alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6938

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID P. BOWMAN, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-88-12-R, CA-97-301-3) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David P. Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Bowman alleges for the first time on appeal that his sentence was illegal under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). Even if this claim were properly before the court, Bowman was not sentenced above the statutory maximum for the offense ofconviction. As a result, the sentence does not implicate the concerns raised in Apprendi . United States v. Angle , F.3d , 2000 WL 1515159 (4th Cir. Oct. 12, 2000), petition for rehearing filed , Oct. 26, 2000 (No. 96-4662). 2 PER CURIAM: David P. Bowman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Bowman , Nos. CR-88-12-R; CA-97-301-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 31, 1999 & May 5, 2000). 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
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

###### Department of the Air Force

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the forthcoming meeting of the 2004 Science and Technology Quality Review Panel. The purpose of the meeting is to allow the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board to assess the quality and long-term relevance of Air Force Research Laboratory research reviewed in Fall 2004. Because classified and contractor-proprietary information will be discussed, this meeting will be closed to the public. 

# DATES:

December 10, 2004. 

# ADDRESSES:

1560 Wilson Blvd, Suite 400, Arlington VA 22209-2404. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Major Kyle Gresham, Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat, 1180 Air Force Pentagon, Rm 5D982, Washington DC 20330-1180, (703) 697-4808. 

Albert Bodnar, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-26181 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
### §3119. Rehabilitation research and special projects

(a) The Secretary shall carry out an ongoing program of activities for the purpose of advancing the knowledge, methods, techniques, and resources available for use in rehabilitation programs for veterans. For this purpose, the Secretary shall conduct and provide support for the development or conduct, or both the development and conduct, of—

(1) studies and research concerning the psychological, educational, employment, social, vocational, industrial, and economic aspects of the rehabilitation of disabled veterans, including new methods of rehabilitation; and

(2) projects which are designed to increase the resources and potential for accomplishing the rehabilitation of disabled veterans.

(b) For the purpose specified in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary is authorized to make grants to or contract with public or nonprofit agencies, including institutions of higher learning.

(c) The Secretary shall cooperate with the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration and the Director of the Institute of Handicapped Research in the Department of Education, the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment in the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding rehabilitation studies, research, and special projects of mutual programmatic concern.

(Added Pub. L. 96–466, title I, §101(a), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2184, §1519; amended Pub. L. 101–237, title IV, §423(b)(1)(A), Dec. 18, 1989, 103 Stat. 2092; renumbered §3119, Pub. L. 102–83, §5(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 406.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–83 renumbered section 1519 of this title as this section.

1989—Pub. L. 101–237 substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator" wherever appearing.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1980, see section 802(a)(2) of Pub. L. 96–466, set out as a note under section 3100 of this title.
#### Frank A. Krasa, Defendant in Error, v. Nett W. Robbins, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 19,205.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry P. Dolan, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 4, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Frank A. Krasa against Nett W. Bobbins to recover commissions claimed to be earned by plaintiff in procuring a purchaser of defendant’s property. Upon a trial a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. To reverse a judgment entered on the verdict, defendant brings error.

Gustav E. Beerly, for plaintiff in error; Lewis Binakee, of counsel.

George H. Mason, for defendant in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarter!', same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court,

*199Abstract of the Decision.

1. Brokers, § *48*
      ***
      *—when entitled to commissions for procuring purchaser of real estate.*In an action for commissions for procuring a purchaser for defendant’s real estate, a verdict for plaintiff *held*sustained by the evidence, it appearing that plaintiff procured a purchaser at the price he was authorized to sell and that defendant refused to sell at that price or at an increased price and then told plaintiff the property was not for sale, but subsequently sold the property to the purchaser at a greater price.

2. Evidence, § *476*
      ***
      *—when weight of evidence does not depend on number of witnesses.*The testimony of two or more witnesses does not necessarily have greater weight than the testimony of a single opposing witness.
CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Ian G. Jenkins, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Frélii, Inc. (the “Company”)
certify that:



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



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



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



|Date:
    May 21, 2018                             | 
|-------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                   | 
|/s/
    IAN JENKINS                                | 
|Ian
    Jenkins                                    | 
|Principal
    Executive Officer                    | 
|And
    Principal Financial and Accounting Officer |
### §4710. Limitations on tiering of subcontractors

(a) Definition.—In this section, the term "executive agency" has the same meaning given in section 133 of this title.

