alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23146]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51; DA 17-980]


Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by the Interstate 
Telecommunications Relay Service Advisory Council.

DATES: Comments to the Petition must be filed on or before November 9, 
2017. Reply Comments must be filed on or before November 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Scott, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f8b5919b90999d94d6ab9b978c8cb89e9b9bd69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8f5d1dbd0d9ddd496ebdbd7ccccf8dedbdb96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>; phone: (202) 
418-1264.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document DA 17-980, released October 6, 2017. The full text of the 
Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System at: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10921132140710/Interstate%20TRS%20Advisory%20Council%20PFR%209.21.2017%20filed.pdf. 
The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) 
submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant 
to the CRA, 5.U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted 
by the Commission.
    Subject: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; 
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, FCC 17-86, 
published at 82 FR 39673, August 22, 2017 in CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 
10-51. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). 
See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.
Karen Peltz Strauss,
Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2017-23146 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1


Section 1350 Certification





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Direct Industries, Inc. (the "Company") for the six month period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Yuejian (James) Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Andrew X. Wang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: May 13, 2010



/s/    Yuejian (James) WangYuejian (James) Wang

Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 13, 2010



/s/    Andrew X. WangAndrew X. Wang

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Tommy Kwong-Yu Lee, Respondent, v Oi Wa Chan, Appellant.

[664 NYS2d 828]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), entered August 26, 1996, which, *inter alia,*(1) awarded the plaintiff husband $38,550 (less a credit to the defendant wife of $2,150), representing one-half of the value of the marital property, (2) directed the defendant wife to turn over to the plaintiff husband certain specified personal property, (3) awarded the plaintiff husband a 1994 Mazda automobile as his sole and separate property, and (4) awarded the plaintiff husband $25,731.38 for counsel fees.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting the tenth decretal paragraph thereof awarding the plaintiff husband counsel fees and substituting therefor a decretal paragraph denying the husband’s application for counsel fees; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court’s granting of the husband’s application for counsel fees was an improvident exercise of discretion. “Although the matter of counsel fees is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, it is ‘nonetheless to be controlled by the equities of the case and the financial circumstances of the parties’ ” *(Kavanakudiyil v Kavanakudiyil,*203 AD2d 250, 242, quoting *Maimon v Maimon,*178 AD2d 635; *see,*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; *Matter of O’Neil v O’Neil,*193 AD2d 16, 20). We note that the fees charged by the husband’s counsel appear to be far in éxcess of the wife’s current ability to pay. Moreover, the husband’s income and his earning capacity is clearly greater than the wife’s *(see, Maimon v Maimon, supra).*

There is also no basis in the record to support the Supreme Court’s determination that the wife engaged in any dilatory or obstructionist tactics in defending the matrimonial action *(cf., Stern v Stern,*67 AD2d 253; *Schussler v Schussler,*109 AD2d 875) so that despite her limited financial resources she should be responsible for the husband’s counsel fees *(see, Pontorno v Pontorno,*172 AD2d 734, 735).

The wife’s remaining contentions lack merit. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,500
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,191
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    16,252
<OTHER-SE>                                 (45,943)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,500
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
#### Bea Schifren, Appellant, v Waldbaums, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[665 NYS2d 860]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered October 16, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination granting defendant Waldbaums, Inc.’s motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to Suffolk County, unanimously reversed, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion to the extent it sought a change of venue denied.

Although defendant Waldbaums knew the relevant facts, it failed to timely move for a change of venue (CPLR 511). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.
---

Exhibit 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

|Name of Subsidiary                                                        | Jurisdiction of        | %    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | -----
|                                                                          | Organization           | Owned
|Media Challenge
      Holdings Limited                                    | British Virgin Islands | 100% 
|Shenzhen New Media Consulting Co.,
      Ltd.                             | China                  | 100% 
|Shenzhen Media
      Investment Co., Ltd.                                 | China                  | 100% 
|Shenzhen New Media Advertising Company
      Ltd.                         | China                  | 100% 
|Shenzhen Caina Brand
      Consultant Company                             | China                  | 100% 
|Shanghai Zhiduo Network Technology Company
      Limited                  | China                  | 51%  
|Beijing Media
      Management Consultation Company                       | China                  | 100% 
|Shenzhen Keungxi Technology Company
      Ltd.                            | China                  | 48%  
|Beijing Orient Converge Human
      Resources Management Center Co., Ltd. | China                  | 10%  
|Beijing Caina Xianliang Marketing and Layout
      Company                | China                  | 100% 





---
Exhibit 23.0

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.333-138651) and Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.333-64177) of our reports dated February 16, 2007, relating to Intervest Bancshares Corporation and Subsidiaries consolidated financial
statements and its managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Hacker, Johnson & Smith, P.A., P.C.
|Hacker, Johnson & Smith, P.A., P.C.    
|Tampa, Florida                         
|February 16, 2007
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 annual report of Beijing Century Health Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, Chief 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, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. /s/Wilson CheungWilson Cheung, Chief Executive Officer Date: February 18, 2011
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua HALL, Defendant-Appellant, v. Robert Michael Woolf, Movant.

