alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page **1** of **1** 

## U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Directorate for Engineering Sciences (ES)

Telephone Log

SUBJECT: E valuating Bassinet / Play Yard Mattress Flatness

DATE OF MEETING: 10 May 20 10

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Han Lim , ES

LOCATION: Via Teleconference

CPSC A TTENDEE(S): Han Lim

, ES

NON

- CPSC ATTENDEE(S): Tony Fernandes (Dorel / Leader for the Bassinet Rock/Swing/Flatness Angle Task Group); Russ Butson (Kolcraft); Sam Shamie (Delta)

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

The teleconference started at approximately 10 : 4 0 AM Eas tern Time.

The group raised concerns of the possible inconsistencies of using a CAMI dummy for evaluating bassinet

/ play yard mattress flatness. Mr. Lim discussed the possible use of a triangle probe and a rigid cylinder in lieu of actually measuring an angle. Kids II representatives of the task group suggested the use of the triangle probe (see Telephone Log, 7 April 2010

, Evaluating B assinet/ Play yard Mattress Flatness ), and CPSC L aboratory Sciences engineer ing

staff suggested the use of a cylinder in place of the CAMI dummy

. T he rigid cylinder might produce more consistent test results, since the cylinder would be capable of creating the same footprint on a mattress and therefore reduce test variability. The cylinder c ould be the same as

the one pro posed for the infant walker regulation and has the same weight and torso

dimensions as a 17 lb Mark II CAMI dummy. Mr. Lim explained that the triangle probe concept

as a pass /

fail test

, requir ing visual inspection instead of quantifying an angle measureme nt as described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

. The probe would mimic the anthropometric mouth breadth and nose depth of the infant that could potentially become entrapped in two mattress panels of a bassinet / play yard combination product. The same suffocation hazard

would be addressed

, but this test method may be simpler and could potentially be more repeatable.

T he possibility of replacing the CAMI dummy with a cylinder in the rock/swing angle test was also discussed

. If a cylinder is used , th e wood block may have limitations for mounting the

inclinometer as described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

. Mr. Shamie expressed concern about the cylinder rolling during the rest angle measurement.

The dimensions of the triangle probe were disc ussed . Mr. Lim said he would study this concept

with CPSC Health Sciences and Human Factors staff

. T he group agreed to meet again at a

later date.

The teleconference ended at approximately 11:00 AM Eastern Time.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,015-01
EX P ARTE JES SY RODRIG UEZ , Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1453117-A IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y o u ng , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g ravat ed robber y and sentenc ed to thirty -eight y ear s’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Rodriguez v. State , 521 S.W .3d 822 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2017). Applicant conte nds that he is a ctually innocent and trial c ounsel was inef fec tive. The trial 1

In his pleading s, Applicant points to Ex hibit B, an a ffidavit fr om Kyle Mutters. His 1 aff idavit was not forw arde d with the rec ord. I f his aff idavit was filed with this application, it shall be for

war ded with the supplementa l rec ord.2

court signe d a timely order d es i gn at ing issues, but this application was forwa rded befor e the trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusions of law. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 5). We rema nd this application so the trial court can complete an evidentiar y investigation and make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law
. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 9 0 d ay s of this order
. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwa rded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order
. Any extensions of time must be reque sted by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.
Filed: August 21, 2019 Do not publish
Si()-l()()4()7-()23 

CITY OF JOHNSON CITY 

TENNESSEE 

orrici".or TMFCITY MAYOR 

March 25,2010 

The Honorable Raymond H, LaHood 

Secretai> 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-«»I 

Dear Mr. Secretar>': 

It is iny pleasure_ip,take this opportunity to express our support for the application for antitrust 

irnfnunityaiitl'prQposcd joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The 

proposed "alliance between thesetwo airlines is vital for oneworld to compete effectively with the Star and 

SkyTeam alliance. This increased interalliance competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the 

Department's Open Skies policy - first by solidifying U.S.-Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a 

foundation for fUrther liberalization across Asia. 

On behalf of the Board of Commissioners here in Johnson City we encourage the Department of 

Transportation to approve this application as it would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work 

closely together to deliver highly competitive air transportation services, and improve the possibility of 

global economic development. Approval for AA/JAL alUance will have a positive impact on air travel by 

offerinfj oistomerii more cer-'ice, cohcduling and piiciiig upiiuns and wiii help xo ensure tnat customers 

continue to benefit from having three competitive air alliances to choose from. 

