alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28943]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD


Appointments of Individuals To Serve as Members of Performance 
Review Boards

    5 USC 4314(c)(4) requires that the appointments of individuals to 
serve as members of performance review boards be published in the 
Federal Register. Therefore, in compliance with this requirement, 
notice is hereby given that the individuals whose names and position 
titles appear below have been appointed to serve as members of 
performance review boards in the National Labor Relations Board for the 
rating year beginning October 1, 2009 and ending September 30, 2010.

Name and Title

William B. Cowen--Solicitor.
Kathleen A. Nixon--Deputy Chief Counsel to Board Member.
Gary W. Shinners--Deputy Executive Secretary.
Arlene Fine Klepper--Executive Assistant to the Chairman.
Barry J. Kearney--Associate General Counsel, Division of Advice.
Richard A. Siegel--Associate General Counsel, Division of Operations 
Management.
Gloria Joseph--Director of Administration, Division of Administration.
John H. Ferguson--Associate General Counsel, Division of Enforcement 
Litigation.

    Washington, DC.

    By Direction of the Board

    Dated: November 12, 2010.
Lester A. Heltzer,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28943 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:96cr42/RV

WAYNE ALLEN BIGGINS

_______________________________/

ORDER

Upon consideration of the defendant’s response and affidavit filed herein (doc.

253), I find that there is no evidence that Biggins filed, or attempted to file, his notice

of appeal in a timely manner. He has offered no explanation of what he did and why

it was untimely. Therefore, I conclude that there was no excusable neglect, and that

Biggins is not entitled to an extension of time to file his notice of appeal.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2007.

Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:96-cr-00042-RV Document 254 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.427 Pesticide residue standards.

The maximum concentration of residues of the following pesticides allowed in flue-cured or burley tobacco, expressed as parts by weight of the residue per one million parts by weight of the tobacco (ppm) are:

| CHLORDANE | 3.0 |
| --- | --- |
| DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) | 1.0 |
| DICAMBA (Temporary) | 5.0 |
| ENDRIN | 0.1 |
| ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) | 0.1 |
| FORMOTHION | 0.5 |
| HEXACHLOROBENZENE (HCB) | 0.1 |
| METHOXYCHLOR | 0.1 |
| TOXAPHENE | 0.3 |
| 2,4-D (Temporary) | 5.0 |
| 2,4,5-T | 0.1 |
| Sum of ALDRIN and DIELDRIN | 0.1 |
| Sum of CYPERMETHRIN and PERMETHRIN (Temporary) | 3.0 |
| Sum of DDT, TDE (DDD), and DDE | 0.4 |
| Sum of HEPTACHLOR and HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE | 0.1 |

[54 FR 24663, June 9, 1989; 54 FR 27855, July 3, 1989]
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNTIED STATES CODE,


as
      adopted pursuant to


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with
      the annual report of Theragenics Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
      the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, M. Christine Jacobs,
      Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(2) the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the
      dates
      and for the periods referred to in the Report.





Date:
      March 8, 2007





/s/
      M.
      Christine Jacobs


M.
      Christine Jacobs


Chief
      Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2074

D. SIDNEY POTTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUNTRUST BANK; RANDSTAD US, L.P.,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

WILLIAM ROGERS; LINDA GALIPEAU; CHRISTINE MILES; REGINALD 

FORD; MARGARET SLAUGHTER; CHARMAINE SURGEON; JULIE HARDY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00436-JRS)

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

D. Sidney Potter, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy S. Lester, James Clay 

Rollins, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

D. Sidney Potter appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), 47(b) 

for failure to prosecute. On appeal, we confine our review to 

the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 

34(b). Because Potter’s informal brief does not challenge the 

basis for the district court’s disposition, Potter has forfeited

appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,443,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              109,434,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,629,000
<INVENTORY>                                 56,794,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           177,569,000
<PP&E>                                     117,115,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,029,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             480,811,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       89,131,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 33,008,000
<COMMON>                                       330,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 215,544,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               480,811,000
<SALES>                                    479,707,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           479,707,000
<CGS>                                      431,947,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,415,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            33,710,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,018,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (36,120,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (407,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (35,713,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 200,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (35,513,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.80)
        

</TABLE>
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.4  


Exhibit 4.4  


 
 

Form of Standard MTIF Invitation
  Letter to Current Members of
  Management Board    
    


Dear
Sir (Member of the Management Board), 


        Beginning
in fiscal year 2004, Deutsche Telekom AG will introduce a market based Mid-Term Incentive Plan (MTIP) as part of a competitive total compensation package. As a
global, group-wide compensation instrument, this plan will replace the 2001 Stock Option Plan. The conditions of the individual plans, each with a respective measurement period of three
years, is expected to follow annually during the next five years. The Company will decide separately on any respective new conditions and allotment amounts each year. 


        I
am pleased to inform you that you may participate in the first tranche of the MTIP. 


        The
first tranche begins on January 1, 2004 (the plan end is December 31, 2006) and will be based on two measures of success, one of which is absolute and the other of
which is relative. Your maximum obtainable incentive amount is EUR            . 



        The
first half of this maximum amount will be reached if there is an increase in the Deutsche Telekom share price of at least 30 percent at the end of the plan. The second half
will be payable, if the total
return of the Deutsche Telekom share outperforms the DJ EURO STOXX Total Return Index at the end of the plan. The benchmark for the assessment will be based on the last 20 trading days before the
start and at the end of the 2004 Plan. 


        The
payment of the incentive amount of the first tranche will follow in the first quarter of 2007 if one or both of the success parameters is reached. The basis for participation in the
program is contained in the Terms & Conditions, which are currently being prepared. 



        I
am convinced that we have created a market based financial incentive for your responsibility in the company and a challenge to the realization of our ambitious goals. Through these
actions, the company will ultimately be positioned to face future challenges in the market. 


        I
wish you all possible success in the company and look forward to continued cooperation. 


Sincerely
yours, 











QuickLinks


Form of Standard MTIF Invitation Letter to Current Members of Management Board
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LUTHER WOODS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:20cv177-MW/MJF

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 2. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This action is DISMISSED.” The 

Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 14, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00177-MW-MJF Document 3 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

RAYMOND WILLIAMS, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 123 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2015, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Extraordinary 

Relief is GRANTED to the extent it seeks mandamus relief. The Court of Common 

Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to dispose of Petitioner’s pending petition 

within 90 days.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00046-MP-AK

BANK ACCOUNT IN THE 

NAME OF ROSIE CAPITAL LLC, etc.,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 23 filed by Robert Petrie, dubbed a Motion for

Clarification of Agreement by the Clerk's Office. The document does not seek any relief from

the Court, however, and is merely addressed to the government. Accordingly, for housekeeping

purposes doc. 23 is denied as moot. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00046-MP-AK Document 24 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 1948

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1948 appear at 80 FR 9888, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1948.52 Objectives.

The objective of the program is to help areas impacted by coal or uranium development activities by providing assistance for the development of growth management and housing plans and in developing and acquiring sites for housing and public facilities and services.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1968 

To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot program to award 

grants and loan guarantees to hospitals to carry out projects for the 

purpose of reducing energy costs and increasing resilience to improve 

security. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2013 

Mr. ENGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot program to award grants and loan guarantees to hospitals 

to carry out projects for the purpose of reducing energy 

costs and increasing resilience to improve security. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hospital Energy Con5 servation Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1968 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENERGY CONSERVATION GRANT AND LOAN GUAR2 ANTEE PILOT PROGRAM. 

3 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Energy 

4 shall establish a pilot program to award grants and loan 

5 guarantees to hospitals to carry out energy conservation 

6 projects for the purpose of— 

7 (1) significantly improving the energy efficiency 

8 of such hospitals; and 

9 (2) encouraging onsite power generation and 

10 energy storage, capable of operating independent of 

11 the grid, and providing sufficient onsite emergency 

12 backup power for essential hospital functions. 

13 (b) NUMBER OF HOSPITALS.—The Secretary shall 

14 award grants and loan guarantees under the pilot program 

15 to no more than 6 hospitals during the period described 

16 in subsection (f). 

17 (c) APPLICATIONS.—A hospital seeking a grant or 

18 loan guarantee under the pilot program shall submit an 

19 application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 

20 and accompanied by such information as the Secretary 

21 may require. 

