alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
SPEAKERSCONTENTSINSERTS
```

```
Page 1TOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 2PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 3PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 4PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 5PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 6PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 7PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 8PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 9PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 10PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 11PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 12PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 13PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 14PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 15PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 16PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 17PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 18PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 19PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 20PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 21PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```
NO. 07-09-0023-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

MARCH 16, 2009

______________________________

MIGUEL ANGEL CHAVEZ, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY;

NO. 62419; HON. MARTHA J. TRUDO, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Miguel Angel Chavez appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.  The certification of right of appeal executed by the trial court states that this is “a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “defendant has waived the right of appeal.”  No clerk’s record has been filed.  By letter dated February 3, 2009, this Court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal based on the certification unless the Court received an amended certification providing the right of appeal or appellant provided other grounds for continuing the appeal.  No amended certification was received during the time we allotted, nor has appellant informed us of any other grounds for continuing the appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).

							James T. Campbell

							          Justice

Do not publish.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan Dennis OSBORN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4785.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2002.

Decided May 7, 2002.

J. Clark Fischer, Randolph & Fischer, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Alan Dennis Osborn appeals his sentence to eighty-four months in prison and three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to a charge by information of knowingly transporting and shipping in interstate commerce child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(l) (West 2000). First, Osborn argues the district court erred when it applied a five-level enhancement under *U.S. Sentencing*
      *62
      *Guidelines Manual*§ 2G2.2(b)(2)(B) (2000) for distribution of child pornography for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value. We review the district court’s legal interpretations of the sentencing guidelines de novo and the underlying factual determinations for clear error. *United States v. Williams,*253 F.3d 789, 791-92 (4th Cir.2001). We have reviewed the district court’s ruling and conclude the evidence was sufficient to conclude Osborn traded child pornographic material over the Internet within the meaning of the sentencing enhancement.

Second, Osborn argues the district court erred when it applied a four-level enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(3) because the offense involved material portraying sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence. Based on the depictions of young children being penetrated by adults and foreign objects, we conclude the enhancement was applicable. *See United States v. Parker,*267 F.3d 839, 847 (8th Cir.2001), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1592, — L.Ed.2d-(2002); *United States v. Lyckman,*235 F.3d 234, 239 (5th Cir.2000), *cert. denied,*532 U.S. 986, 121 S.Ct. 1634, 149 L.Ed.2d 494 (2001); *United States v. Garrett,*190 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir.1999); *United States v. Delmarle,*99 F.3d 80, 83 (2d Cir.1996).

Accordingly, we affirm Osborn’s conviction and sentence. 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>


                                                                    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



         This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and accompanies the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Form 10-K")
of Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. (the "Issuer").

     I, Jeffrey L. Karafa, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer,
     certify that:

     (i)  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.



Dated: November 10, 2004
                                             /s/ Jeffrey L. Karafa
                                      -------------------------------------
                                               Jeffrey L. Karafa
                                      Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer,
                                              Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY QUICKLOOK CRITERIA PARAMETERS Sep. 17, 2010 Report Request ID: 791187 Report Code: AMP450

Selection Criteria Page1 User ID:FMC

State County City

Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA EPA Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date 04 04 04 007

023 003 1001 GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

PROTOCOL SELECTIONS Parameter Classification Parameter Method Duration 81102 SELECTED OPTIONS
EVENTS PROCESSING MERGE PDF FILES Option Type Option Value EXCLUDE REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENTS

YES SORT ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Order Column

PARAMETER_CODE STATE_CODE COUNTY_CODE SITE_ID POC DATES EDT_ID GLOBAL DATES 1991 Start Date End Date 1991 Tribal

APPLICABLE STANDARDS Standard Description PM10 24-hour 2006Sep. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)



### Page 1of 4 EXCEPTIONAL DATA TYPES EDT DESCRIPTION 0 1 2 5 NO EVENTS EVENTS EXCLUDED EVENTS INCLUDED EVENTS WITH CONCURRENCE EXCLUDEDSep. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)



### Page2of 4 PM10 Total 0-10um STP (81102) Arizona Micrograms/cubic meter (25 C) (001)

SITE ID P

O C PQAO CITY COUNTY ADDRESS YEAR METH #OBS 4TH MAX CERTEDT 04-003-0011 04-003-1004 04-007-1001 04-023-0004 1

1 1 1 0053 0053 0053 0053 Paul Spur Douglas Hayden Nogales Cochise

Cochise Gila Santa Cruz HOUSING AREA, PAUL SPUR 15TH ST PARK, DOUGLAS JAIL-CANYON DR, HAYDEN 300 N MORLEY AVE 1991

1991 1991 1991 064

063 062 064 247 233 132 164 Y Y Y Y 0 0 0 0 24-HOUR VALID DAYS 60 60 60 60 DAY MAX >150 1 1 0 1 56 52 57 58 %OBS 93 87 95 97 1ST MAX 2ND MAX 3RD MAX 154 120 81 149 145

85 80 112 132

82 71 110 EST

DAYS >150 6.429 6.133 0 6.133 65.4

38.9* 36.2 50.0 WTD ARITH MEAN 56 52 57 58 NUM REQSep. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)



### Page3of 4 81102 81102 81102 062

063 064 HI-VOL-WEDDING-INLET

HI-VOL SA/GMW-1200 HI-VOL-SA/GMW-321-B GRAVIMETRIC GRAVIMETRIC GRAVIMETRIC PARAMETER METHOD

CODE COLLECTION METHOD ANALYSIS METHOD METHODS USED IN THIS REPORTSep. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)



### Page 4of 4 PQAOS USED IN THIS REPORT

PQAO AGENCY DESCRIPTION 0053 Arizona Department Of Environmental Quality
#### In the Matter of the Application of James Scovell, an Attorney.

Motion for reinstatement to practice as an attorney and counselor at law granted. Present — Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. AC19-30-000]

Take notice that on November 28, 2018, Virginia Electric and Power Company filed a request for approval to use Account 439, authorized by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible online at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comments:*                     5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 18, 2018.                

Dated: December 12, 2018.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-27302 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### § 191.12 Claim filed under incorrect provision.

A drawback claim filed pursuant to any provision of § 313 of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1313) may be deemed filed pursuant to any other provision thereof should the drawback office determine that drawback is not allowable under the provision as originally filed, but that it is allowable under such other provision. To be allowable under such other provision, the claim must meet each of the requirements of such provision. The claimant may raise alternative provisions prior to liquidation or by protest.

[T.D. 98-16, 63 FR 11006, Mar. 5, 1998; 63 FR 15288, Mar. 31, 1998]
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In re J.N., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5457.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2016-O HIO -5457
I N RE J.N. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In re J.N., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5457.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of In re D.S. (No. 2015-1977—Submitted July 13, 2016—Decided August 23, 2016.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 15AP-159, 2015-Ohio-4464.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeal s is affirmed on the authority of
In re D.S. , 146 Ohio St.3d 182, 2016-Ohio-1027, 54 N.E.3d 1184.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , and F RENCH , JJ., concur.
P FEIFER , L ANZINGER , and O’N EILL , JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in In re D.S.

_________________ Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine J. Press, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee, state of Ohio.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Yeura R. Venters, Franklin County P ublic Defender, and David L. Strait, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant, J.N.

_________________
## Environmental Quality Council Public Hearing October 5, 2012--Public Notice
Newspaper Date ofPublication Casper StarTribune August 1 and 2, 2012 Gillette News Record August 2, 2012 Cody Enterprise August 1, 2012 Wyoming Tribune-Eagle August 2, 2012 Rock Springs Daily RocketMiner August 1, 2012
§ 1320.13 Emergency processing. An agency head or the Senior Official, or their designee, may request OMB to authorize emergency processing of submissions of collections of information. ( a ) Any such request shall be accompanied by a written determination that: ( 1 ) The collection of information: ( i ) Is needed prior to the expiration of time periods established under this Part; and
( ii ) Is essential to the mission of the agency; and
( 2 ) The agency cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance procedures under this part because: ( i ) Public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed;
( ii ) An unanticipated event has occurred; or
( iii ) The use of normal clearance procedures is reasonably likely to prevent or disrupt the collection of information or is reasonably likely to cause a statutory or court ordered deadline to be missed.
( b ) The agency shall state the time period within which OMB should approve or disapprove the collection of information.
( c ) The agency shall submit information indicating that it has taken all practicable steps to consult with interested agencies and members of the public in order to minimize the burden of the collection of information.
( d ) The agency shall set forth in the Federal Register notice prescribed by § 1320.5(a)(1)(iv), unless waived or modified under this section, a statement that it is requesting emergency processing, and the time period stated under paragraph (b) of this section.
( e ) OMB shall approve or disapprove each such submission within the time period stated under paragraph (b) of this section, provided that such time period is consistent with the purposes of this Act.
( f ) If OMB approves the collection of information, it shall assign a control number valid for a maximum of 90 days after receipt of the agency submission.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Force Protection in Urban and Unconventional Environments will meet in closed session on October 27-28, 2004, at Strategic Analysis, Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. This Task Force will review and evaluate force protection capabilities in urban and unconventional environments and provide recommendations to effect change to the future Joint Force.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. Specifically, the Task Force's foci will be to evaluate force protection in the context of post major combat operations that have been conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the operations, loss of national treasure—military and civilian, U.S. and other nations—has resulted from actions executed by non-state and rogue actors. The threat and capabilities these insurgent, terrorist and criminal actions present pose a most serious challenge to our ability to achieve unified action. 

In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, these meetings will be closed to the public. 

Due to scheduling difficulties, there is insufficient time to provide timely notice required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Subsection 101-6.1015(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR part 101-6, which further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting.

Dated: October 20, 2004.

Linda Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04-23885 Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6293

In Re: ALEXANDER CAMERON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 6, 2005

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Cameron, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Cameron petitions for a writ of mandamus,

seeking an order to compel Judge Donald M. Haddock of the Circuit

Court for the City of Alexandria, Virginia, to summon and allow

Cameron to confront the person who conducted DNA testing on alleged

evidence stemming from Cameron’s 1987 criminal conviction.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). This court does not

have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials.

See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586,

587 (4th Cir. 1969).

The relief sought by Cameron is not available by way of

mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 Certification

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the Form 10-K) of Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (the Company), I, Joe A. Shearin, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods presented in the Form 10-K.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                        |  |  |  |                      |  | 
|--- |  | -------------------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ Joe A. Shearin                     |  |  |  | Date: March 10, 2009
|    |  | Joe A. Shearin Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |                      |  |
#### § 1639.2 Application of other regulations; scope.

All provisions of the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 4 CFR chapter II, apply to the regulations of this part. This part supplements 4 CFR chapter II by the prescription of procedures and directives necessary and appropriate for operations of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. The Federal Claims Collection Standards and this part do not apply to any claim as to which there is an indication of fraud or misrepresentation, as described in 4 CFR 101.3, unless returned by the Department of Justice to the Board for handling.
###### Editorial Note on Part 141

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 141 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 141.42 Protests.

Powers of attorney to file protests are subject to the requirements set forth in § 174.3 of this chapter.
###### Editorial Note on Part 152

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 152 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93022, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### §§ 152.20-152.22 [Reserved]