Please consider swifl and prompt endorsement of this application. 

Sincerely, ... 

LWjMyrpni.Maypr, ; 

''City.of Johnson City<.; 

MUNICIPAL & SAFETY BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 2150 JOHNSNON CITY TENNESSEE 37605-2150 

PHONE (423) 434-6000 FAX (423) 434-6295
### §1990. Marshal to obey precepts; refusing to receive or execute process

Every marshal and deputy marshal shall obey and execute all warrants or other process, when directed to him, issued under the provisions of section 1989 of this title. Every marshal and deputy marshal who refuses to receive any warrant or other process when tendered to him, issued in pursuance of the provisions of this section, or refuses or neglects to use all proper means diligently to execute the same, shall be liable to a fine in the sum of $1,000, for the benefit of the party aggrieved thereby.

(R.S. §§1985, 5517.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §1985 derived from acts Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, §5, 14 Stat. 28; May 31, 1870, ch. 114, §10, 16 Stat. 142.

R.S. §5517 derived from act May 31, 1870, ch. 114, §10, 16 Stat. 142.

Section was formerly classified to section 51 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
Part 5344 – Subcontracting Policies and

Procedures

DAFFARS PART 5344 Knowledge Center

Revised: June 2023

SUBPART 5344.2 – CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACTS

5344.201-1 Consent Requirements

5344.202-1 Responsibilities

5344.202-2 Considerations

Subpart 5344.3 – CONTRACTOR PURCHASING SYSTEM REVIEWS

5344.302 Requirements

SUBPART 5344.2 – CONSENT TO SUBCONTRACTS

5344.201-1 Consent Requirements

(a) If the contract is a space program contract to which SSCI 64-101 applies, contracting officers

shall include the CRWL SSC Clause FAR 52.244-2 Subcontracts Attachment (APR 2022, in full text.

See DAFFARS 5309.103(b)(i).

5344.202-1 Responsibilities

(a) The contracting officer shall withhold subcontract consent responsibility from the administering

contracting officer for all space program contracts to which SSCI 64-101 applies, and shall review

and disposition consent requests, including those submitted pursuant to the CRWL SSC Clause FAR

52.244-2 Subcontracts Attachment (APR 2022,paragraph (k). See DAFFARS 5309.103(b)(i).

5344.202-2 Considerations

(a) If the contract is a space program contract to which SSCI 64-101 applies, contracting officers

shall follow the procedures at SSCI 64-101 when the contractor has submitted a written request for

consent to subcontract with a contractor on the Space Contractor Responsibility Watch List (CRWL).

See DAFFARS 5309.103(b)(i).
Subpart 5344.3 – CONTRACTOR PURCHASING SYSTEM

REVIEWS

5344.302 Requirements

(a) See MP5301.601(a)(i).
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74568-74569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27370]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multilingual 
Initiative (MLI) Issue Committee Will Be Conducted (Via Teleconference)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multilingual 
Initiative (MLI) Issue Committee will be conducted (via 
teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 
comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, January 11, 2005 from 3 p.m. 
to 4 p.m. e.t.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inez E. De Jesus at 1-888-912-1227, or 
954-423-7977.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multilingual 
Initiative Issue Committee will be held Tuesday, January 11, 2005 from 
3 p.m. to 4 p.m. e.t. via a telephone conference call. If you would 
like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-
912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write Inez E. De Jesus, TAP Office, 1000 
South Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited 
conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the 
telephone conference call meeting must be made with Inez E. De Jesus. 
Ms. De Jesus can

[[Page 74569]]

be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or post comments to the 
Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: December 9, 2004.
Bernard Coston,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 04-27370 Filed 12-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

                                CERTIFICATIONS OF
                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND TREASURER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


            In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital
Beverage Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2007
(the " Report"), I, Carmine N. Stella, hereby certify in my capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, 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
my knowledge and belief:

            1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

            2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  November 19, 2007

                                   By: /s/Carmine Stella
                                          --------------
                                          Carmine Stella
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10.26


Compensation Information – Named Executive Officers


The table below provides information regarding the 2005 cash bonus, January 31, 2006 stock option grant and 2006 annual base salary of each named executive officer of XenoPort, Inc. listed below:

	
  Executive Officer
  	
   
 	
  
2005 Cash
   Bonus
  	
   
 	
  
Stock Option
Grant (# shares)*
  	
   
 	
  
2006 Annual
   
Base   Salary
  	
   
 
	
  


  	
   
 	
  


  	
   
 	
  


  	
   
 	
  


  	
   
 
	
  
Ronald W. Barrett, Ph.D.
   Chief Executive Officer
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
89,280
  	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
  
75,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
350,000
  	
  
 
  
	
  William J.   Rieflin
   President
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
66,375
  	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
  
50,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
320,000
  	
  
 
  
	
  
William G.   Harris
   Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
49,400
  	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
  
37,500
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
265,000
  	
  
 
  
	
  Pierre V. Trân, M.D., M.M.M.
   Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
43,010
  	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
  
15,000
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
265,000
  	
  
 
  
	
  
Mark A. Gallop, Ph.D.
   Senior Vice President of Research
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
40,500
  	
  
 
  	
  
 
  	
  
32,500
  	
  
 
  	
  
$
  	
  
245,000
  	
  
 
  






	
  


  
	
  *
  	
  Granted by   the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company on   January 31, 2006, with an exercise price per share equal to the closing price   of the Company’s common stock as reported on the Nasdaq National Market on   January 31, 2006.
- FPL_1474-Aocr-1
- FPL_1474-Aocr-2
- FPL_1474-Aocr-3
- FPL_1474-Aocr-4
- FPL_1474-Aocr-5
- FPL_1474-Aocr-6
- FPL_1474-Aocr-7
- FPL_1474-Aocr-8
- FPL_1474-Aocr-9
- FPL_1474-Aocr-10
- FPL_1474-Aocr-11
- FPL_1474-Aocr-12
- FPL_1474-Aocr-13
- FPL_1474-Aocr-14
- FPL_1474-Aocr-15
- FPL_1474-Aocr-16
- FPL_1474-Aocr-17
#### In the Matter of Doyle Hulse, Judgment-Creditor-Respondent. Alvah Armstrong, Appellant.

All concur. (The order determines that certain property levied upon was the property of the judgment debtor.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1021.]
§ 1007.4 Notice requirements. ( a ) Deductions shall not be made unless the employee is provided with written notice, signed by the President, of the debt at least 30 days before salary offset commences.
( b ) The written notice shall contain: ( 1 ) A statement that the debt is owed and an explanation of its nature and amount;
( 2 ) The agency's intention to collect the debt by deducting from the employee's current disposable pay account;
( 3 ) The amount, frequency, proposed beginning date, and duration of the intended deduction(s);
( 4 ) An explanation of interest, penalties, and administrative charges, including a statement that such charges will be assessed unless excused in accordance with the Federal Claims Collections Standards at 4 CFR 101.1 *et seq.;*
( 5 ) The employee's right to inspect, request, and receive a copy of government records relating to the debt;
( 6 ) The opportunity to establish a written schedule for the voluntary repayment of the debt;
( 7 ) The right to a hearing conducted by an impartial hearing official;
( 8 ) The methods and time period for petitioning for hearings;
( 9 ) A statement that the timely filing of a petition for a hearing will stay the commencement of collection proceedings;
( 10 ) A statement that a final decision on the hearing will be issued not later than 60 days after the filing of the petition requesting the hearing unless the employee requests and the hearing official grants a delay in the proceedings;
( 11 ) A statement that knowingly false or frivolous statements, representations, or evidence may subject the employee to appropriate disciplinary procedures;
( 12 ) A statement of other rights and remedies available to the employee under statutes or regulations governing the program for which the collection is being made; and
( 13 ) Unless there are contractual or statutory provisions to the contrary, a statement that amounts paid on or deducted for the debt which are later waived or found not owed to the United States will be promptly refunded to the employee.
* 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 C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-11024

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL C. BARRETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-39-1

April 23, 2001

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

M ichael C. Barrett appeals his guilty-plea conviction of

possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a

misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§

922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2). For the first time on appeal, Barrett

argues that § 92 2(g)(9) was unconstitutionally vague on its face

and as applied to him. In connection with this argument, Barrett

also argues that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered and that

the factual basis supporting his plea was insufficient.** By so ruling, the court does not intend to imply that a

future de novo review of the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) is

foreclosed.

2 Barrett’s claim is raised for the first time on appeal and is

thus subject to review only for plain error. S ee United States v.

Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); United

States v. Lankford

, 196 F.3d 563, 570 (5th Cir. 1999), cert.

denied

, 529 U.S. 1119 (2000). Under F E D

. R. C RIM

. P. 52(b), this

court may correct forfeited errors only when the appellant shows

the following factors: (1) there is an error (2) that is clear or

obvious and (3) that affects his substantial rights. C alverley

, 37

F.3d at 162-64. Barrett has not demonstrated that any “obvious”

error occurred with respect to the constitutionality of §

922(g)(9), as several circuits have already held that the statute

passes constitution al muster. S ee United States v. Beavers

, 206

F.3d 706, 709-10 (6th Cir.), cert. denied

, 529 U.S. 1121 (2000);

United States v. Hutzell

, 217 F.3d 966, 968-69 (8th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied

, S. Ct. , 2001 WL 285845 (U.S. Mar. 26,

2001) (No. 00-7605); United States v. Hancock

, 231 F.3d 557, 563-64

(9th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 26, 2001) (No.

00-9017); United States v. Mitchell

, 209 F.3d 319, 322 (4th Cir.),

cert. denied

, 121 S. Ct. 123 (2000). Because there is no “obvious”

error, there is no “plain error” with r espect to the

constitutionality of § 922(g)(9). ** Barrett’s other claims, which

are dependent upo n a finding by this court that § 922(g)(9) is

unconstitutional, are also meritless. Barrett’s conviction is thus

A F F I R M E D.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angelino GARCIA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41212

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Angelino Garcia-Ramirez (Garcia) has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Garcia has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
§ 140.9 Other non-governmental entities and individuals. ( a ) *Procedures.* Section 140.9 applies to private voluntary agencies, educational institutions, for-profit firms, other non-governmental entities and private individuals. A non-governmental entity that is not organized under the laws of the United States shall be subject to the review procedures and criteria set forth in § 140.6(a) and (b). A non-governmental entity that is organized under the laws of the United States shall not be subject to such review procedures and criteria. However, an agency providing assistance shall follow such review procedures and criteria, as modified by section § 140.14, if the agency has reasonable grounds to suspect that a proposed U.S. non-governmental entity or a key individual of such entity may be or may have been involved in drug trafficking or may have been convicted of a narcotics offense. Procedures set forth in § 140.6(c) concerning violations identified subsequent to obligation shall apply to both U.S. and foreign non-governmental entities. Examples: (1) A $100,000 grant to a covered U.S. university for participant training would not be subject to the review procedures and criteria in § 140.6(a) and (b). However, a proposed participant would be subject to the review procedures and criteria in § 140.6(a) and (b) as part of the agency's approval process. (2) A $100,000 grant to a covered foreign private voluntary agency for participant training would be subject to the review procedures and criteria in § 140.6(a) and (b). In addition, each proposed participant would be subject to the review procedures and criteria in § 140.6(a) and (b) as part of the agency's approval process.
( b ) *Refunds.* A clause shall be included in grants, contracts, and other agreements with both U.S. and foreign non-governmental entities requiring that assistance provided to or through such an entity that is subsequently found to have been engaged in drug trafficking, as defined in this part, shall be subject to refund or recall.
( c ) *Certifications.* Prior to approval of covered assistance, key individuals (as described in § 140.6(a)(3)) in both U.S. and foreign non-governmental entities shall be required to certify that, within the last ten years, they have not been convicted of a narcotics offense, have not been engaged in drug trafficking and have not knowingly assisted, abetted, conspired, or colluded with others in drug trafficking. False certification may subject the signatory to U.S. criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001.
#### § 136.2 Authority.

Section 303(a) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 authorizes the Secretary of State to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of title III of that Act.
Map 3-4

Soil Orders on Public Lands

Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2000

Note: Data are not available for North and South Dakota, 

 Nebraska, Oklahoma, or Texas

0 200 400 600 800

Miles

0 100 200 300 400

Miles

3-79

Ultisols

Vertisols

Alfisols

Aridisols

Entisols

Gelisols

Inceptisols

Mollisols

Ice

Andisols

Histosols

Spodosols

Rock