the period April1, 2004 to June 30, 2004 by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding of 2,968,442. 

 

Basic earnings per common share of $0.13 for the six months ended June 30, 2004 were calculated by dividing net income of $384,000 for the period January1, 2004 to June 30, 2004 by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding of 2,961,219.
#### Ethel MEIXSELL, Administratrix D.B.N. of the Estate of Lambert C. Saddler, Deceased and Frances E. Tallman, Administratrix of the Estate of Ellura G. Saddler, Deceased v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD.

Civ. A. No. 25245.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 23, 1960.

Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Tom P. Monteverde, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Owen B. Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KRAFT, District Judge.

Plaintiffs’ supplemental interrogatories 1 to 11, inclusive, 13 and 14 are filed under F.R.Civ.P. 33, 28 U.S.C.A. Defendant’s basic objection to these interrogatories is that they are clearly requests for admission under F.R.Civ.P. 36. While plaintiff argues that the Court should always look to realities, we cannot ignore the differentiation between the two rules involved, the purposes and functions of which are separate and distinct. Jones v. Boyd Truck Lines, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 67.

Whether these supplemental interrogatories are phrased as ■ they are *153through design or through indifference of counsel is of no moment. If we were to permit all the inquiries authorized by the several rules of discovery to be indiscriminately commingled in one application filed under one rule, we would, under the guise of looking to realities, lend encouragement only to confusion and careless practice. It is not too much to expect of counsel that separate applications be filed in exercise of a party’s rights under Rules 33, 34 and 36. United States v. New Wrinkle, D.C., 16 F.R.D. 35, 36.

Considerations of convenience or brevity must yield to the necessity for order, clarity and precision.

Order

Now, September 23rd, 1960, it is accordingly ordered that defendant’s objections to plaintiffs’ supplemental interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are sustained.

Defendant’s objections to plaintiffs’ supplemental interrogatories 15(a) (b) (c) and 17(a) and (b) are overruled.
#### Meyerson *v.*Alter.*

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana.*

January, 1882.)

Malicious Prosecution — Married Women.

A suit for damages for the malicious prosecution of a married woman must be brought by her husband. Louisiana Code of Practice, art. 107; Louisiana Civil Code, art. 2404.

*Henry J. Lovy*and *E. B. Kruttschnidt,*for plaintiff.

*A. G. Brice,*for defendant.

*

Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of tlie New Orleans bar.'

Billings, D. J.

This is a suit brought by a wife to recover damages for a malicious prosecution. Her husband has subsequently authorized her bringing the suit, but comes “solely to assist her in prosecuting this suit, and as husband does not claim any share in said damages, but joins her to claim the same in her behalf.” The exception interposed by the defendant is that this action must be brought by the husband. It is evident that if the exception be well taken it has not been cured by the paper filed by the husband. So far as the right in law on the part of his wife to maintain the suit, he leaves the matter where he finds it. He does not even do anything which would make him liable for costs. He simply assents that she carry on the suit herself in her own behalf.

*689Tlie textual provisions of tlie law on this subject are found in the Code of Practice, art. 107, and Civil Codo, art. 2404. A series of decisions by the supreme court of Louisana have construed these provisions to mean that where it does not appear that the wife is administering her own property, actions of this sort must be brought by the husband. The mere joinder of the wife lias been treated as surplusage. But no case lias held that the mere assent of the husband is sufficient. The action must ho brought by the husband. *Holmes*v. *Holmes,*9 La. 350; *Cowand*v. *Pulley,*9 La. Ann. 12; *Barton*v. *Kavanaugh,*12 La. Ann. 332; *Cooper*v. *Cappel,*29 La. Ann. 213. This would be the law if the marriage had been contracted and the domicile of the parties to the marriage had been within this state. Civil Code, art. 2400, subjects “non-resident married persons” to the same provisions of law “as regulate the community of acquests and gains between citizens of this state,” so far as relates to “all property acquired in this state.” It is not necessary to give any technical meaning to the word “property” as used by the legislature. The object of the legislature, namely, to subject nonresidents who acquire rights within this state to the same rules as those which govern resident citizens, is manifest, and leaves no doubt but that the word “property” included not only land and chattels, real and personal, but also all dioses in action.

The exception must be maintained.
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


                            NEXTLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
               STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         THREE MONTHS
                                                                             ENDED
                                                                      SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
                                                                 -----------------------------
                                                                 (Dollars in thousands, except
                                                                        per share data)
<S>                                                                      <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding........................       37,873,532
 Net effect of stock options granted and common stock issued 
 during the 12 month period prior to the Company's filing of 
 its initial public offering at less than the offering price, 
 calculated using the treasury stock method at the offering
 price of $17.00 per share, and treated as outstanding for 
 all periods presented............................................        1,383,594
                                                                        ------------
Shares used in computation of net loss per share..................       39,257,126
                                                                        ------------
                                                                        ------------

Net loss..........................................................      $   (31,585)

Preferred stock dividends and accretion of preferred stock 
 redemption obligation, including issue costs.....................          (10,798)
                                                                        ------------
Net loss applicable to common shares..............................      $   (42,383)
                                                                        ------------
                                                                        ------------
</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I Phillip L.
Jones, as Chief Operating Officer of Profile Technologies, Inc., hereby certify
that the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
December 31 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December
31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.



                                            /s/ Phillip L. Jones
                                            --------------------
                                            Phillip L. Jones
                                            Chief Operating Officer