No. 07-7660.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 30, 2008.

Decided: May 9, 2008.

Jeffrey Michael Brandt, Robinson *&*Brandt, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. David Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose*
      *319
      *v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Hall has not made the requisite showing. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### The People of The State of New York ex rel. Ronald Ackridge, Appellant, v Michael Sheahan, Superintendent, Five Points Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[987 NYS2d 590]

Motion for reargument denied.

Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48254-48255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22479]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES


Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice 
of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial 
Examinations.

DATES: The meeting will be held on November 3, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Conduent, 420 Lexington Avenue, 
New York, NY 10170.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated 
Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, at 703-
414-2163.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial 
Examinations will meet at Conduent, 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 
10170, on November 3, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that 
may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in 
actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 
U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).
    A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.,

[[Page 48255]]

that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open 
meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that 
the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public 
participation.

    Dated: October 10, 2017.
David M. Ziegler,
Chair, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
[FR Doc. 2017-22479 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0671

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

GENE DEVERAUX,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including Ocotber 9, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 2 2020

09/02/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0671
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,

Appellant

v.

INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1546

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

01248.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JAMES MURPHY DOWD, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale 

and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also 

represented by HENRY NIKOGOSYAN; MARK DONNELL 

FLANAGAN, JOSEPH F. HAAG, Palo Alto, CA. 

 DOUGLAS R. WILSON, Armond Wilson LLP, Austin, TX, 

argued for appellee. Also represented by MICHELLE 

ARMOND, JOSEPHER LI, PATRICK MALONEY, Newport Beach, 

CA. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 22-1546 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2023
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, PROST, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

September 8, 2023 

Date

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1546 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 09/08/2023
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 17, 2024

No. 04

- 23

- 00832

- CV

ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. d/b/a EISG, Inc., Barry Esene, and Ruthie Esene, Appellants

v.

HOLT TEXAS LTD

, Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2021

- CI

- 13443 Honorable Christine Vasquez

- Hortick , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion on this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF JURISDICTION. We ORDER appellant to pa y the costs of this appeal.

It is so ORDERED on January 17, 2024

.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 17th day of January, 2024

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
Exhibit 4.2


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
      4.2

    
 

    
      	
              Invoice
                Summary

               

              Invoice:Summary
                07/01/06 - 02/28/2007 

              Date:
                Feb. 02/23/2007

            	
              Mark
                Rumph

              8
                Silkberry

              Irvine,
                CA 92604

              (949)
                394 5537

            


    

     

    
      	
               

              To: 
                Cobalis

                     
                2445 McCabe Way

                     
                Irvine, CA 92614

                     
                949-757-0001

               

            	
               

              Ship
                to (if different address):

            


    

     

    
      	
              Hours

            	
              DESCRIPTION

            	
              Unit
                Price

            	
              TOTAL

            
	 	
               

              07/01/2006
                - 07/31/2006                      Invoice
                # 241

               

              08/01/2006
                - 08/31/2006                      Invoice
                # 242

               

              09/01/2006
                - 09/30/2006                      Invoice
                # 243

               

              10/01/2006
                - 10/31/2006                      Invoice
                # 244

               

              11/01/2006
                - 11/30/2006                      Invoice
                # 245

               

              12/01/2006
                - 12/31/2006                      Invoice
                # 246

               

              01/01/2007
                - 10/31/2007                      Invoice
                # 247

               

              02/01/2007
                - 02/28/2007                      Invoice
                # 248

               

               

               

            	
               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

            	
               

              $2,025.00

               

              $950.00

               

              $2,150.00

               

              $1,240.00

               

              $900.00

               

              $1,500.00

               

              $1,250.00

               

              $1,350.00

               

            
	
              Sub
                Total   

            	
              $11,365.00

            
	
              TOTAL
                DUE    

            	
              $11,365.00

            


    

     

     

    1