22 (d) CONSIDERATIONS.—In selecting a hospital to 

23 award a grant or loan guarantee to under the pilot pro24 gram, the Secretary shall give special consideration to ap25 plications from such hospitals that can demonstrate that 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1968 IH

1 they are able to commence an energy conservation project 

2 more promptly. 

3 (e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘‘hos4 pital’’ and ‘‘energy conservation project’’ have the mean5 ings given such terms in section 391 of the Energy Policy 

6 and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6371). 

7 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

8 are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out this sec9 tion such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2014 

10 and 2015, to be derived from funds otherwise authorized 

11 to be appropriated for related purposes. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
98-1319.

#### State ex rel. Pohlable v. Wilkinson.

In Declaratory Judgment. On answer of respondent. Answer treated as motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Kelso Capital Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James R. Maher, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Frank D. Gordon, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ James R. Maher 
|Name:               |  | James R. Maher         
|Title:              |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:               |  | November 4, 2010       
|                   
|/s/ Frank D. Gordon
|Name:               |  | Frank D. Gordon        
|Title:              |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:               |  | November 4, 2010
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1510

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Samuel Anguiano Gonzales, also known as Larry Sosa

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: September 4, 2014

Filed: October 27, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Gonzales directly appeals the statutory-maximum sentences that the

district court1

 imposed after he pled guilty to child-pornography offenses. His counsel

1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.
has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), challenging Gonzales’s sentence and arguing that (1) the Guidelines

calculations were incorrect, (2) the sentence is substantively unreasonable, and (3) the

application of the Guidelines violated Gonzales’s constitutional rights. For the

reasons that follow, each of these arguments fails. 

First, we conclude that Gonzales may not challenge the Guidelines calculations

because he specifically agreed in his plea agreement to the application of all but one

of the enhancements, and at sentencing he withdrew his objection to the remaining

enhancement. See United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2002)

(where defense counsel withdrew objections to presentence report, defendant was

precluded from arguing those objections on appeal); United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d

781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself

to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal). Second, we

conclude that the within-Guidelines-range sentence was not substantively

unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en

banc). Third, construing counsel’s constitutional argument as an Eighth Amendment

challenge to the length of the sentence, we reject that challenge as meritless, see

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994-96 (1991); and finally, having reviewed the

record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no

nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied until he advises Gonzales how to seek further

relief through a petition for rehearing or filing a writ of certiorari.

______________________________

-2-
#### § 301.91-9 Costs and charges.

The services of the inspector shall be furnished without cost, except as provided in 7 CFR part 354. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will not be responsible for any costs or charges incident to inspections or compliance with the provisions of the quarantine and regulations in this subpart, other than for the services of the inspector.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2262 

To designate the United States Federal Judicial Center located at 333 West 

Broadway Street in San Diego, California, as the ‘‘John Rhoades Federal 

Judicial Center’’ and to designate the United States courthouse located 

at 333 West Broadway Street in San Diego, California, as the ‘‘James 

M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 5, 2013 

Mr. ISSA (for himself and Mr. PETERS of California) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the United States Federal Judicial Center located at 333 West Broadway Street in San Diego, California, as the ‘‘John Rhoades Federal Judicial Center’’ 

and to designate the United States courthouse located 

at 333 West Broadway Street in San Diego, California, 

as the ‘‘James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United 

States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2262 IH

1 SECTION 1. JUDICIAL CENTER DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States Federal Judicial Center located at 

3 333 West Broadway Street in San Diego, California, shall 

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘John Rhoades Federal 

5 Judicial Center’’. The Judicial Center includes the Fed6 eral property located at 221 West Broadway, 333 West 

7 Broadway, 880 Front Street, 325 West F Street, 808 

8 Union Street, and the adjoining plaza. 

9 SEC. 2. COURTHOUSE BUILDING DESIGNATION. 

10 The United States courthouse located at 333 West 

11 Broadway in San Diego, California, shall be known and 

12 designated as the ‘‘James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep 

13 United States Courthouse’’. 

14 SEC. 3. REFERENCES. 

15 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

16 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

17 States Federal Judicial Center referred to in section 1 

18 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John Rhoades 

19 Federal Judicial Center’’. Any reference in a law, map, 

20 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

21 States to the United States courthouse located at 333 

22 West Broadway Street in San Diego, California, referred 

23 to in section 2 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

24 ‘‘James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United States 

25 Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS