alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 801.1 Standard definitions. ( a ) Many terms that will be used in official Commission documents may have slightly different meanings to various groups. To avoid confusion and to increase the clarity of the meaning the Commission applies to frequently used terms standard definitions will be utilized.
( b ) The Commission will use the standard definitions set forth for the terms shown in section 1.2 of the Compact,[1] and will add terms and appropriate definitions as deemed necessary.
Footnotes -
801.1
[1] Filed as part of FR Doc. 72-17234, Oct. 7, 1972.
(61 South. 682.)

No. 19,723.

#### STATE v. BUTLER.

(March 31, 1913.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

*Criminal*Law (§ 1131*) — Appeal—Dismissal-Escape.

Where one convicted of a crime appeals, ■but pending the appeal escapes from custody, his appeal will be dismissed.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2971-2979, 2985; Dee. Dig. .§ 1131.*]

Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Robert S. Ellis, Judge.

Roan Butler was convicted of murder, and he appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Sims & Houghton, of Kentwood, for appellant. R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., W. H. Mc-Clendon, Dist. Atty., of Amite City, and G. A. Gondran, of Donaldsonville, for the State.

On Motion to Dismiss.

" BREAUX, C. J.

Appeal from the Twenty-Fifth judicial district court, parish of Tangipahoa.

The accused was tried for murder, and was found guilty, without capital punishment. He appeals from a sentence at hard labor for the term of his natural life.

The Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that defendant escaped from the parish prison since the appeal was taken; that he is at large and a fugitive.

The facts relating to defendant’s escape and showing that he is a fugitive are sustained by the sworn statement of the sheriff of the parish of Tangipahoa and are not denied.

The decisions hold that an appeal will not be heard, and that it must be dismissed, when an accused escapes from custody.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### § 25.1 Contents of application.

Any application for vacation of a reservation effected by the filing of an application for preliminary permit or license, or for a determination under the provisions of section 24 of the Act permitting restoration for location, entry, or selection under the public lands laws, or such lands reserved or classified as power sites shall, unless the subject lands are National Forest Lands, be filed with the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, at the Bureau's office in Washington, DC or at the appropriate regional or field office of the Bureau. If the lands included in such application are National Forest Lands, the application shall be filed with the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture at the Forest Service's office in Washington, DC, or at the appropriate regional office of the U.S. Forest Service. Such application shall contain the following data: (a) Full name of applicant; (b) post-office address; (c) description of land by legal subdivisions, including section, township, range, meridian, county, State, and river basin (both main and tributary) in which the land is located; (d) public land act under which entry is intended to be made if land is restored to entry; (e) the use to which it is proposed to put the land, and a statement as to its suitability for the intended use.

(Secs. 24, 309, 41 Stat. 1075, as amended; 49 Stat. 858; [16 USC. 818](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/818), [825h](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/825h))

[Order 175, [19 FR 5218](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/19-FR-5218), Aug. 18, 1954, as amended by Order 346, [32 FR 7495](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/32-FR-7495), May 20, 1967]

Cross Reference:

For entries subject to section 24 of the Federal Power Act, see also [43 CFR subpart 2320](/on/2024-07-29/title-43/subpart-2320).
(function ($, Drupal) {
  Drupal.behaviors.homeBannerCarousel = {
    attach: function attach(context) {

      $('.home-video').slick({
        // setting-name: setting-value
        // See https://kenwheeler.github.io/slick/#settings
        slidesToShow: 1,
        autoplay: true,
        autoplaySpeed: 7000,
        dots: true,
        prevArrow: $(".hero-slick-prev"),
        appendDots: $(".hero-slick-dots"),
        nextArrow: $(".hero-slick-next"),
      });

    }
  };
})(jQuery, Drupal);
| 1)   | a stock Option granted pursuant to the 2066 Omnibus Incentive Plan to acquire 5000 shares of Company stock. The Option price (exercise price) for this stock Option shall be the closing price for Company stock on the NYSE on July 2, 2007. This date will also be the date on which vesting commences for the shares subject of the Option grant. Shares subject to this stock Option shall vest ratably over a consecutive 3 year period; |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2)   | a grant of Shares of Restricted Stock pursuant to the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Plan having a value (excluding fractional shares) equal to US$35,000 at the close of business on the NYSE on July 2, 2007. The vesting period for the Shares of Restricted Stock shall commence on July 2, 2007 and such Shares shall vest ratably over a consecutive 4 year period; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3)   | a check for US$65,000, less the dollar value of the Share of Restricted Stock granted under subparagraph (2) above at the price of the Company stock on the NYSE at the close of business on July 2, 2007, payable within one week thereof. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Article Search 

