alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:96cr56-RH/WCS

RENEE PATTERSON,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING FOURTH MOTION FOR EARLY 

TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

Defendant Renee Patterson has filed a fourth motion for early termination of

supervised release. The probation officer has submitted to the court (with copies to

defendant and the attorney for the government) a memorandum addressing the

early termination criteria listed in Monograph 109 as approved by the Judicial

Conference of the United States. The government has filed a memorandum in

opposition to the motion for early termination. After full consideration of the

motion on the merits, I conclude that the motion should be denied.

So that any future requests for early termination can be appropriately and

efficiently addressed, I note the following. There is no technical exhaustion

requirement for motions for early termination of supervision. Still, my practice is

Case 4:96-cr-00056-RH-WCS Document 753 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No: 4:96cr56-RH/WCS

never to grant a motion for early termination without obtaining a report from the

probation officer. I usually obtain the probation officer’s recommendation in

addition to a factual report. The probation office appropriately evaluates early

termination under the criteria listed in Monograph 109.

It is inefficient for a defendant to file an early termination motion without

first raising the issue with the probation officer. Moreover, bypassing the

probation officer risks interference with the probation officer’s supervisory

authority over, and relationship with, the defendant. Although I have sometimes

acted on motions that have been filed by a defendant without an indication that the

defendant has exhausted the issue with the probation officer, it has become

apparent that doing so only invites the filing of more motions before the matter is

properly raised with the probation officer. The practice should be discouraged.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

Defendant’s fourth motion for early termination (document 752) is DENIED

without prejudice to the submission of a petition or memorandum by the probation

officer or the filing of a further motion by the defendant if, after a full and fair

attempt to raise the issue with the probation officer, the probation officer declines

to bring the issue to the court. Defendant should submit no further motions for

early termination without first raising the issue with the probation officer and

Case 4:96-cr-00056-RH-WCS Document 753 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 4:96cr56-RH/WCS

attempting to have the probation officer raise the issue with the court (whether or

not the request for early termination is supported by the probation officer).

SO ORDERED this 2d day of October, 2006.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:96-cr-00056-RH-WCS Document 753 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 3
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fox
Petroleum Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended November 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Richard Moore, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted by 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.

January 20, 2009

/s/ Richard
MooreRichard MoorePresident, Chief Executive Officer,
Chairman, and Director (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 7

- BG

- 535

IN RE JONATHAN K. FRIEDLANDER

201 7 DDN 33

A n Inactive Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg. No. 433895

BEFORE: Beckwith, Associate Judge, and Steadman and Reid, Senior Judges.

O R D E R

(Filed

– September 28, 2017)

On consideration of the certified order of the Maryland Court of Appeals

disbarring respondent from the practice of law in the state of Maryland by consent ;

t his court’s June 9 , 2017

, order temporarily suspending respondent and directing

him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed ; the

statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline ; respondent’s

response in which he does not oppose identical reciprocal discipline ; and it

appearing that respondent file d the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit on

July 6, 2017

, it is

ORDERED that Jonathan K. Friedlander is hereby disbarred from the

practice of law in the District of Columbia nunc pro tunc to July 6, 2017

. See In re

Sibley , 990 A.2d 483

, 487

- 88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that the presumption of

identical discipline in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c) will prevail except in “rare” cases);

In re Cole , 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002) (explaining that in unopposed

reciprocal matters the “imposition of ident ical discipline should be close to

automatic”)

. PER CURIAM
#### §§ 352.16-352.28 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Julius Reznik, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 37,534.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Cameron Latter and Maurice L. Davis, for plaintiff in error. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, J. Albert Woll and Henry E. Seyfarth, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **2 -**  **8127**

JEROD E. FRAIERSON , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00882

- LO

- TCB )

Submitted : May 30 , 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Jerod E. Fraierson, Appellant Pro Se
. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jerod E. Fraierson seeks to appeal the district

cour t’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S . 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fraierson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leav e to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6629

