alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–011 2004

108th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 108–233 

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY 

WITH RESPECT TO IRAN 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT 

TO IRAN, AS DECLARED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 12170 ON NOVEMBER 14, 1979, IS TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT BEYOND NOVEMBER 14, 2004, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d) 

NOVEMBER 16, 2004.—Referred to the Committee on International 

Relations and ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, November 9, 2004. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies 

Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of 

a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its 

declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and 

transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is 

to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with 

this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice, stating that the Iran 

emergency declared by Executive Order 12170 on November 14, 

1979, is to continue in effect beyond November 14, 2004, to the 

Federal Register for publication. The most recent notice continuing 

this emergency was published in the Federal Register on November 

13, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 64489). 

Our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the 

process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with 

Iran is still underway. For these reasons, I have determined that 

it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, with respect to Iran, beyond November 14, 2004. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

(3) 

NOTICE

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO

IRAN

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President 

declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–

1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States 

constituted by the situation in Iran. Because our relations with 

Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is still underway, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, must 

continue in effect beyond November 14, 2004. Therefore, consistent 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 

1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year this national emergency with 

respect to Iran. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 9, 2004. 

Æ
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Section 906 Certification**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Centennial Bank Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: August 8, 2007 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**Exhibit 32.2**

Certification of Principal Financial OfficerPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/Afor the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) of Federal ServicesAcquisition Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Peter M. Schulte, President andChief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

Date: December 5, 2006
|        | By:        | /s/    Peter  M. Schulte |
|--------|------------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | ** ** | **Peter  M. Schulte**                        |
|   | ** ** | **President  and Chief Financial Officer**   |
|   | ** ** | **(Principal  Financial Officer)**           |

 

 

----
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600311

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

DALLAS L. TIBBETTS

Hospital Corpsman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station, 

Lemoore, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Commander 

Matthew S. Bailey, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Captain James Kresge, USMCR.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 14 February 2017

_________________________

Before MARKS, FULTON, and PETTIT, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

TERRY L. REED,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1256, Motion for Reconsideration, filed by

Defendant Terry L. Reed. Defendant seeks reconsideration of this Court’s August 14, 2008,

order (Doc. 1250) denying his motion to reduce sentence (Doc. 1230) under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. 

Defendant’s motion was based on Amendments 706 and 711 to the United States Sentencing

Guidelines (“Guidelines”). Under the amended Guidelines, Defendant’s Total Offense Level

actually increased. Because Defendant’s current sentence is below the range in the amended

Guidelines, this Court held that Defendant is not entitled to a reduction under § 3582. 

Defendant raises four arguments in favor of his motion to reconsider that holding. 

Defendant’s first three arguments invite the Court to reconsider the facts and merits of his case,

an exercise that is not permitted in considering whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582. 

Defendant’s fourth argument is that this Court failed to consider the arguments in Defendant’s

reply at Doc. 1241. Defendant draws this conclusion based on the absence of any reference to

Defendant’s reply in the Court’s order. Although the Court did not specifically reference

Defendant’s reply in its order, the arguments raised therein were considered and are without 

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1262 Filed 09/09/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

merit. Finding no reason to reconsider its previous order, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 1256) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1262 Filed 09/09/08 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Section 906 Certification**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Centennial Bank Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: August 8, 2007 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Appellate case number: 01-19-00821-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-26133

Trial court: 113th District Court of Harris County

Real party in interest, Amanda Marie Sanchez Garza, filed an unopposed motion 

for extension of time to file her response to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. The 

motion is granted. Real party in interest’s response brief is due January 8, 2020.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:________/s/ Russell Lloyd_______________________________

 Acting individually 

Date: December 5, 2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 3:96cr65/LAC

MARCUS TALLEY

 /

O R D E R

This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Recuse or in the

Alternative to Dismiss Indictment or Order the Defendant’s Release (doc. 661). The

Government has not filed a response to the motion. Also before the Court is the latest

psychological report prepared by staff members at FMC Rochester (doc. 661, ex. A) where

Defendant was evaluated pursuant to Court order.

As the report makes clear, Defendant’s mental illness prevents him from being able

to assist properly in his own defense, thus rendering him incompetent to stand trial. As

further detailed, Defendant’s condition is unlikely to improve to the extent that he would ever

regain competence to assist in his own defense. Additionally, it is noted that Defendant has

been detained for ten years in anticipation of a trial that will never occur. Accordingly,

Case 3:96-cr-00065-LC-MD Document 662 Filed 07/16/07 Page 1 of 2
1

 The actions by this Court should not be taken as an indication that it has discounted or

overlooked Defendant’s history of violent behavior. This Court holds only that the pending charges can

no longer be held over someone who will never be held competent to defend against them. While the

psychological report discusses Defendant’s behavioral history both inside and outside of the institutional

setting, it concluded that Defendant’s violent propensities are not connected to his mental problems such

that civil commitment could be recommended. Moreover, Defendant has been civilly committed once

already and was released from such commitment. As a result, there are simply no grounds under which

Defendant may be held under federal custody. It is also noted that the State of Florida retains custody

over Defendant with its own pending charges. In this difficult area of custody over the mentally infirm,

the law prefers state custody and care of the individual. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246.

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 and Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32

L.Ed.2d 435 (1972), the indictment is due to be dismissed.1

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Recuse or in the Alternative to Dismiss

Indictment or Order the Defendant’s Release (doc. 661) is DENIED insofar as it seeks

recusal of the undersigned, is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of the indictment, and

is further DENIED in all other respects.