# Article search

## Article Listing Lookup

                        -            Memo         The SBA issues a final rule to adopt increases to the alternative size standard for inflation and adjust limits for the Surety Bond Guarantee Program.February 22, 2024 
                        -            Memo         SBA issues 2023 White Paper on its Size Standards MethodologyDecember 11, 2023 
                        -            Memo         The SBA Issues a Report on the Second Five-Year Comprehensive Review of Size StandardsJune 2, 2023 
                        -            Memo         SBA Revises Small Business Size Standards in Manufacturing and Other Industries with Employee-Based Size StandardsFebruary 17, 2023 
                        -            Memo         SBA Issues Rule Adjusting Monetary Size Standards for InflationNovember 21, 2022 
                        -            Memo         The SBA Issues a Final Rule to Adopt NAICS 2022 for Small Business Size StandardsOctober 3, 2022 
                        -            Memo         Virtual public forum on changes to size standards in nine industrial sectorsJune 1, 2022 
                        -            Memo         SBA Proposes Revisions to Employee-Based Size Standards in Manufacturing and Other Industry SectorsApril 29, 2022 
                        -            Memo         SBA Revises Small Business Size Standard in Five Industry SectorsMarch 31, 2022 

#### Pagination

-                  Current page              1 
-                  Page              2 
-                  Page              3 
-                  Page              4 
-  Next
### SUBCHAPTER LXXIV—SPRUCE KNOB-SENECA ROCKS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.01
                         LIST OF REGISTRANT'S SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Percentage Owned By          
Macromedia, Inc.                                     Country of Organization
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                  <C>
Macromedia Europe Limited                            England
100%

Macromedia KK                                        Japan
100%

Macromedia Ireland (PTY) Ltd.                        Ireland
100%

Macromedia Canada Ltd.                               Canada
100%

<CAPTION>

Percentage Owned By          
Macromedia Ireland (PTY) Ltd.     
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                  <C>
Macromedia Netherlands B.V                           Netherlands
100%

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0001101176
<NAME>     iLive, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          36
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            103188
<PP&E>                                       97173
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              217978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2684204
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     21313
<OTHER-SE>                                (2466226)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                217978
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           88842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (404061)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (7809)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (411870)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.03)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

| |  |  |  | CERTIFICATION |  | OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-QSB of ASP Ventures Corp. (Registrant) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Nora Coccaro, chief executive officer and chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|(1) |  | This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of Registrant at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of Registrant for the period covered by this Report.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Nora Coccaro

Nora Coccaro

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

May 12, 2006

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §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 Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 133821 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133821 COA: 266619 Cass CC: 05-010031-FC; DERRICK LAWAYNE DEALS, 05-010057-FC Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 20, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; K99 Grant Applications Review.                    

*Date:*                         April 4, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         John J. Laffan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18J, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2773,                         *laffanjo@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 3, 2011.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-5355 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7348
JAMES ALLEN SMITH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDWARD WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cv-560-LMB) Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 22, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Allen Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Allen Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss 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
§ 592.130 How application for service may be made. ( a ) On a fee basis. An application for service may be made with any inspection program personnel at or nearest the place where the service is desired. Such application for service may be made orally (in person or by telephone), in writing or by transmission. If an application for inspection service is made orally, the inspection program personnel with whom such application is made, or the Administrator, may require that the application be confirmed in writing.
( b ) Form of application. Each application for inspection of a specified lot of any product shall include such information as may be required by the Administrator in regard to the product and the premises where such product is to be inspected.
#### § 2.24 Project decommissioning at relicensing.

The Commission issued a statement of policy on project decommissioning at relicensing in Docket No. RM93-23-000 on December 14, 1994.

[60 FR 347, Jan. 4, 1995]
#### § 2.201 [Reserved]
### Part B—Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
### SUBCHAPTER I—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
### SUBCHAPTER III—PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES DISPERSAL
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20444 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus STEVEN D. LUCK, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-115-ALL

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Steven D. Luck appeals his sentence for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Luck’s offenses occurred prior to the decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
and he was sentenced after Booker was decided. Luck argues that, although he is entitled to retroactive application of Booker ’s Sixth Amendment holding, the remedial portion of Booker ’s holding, which made the Sentencing Guidelines advisory, may not be applied in his case without violating the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Constitution. He thus argues thatNo. 05-20444 -2- the district court should have applied the Guidelines as mandatory in his case but should not have enhanced his sentence based on facts that were not charged in the superceding information and were neither admitted by him nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As Luck concedes, this argument is
foreclosed. See United States v. Austin , 432 F.3d 598, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Scroggins , 411 F.3d 572, 575-76 (5th Cir. 2005). He has raised the issue to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.