ANTHONY MCCULLOUGH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS; STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-3527-JFM) Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: March 4, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Anthony McCullough, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony McCullough seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See McCullough v. Waters , No. CA-97- 3527-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 22, 1998). We deny McCullough’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBoundary-layer receptivity due to distributed surface imperfections of a deterministic or random natureAcoustic receptivity of a Blasius boundary layer in the presence of distributed surface irregularities is investigated analytically. It is shown that, out of the entire spatial spectrum of the surface irregularities, only a small band of Fourier components can lead to an efficient conversion of the acoustic input at any given frequency to an unstable eigenmode of the boundary layer flow. The location, and width, of this most receptive band of wavenumbers corresponds to a relative detuning of O(R sub l.b.(exp -3/8)) with respect to the lower-neutral instability wavenumber at the frequency under consideration, R sub l.b. being the Reynolds number based on a typical boundary-layer thickness at the lower branch of the neutral stability curve. Surface imperfections in the form of discrete mode waviness in this range of wavenumbers lead to initial instability amplitudes which are O(R sub l.b.(exp 3/8)) larger than those caused by a single, isolated roughness element. In contrast, irregularities with a continuous spatial spectrum produce much smaller instability amplitudes, even compared to the isolated case, since the increase due to the resonant nature of the response is more than that compensated for by the asymptotically small band-width of the receptivity process. Analytical expressions for the maximum possible instability amplitudes, as well as their expectation for an ensemble of statistically irregular surfaces with random phase distributions, are also presented.Document ID19920017438Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsChoudhari, Meelan*(High Technology Corp. Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1992Publication InformationPublisher: NASASubject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-4439NAS 1.26:4439Accession Number92N26681Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-18240PROJECT: RTOP 537-03-23-03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920017438.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Ruben Garza, Jr.Appellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 10, 2014

No. 04-13-00331-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Ruben GARZA, Jr.,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CRJ000782-D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED IN PART. 

Time is extended to April 9, 2014. No further extensions will be granted.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2565 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

AN ACT 

To provide for the termination of employment of employees 

of the Internal Revenue Service who take certain official 

actions for political purposes. 

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2565 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Targeting Our 

3 Politics IRS Act’’ or as the ‘‘STOP IRS Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF INTERNAL REV5 ENUE SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR TAKING OF6 FICIAL ACTIONS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. 

7 Paragraph (10) of section 1203(b) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 

9 is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(10) performing, delaying, or failing to per11 form (or threatening to perform, delay, or fail to 

12 perform) any official action (including any audit) 

13 with respect to a taxpayer for purpose of extracting 

14 personal gain or benefit or for a political purpose.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 31, 2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4413-4414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

[Document Identifier CMS-10453]

Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION: Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; 
comment request; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This notice extends the comment period for a 60-day notice 
request for proposed information collection request associated with the 
notice [Document Identifier: CMS-10453] entitled ``The Medicare 
Advantage and Prescription Drug Program: Part C Explanation of Benefits 
CFR 422.111(b)(12)'' that was published in the November 26, 2012 (77 FR 
70445) Federal Register. The comment period for the information 
collection request, which would have ended on January 25, 2013, is 
extended to February 1, 2013.

DATES: The comment period for the information collection request 
published in the January 25, 2013, Federal Register (77 FR 70445) is 
extended to February 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Parham, (410) 786-4669.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    In the FR Doc. 2012-28570 of November 26, 2012 (77 FR 70445), we 
published a Paperwork Reduction Act notice requesting a 60-day public 
comment period for the document entitled ``The Medicare Advantage and 
Prescription Drug Program: Part C Explanation of Benefits CFR 
422.111(b)(12).''
    There were technical delays with making the information collection 
request publicly available; therefore, in this notice we are extending 
the comment period from the date originally listed in the November 26, 
2012, notice.

II. Extension of Comment Period

    We are extending the comment period for the notice [Document 
Identifier: CMS-10453] in FR Doc. 2012-28570 published on November 26, 
2012 (77 FR 70445).
    The date listed on page 70445, third column, second full paragraph, 
on the fifth line in the paragraph beginning with ``To be assured 
consideration,

[[Page 4414]]

comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following 
ways by January 25, 2013.'' has been extended to February 1, 2013.''

    Dated: January 16, 2013.
Martique Jones,
Deputy Director, Regulations Development Group, Office of Strategic 
Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-01172 Filed 1-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ John B. Selvaraj

John B. Selvaraj, Treasurer and Principal Financial and Accounting OfficerDated: February 19, 2007
#  Federal Acquisition Regulation

- Part 1 - Federal Acquisition Regulations System 
- Part 2 - Definitions of Words and Terms 
- Part 3 - Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest 
- Part 4 - Administrative and Information Matters 

**Parent topic:**Subchapter A - General
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

 Case No. 3:19md2885 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Vaughn, 7:20cv134 

 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 5 

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness deposition: 

1. Schubert, Tarrah (11/19/2021) 

SO ORDERED this 15th day of April, 2022. 

 M. CASEY RODGERS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00134-MCR-GRJ Document 134 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 1
# C_2021523EN.01000201.xml

| 28.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 523/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 523/2

---

Statement by the Commission

(2021/C 523/02)

The Commission takes note of the agreement of the co-legislators to introduce a minimum operational budget of EUR 8 million for the implementation of the European Year of Youth (2022), without prejudice to the possibility of complementary contributions from other relevant Union programmes and instruments in addition to this amount of EUR 8 million.

In addition, the Commission will carry out a mapping exercise throughout the Year and will regularly update it outlining the possible and actual contributions by EU programmes and instruments to the implementation of the European Year of Youth and reporting on the activities. The progress in the deployment of contributions by the Union programmes will be regularly presented to the European Parliament and the Council. These contributions should be considered as complementary and above the minimum operational budget of EUR 8 million.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20






                                        November 8, 2004



Mr. Kenneth R. Audino
Littelfuse, Inc.
800 East Northwest Highway
Des Plaines, Illinois 60016

Dear Ken:

     You have advised us that it is your intention to retire from Littelfuse
shortly after you reach age 62.  You have also expressed a concern that, given
the recent changes in Littelfuse management, you may not be allowed to remain
an employee of Littelfuse until reaching age 62.

     You are considered a valuable member of the Littelfuse management team.
Accordingly, in order to allay any concern you may have regarding your
continued employment with Littelfuse, Littelfuse agrees that your employment
will not be terminated by Littelfuse any sooner than March 1, 2006, unless you
are "Terminated for Cause," as such term is defined in the Littelfuse, Inc.
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan.  During this period, your salary will
not be decreased and you will continue to be eligible for all of the benefits
to which you would otherwise be entitled under the Littelfuse bonus, stock
option, performance shares (but only if the three-year performance period with
respect to a particular grant will expire prior to March 1, 2006), SERP,
pension, 401(k), and medical plans.  Additionally, your change in control
agreement will remain in place.


                                     Very truly yours,


                                     LITTELFUSE, INC.



                                     By: /s/ Gordon Hunter
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Gordon Hunter, Chief Operating
                                         Officer
#### § 29.3676 Summary of standard grades.

| *6 Grades of Wrappers* | | | | |
| | A1F | A1R | | |
| | A2F | A2R | | |
| | A3F | A3R | | |
| *21 Grades of Heavy Leaf* | | | | |
| B1F | B1R | B1D | | |
| B2F | B2R | B2D | | |
| B3F | B3R | B3D | B3M | B3G |
| B4F | B4R | B4D | B4M | B4G |
| B5F | B5R | B5D | B5M | B5G |
| *21 Grades of Thin Leaf* | | | | |
| C1L | C1F | C1R | | |
| C2L | C2F | C2R | | |
| C3L | C3F | C3R | C3M | C3G |
| C4L | C4F | C4R | C4M | C4G |
| C5L | C5F | C5R | C5M | C5G |

| *24 Grades of Lugs* | | | | | | |
| X1L | X1F | X1R | | | | |
| X2L | X2F | X2R | | | | |
| X3L | X3F | X3R | X3D | X3M | X3G | |
| X4L | X4F | X4R | X4D | X4M | X4G | |
| X5L | X5F | X5R | X5D | X5M | X5G | |

| *6 Grades of Nondescript* | | | | |
| | N1L | N1R | N1G | |
| | N2L | N2R | N2G | |
| *1 Grade of Scrap* | | | | |
| | | S | | |

Special factors “U”, “W”, and “S” may be applied to all grades in all types, “BH” to grades in types 35 and 36, and “BL” to type 35. Tobacco not covered by the standard grades is designated “No-G.”

[[30 FR 9207](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/30-FR-9207), July 23, 1965, as amended at [49 FR 16759](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/49-FR-16759), Apr. 20, 1984; [51 FR 40408](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/51-FR-40408), Nov. 7, 1986]