(b) Regulations.—For executive agencies other than the Department of Defense, the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall—

(1) require contractors to minimize the excessive use of subcontractors, or of tiers of subcontractors, that add no or negligible value; and

(2) ensure that neither a contractor nor a subcontractor receives indirect costs or profit on work performed by a lower-tier subcontractor to which the higher-tier contractor or subcontractor adds no or negligible value (but not to limit charges for indirect costs and profit based on the direct costs of managing lower-tier subcontracts).

(c) Covered Contracts.—This section applies to any cost-reimbursement type contract or task or delivery order in an amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (as defined by section 134 of this title).

(d) Rule of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the ability of the Department of Defense to implement more restrictive limitations on the tiering of subcontractors.

(e) Applicability.—The Department of Defense shall continue to be subject to guidance on limitations on tiering of subcontractors issued by the Department of Defense pursuant to section 852 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364, 10 U.S.C. 2324 note).

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3800.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4710 | 41:254b note. | Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title VIII, §866, Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4551. |

Section

In subsection (b), the words "Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act" are omitted because of section 6(f) of the bill. The word "shall" is substituted for the words "shall be amended" to reflect the permanence of the provision.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2519

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Marc Gibbons,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

 ____________

 Submitted: February 21, 2019

Filed: February 26, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Marc Gibbons directly appeals the sentence the district court

1

imposed after he

pleaded guilty to a firearmoffense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal

waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. 

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because our review of the record

demonstrates that Gibbons entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver

knowingly and voluntarily, his challenge to the sentence falls within the scope of the

appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver.

See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review);

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further, we

have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),

and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal

waiver. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

______________________________

1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-
§ 1052.4 Presiding officer; appointment, duties, powers. ( a ) For oral presentations, the presiding officer shall either be the Chairman of the Commission or a presiding officer shall be appointed by the Chairman with the concurrence of the Commission.
( b ) The presiding officer shall chair the proceedings, shall make appropriate provision for testimony, comments and questions, and shall be responsible for the orderly conduct of the proceedings. The presiding officer shall have all the powers necessary or appropriate to contribute to the equitable and efficient conduct of the oral proceedings including the following: ( 1 ) The right to apportion the time of persons making presentations in an equitable manner in order to complete the presentations within the time period allotted for the proceedings.
( 2 ) The right to terminate or shorten the presentation of any party when, in the view of the presiding officer, such presentation is repetitive or is not relevant to the purpose of the proceedings.
( 3 ) The right to confine the presentations to the issues specified in the notice of oral proceeding or, where no issues are specified, to matters pertinent to the proposed rule or other proceeding.
( 4 ) The right to require a single representative to present the views of two or more persons or groups who have the same or similar interests. The presiding officer shall have the authority to identify groups or persons with the same or similar interests in the proceedings.
( c ) The presiding officer and Commission representatives shall have the right to question persons making an oral presentation as to their testimony and any other relevant matter.
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Steven R. Williams, the Chief Executive Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  the Registrant.

 

_/s/ Steven R. Williams                   

Steven R. Williams

Chief Executive Officer of the 

Managing General Partner of the Registrant

___August 5, 2004_________
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00332]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; RFA Panel: A2CPS--Multisite Clinical Centers and Clinical 
Coordinating Centers.
    Date: February 8, 2019.
    Time: 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Jasenka Borzan, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7814, 301-435-1787, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eb898499918a8581ab889899c5858283c58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97f5f8e5edf6f9fdd7f4e4e5b9f9feffb9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This meeting notice is being published less than 15 days in 
advance of the meeting due to the partial Government shutdown of 
December 2018.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 25, 2019.
Sylvia L. Neal,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-00332 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 1.73 Interpretations. ( a ) *Nature and purpose.* ( 1 ) The Commission issues and causes to be published in the Federal Register interpretations of the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act on its own initiative or pursuant to the application of any person when it appears to the Commission that guidance as to the legal requirements of the Act would be in the public interest and would serve to bring about more widespread and equitable observance of the Act.
( 2 ) The interpretations are not substantive rules and do not have the force or effect of statutory provisions. They are guidelines intended as clarification of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and, like industry guides, are advisory in nature. They represent the Commission's view as to what a particular provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act means for the guidance of the public in conducting its affairs in conformity with that Act, and they provide the basis for voluntary and simultaneous abandonment of unlawful practices by members of industry. Failure to comply with such interpretations may result in corrective action by the Commission under applicable statutory provisions.
( b ) *Procedure.* ( 1 ) Requests for Commission interpretations should be submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission stating the nature of the interpretation requested and the reasons and justification therefor. If the request is granted, as soon as practicable thereafter, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register setting forth the text of the proposed interpretation. Comments, views, or objections, together with the grounds therefor, concerning the proposed interpretation may be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission within 30 days of public notice thereof. The proposed interpretation will automatically become final after the expiration of 60 days from the date of public notice thereof, unless upon consideration of written comments submitted as hereinabove provided, the Commission determines to rescind, revoke, modify, or withdraw the proposed interpretation, in which event notification of such determination will be published in the Federal Register.
( 2 ) The issuance of such interpretations is within the discretion of the Commission and the Commission at any time may conduct such investigations and hold such conferences or hearings as it may deem appropriate. Any interpretation issued pursuant to this chapter is without prejudice to the right of the Commission to reconsider the interpretation, and where the public interest requires, to rescind, revoke, modify, or withdraw the interpretation, in which event notification of such action will be published in the Federal Register.
( c ) *Applicability of interpretations.* Interpretations issued pursuant to this subpart may cover all applications of a particular statutory provision, or they may be limited in application to a particular industry, as appropriate.
[36 FR 9293, May 22, 1971, as amended at 88 FR 42874, July 5, 2023]
§ 970.602 Diligent exploration. ( a ) Each licensee must pursue diligently the activities described in his approved exploration plan. This requirement applies to the full scope of the plan, including environmental safeguards and monitoring systems. To help assure this diligence, terms, conditions and restrictions which the Administrator issues with a license will require such periodic reasonable expenditures for exploration by the licensee as the Administrator may establish, taking into account the size of the area of the deep seabed to which the exploration plan applies and the amount of funds which is estimated by the Administrator to be required during exploration for commercial recovery of hard mineral resources to begin within the time limit established by the Administrator. However, such required expenditures will not be established at a level which would discourage exploration by persons with less costly technology than is prevalently in use.
( b ) In order to fulfill the diligence requirement, the applicant first must propose to the Administrator an estimated schedule of activities and expenditures pursuant to § 970.203(b) (3) and (6). The schedule must show, and the Administrator must be able to make a reasonable determination, that the applicant can complete his exploration activities within the term of the license. In this regard, there must be a reasonable relationship between the size of the exploration area and the financial and technological resources reflected in the application. Also, the exploration must clearly point toward developing the ability, by the end of the 10-year license period, to apply for and obtain a permit for commercial recovery.
( c ) Ultimately, the diligence requirement will involve a retrospective determination by the Administrator, based on the licensee's reasonable conformance to the approved exploration plan. Such determination, however, will take into account the need for some degree of flexibility in an exploration plan. It also will include consideration of the needs and stage of development of each licensee, again based on the approved exploration plan. In addition, the determination will take account of legitimate periods of time when there is no or very low expenditure, and will allow for a certain degree of flexibility for changes encountered by the licensee in such factors as its resource knowledge and financial considerations.
( d ) In order for the Administrator to make determinations on a licensee's adherence to the diligence requirements, the licensee must submit a report annually reflecting his conformance to the schedule of activities and expenditures contained in the license. In case of any changes requiring a revision to an approved license and exploration plan, the licensee must advise the Administrator in accordance with § 970.513.