ORDERED on this 16th day of July, 2007.

 s/L.A. Collier 

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:96-cr-00065-LC-MD Document 662 Filed 07/16/07 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.6034 Semicured.

Tobacco in the process of being cured or which is partially but not thoroughly cured. Semicured includes tobacco which contains fat stems, wet butts, swelled stems, and tobacco having frozen stems or stems that have not been thoroughly dried in the curing process. (See definition of No Grade and Rule 17.)
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  | May      1, 2008 |   | /s/ CHARLES      D. DAVIDSON |
|--------|------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   |             |   | CHARLES      D. DAVIDSON          |
|   |             |   | Chief      Executive Officer      |

----
98-1853.

#### Pitts v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00229-CR

__________________

IN RE RODERIC DEMOND JAMES

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 21-38216

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roderic Demond James seeks to compel the trial court to rule on 

motions, which he filed in the trial court pro se.1 When the trial court 

failed to do so, James filed a petition for mandamus in this Court, also 

1James’ petition is procedurally defective. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. 

Additionally, he failed to certify that he served a copy of the petition on 

the Respondent and on the State, which is the real party in interest. See

Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We will look beyond these deficiencies under Rule 2, 

however, in order to expedite the result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
2

pro se. In his petition, James states that an attorney is representing him 

in the court below. 

To be entitled to relief on a writ of mandamus, the relator must 

demonstrate (1) there is no adequate remedy at law, and (2) there is a 

clear and indisputable right to the relief sought.2 “[W]hen a motion is 

properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and 

resolving it is ministerial.” Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134-35 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Yet a trial court has no duty to 

consider and rule upon a defendant’s pro se motions when the defendant 

is represented by counsel since defendants in criminal cases are not 

entitled to hybrid representation.3

For these reasons, James’ petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 23, 2022

Opinion Delivered August 24, 2022

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

2See State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

3See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) 

(“[A] trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a 

defendant who is represented by counsel.”).
#### § 29.1106 Rules.

The application of these official standard grades shall be in accordance with the following rules.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 20, 2015

d0513p

Order 

Clerk

May 20, 2015

149691

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149691

COA: 309522

Oakland CC: 2011-237051-FC

FUAD FAROUK SHEENA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for 

an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973), to determine 

whether the defendant was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel 

based on counsel’s failure to pursue an insanity defense. In all other respects, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be 

reviewed by this Court.
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2023 Workiva-->
<!--r:2987c6cb-0d29-44a3-94fb-2291f78909f1,g:9a4d1568-06c0-4f90-96eb-d34909160168-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:ndsn="http://www.nordson.com/20230228" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.nordson.com/20230228">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2022" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2022/dei-2022.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="ndsn-20230228_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="ndsn-20230228_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="Cover" roleURI="http://www.nordson.com/role/Cover">
        <link:definition>0000001 - Document - Cover</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
#### § 29.1110 Rule 4.

All standard grades must be clean unless otherwise noted by a special factor.
<Page>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14


                                BROOKTROUT, INC.

                                2004 BONUS PLAN

     On March 11, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
Brooktrout, Inc. approved payment of cash bonuses with respect to the year ended
December 31, 2004. The approval included bonuses in the amounts set forth
below to the following executive officers of Brooktrout, Inc.:

<Table>
<Caption>
NAME                        TITLE                                                           BONUS AMOUNT
--------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------
<S>                         <C>                                                          <C>
Eric R. Giler               President                                                           $68,341
Robert C. Leahy             Vice President of Finance and Operations, and Treasurer              60,113
Heather J. Magliozzi        Vice President of Corporate Marketing                                40,000
R Andrew O'Brien            Vice President of Market and Business Development                    25,000
Ronald J. Bleakney          Senior Vice President of Worldwide Sales                             20,000

</Table>
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 12026 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus SERAFIN JARAMILLO

- ECHEVERRIA, a.k.a. Serafin Jaramillo, a.k.a. Primo,
Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:15

- cr - 00146

- MHH

- GMB

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12026 Date Filed: 01/25/2022 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12026
Before R OSENBAUM , L UCK , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: J.D. Lloyd , appointed counsel for Serafin Jaramillo

- Echeverria in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of t he relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Jaramillo ’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED . USCA11 Case: 21-12026 Date Filed: 01/25/2022 Page: 2 of 2
* 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 lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-60044

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

JANET S THORNTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GORDON WALKER, Dr, individually and officially; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HATTIESBURG PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, officially; THE HATTIESBURG PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:94-CV-278-PG)

September 5, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Janet S. Thornton appe als the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of defendants Gordon Walker, the Board of-2-

Trustees of the Hattiesburg Public School Distric t, and the

Hattiesburg Public School District in her action under Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et

seq., alleging sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and

retaliation. We agree with the district court that Thornton has

failed to produce any evidence, eit her direct or indirect, from

which a jury could reasonably infer that defendants’ actions were

motivated by sexually discriminatory animus or that Thornton was

sexually harassed. Furthermore, Thornton has produced no summary

judgment evidence of a causal link between any adverse employment

action against her and activity protected under Title VII. S ee

Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co.
, 104 F.3d 702, 708 (5 th Cir. 1997)

(ho lding that threats of termination are not “adverse employment

actions” for purposes of Title VII), petition for cert. filed , 66

USLW 3108 (Jul. 21, 1997) (No. 97-126). Therefore, we AFFIRM for

the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion.