alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 8.2 Persons who may practice. ( a ) *Attorneys.* Any attorney who is not currently under suspension or disbarment from practice before the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, may practice before the Bureau upon filing a written declaration with the Bureau, that he or she is currently qualified as an attorney and is authorized to represent the particular party on whose behalf he or she acts.
( b ) *Certified public accountants.* Any certified public accountant who is not currently under suspension or disbarment before the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, may practice before the Bureau upon filing a written declaration with the Bureau, that he or she is currently qualified as a certified public accountant and is authorized to represent the particular party on whose behalf he or she acts.
( c ) *Enrollment practitioners.* Any person enrolled as a practitioner under the provisions of subpart C of this part and who is not under suspension or disbarment from enrollment may practice before the Bureau.
( d ) *Limited practitioners.* Any person qualified for limited practice without enrollment under the provisions of § 8.29 may practice before the Bureau.
( e ) *Restrictions on Government officers and employees.* Any officer or employee of the United States in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government, or in any agency of the United States, including the District of Columbia, who is otherwise eligible to practice under the provisions of this part, may represent parties before the Bureau when doing so in the conduct of his or her official duties. A Government officer or employee may not otherwise practice before the Bureau except that, subject to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 205, he or she may represent a member of his or her immediate family or a person or estate for which he or she serves as guardian, executor, administrator, trustee or other personal fiduciary. Member of Congress or Resident Commissioners (elect or serving) may not practice before the Bureau in connection with any matter for which they directly or indirectly seek any compensation.
( f ) *Restrictions on State officers and employees.* No officer or employee of any State, or subdivision thereof, whose official responsibilities require him or her to pass upon, investigate, or deal with any State law or regulation concerning alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives matters or wagering, may practice before the Bureau if his or her official responsibility may disclose pertinent facts or information relating to matters administered by the Bureau.
( g ) *Customhouse brokers.* Customhouse brokers, licensed by the Commissioner of Customs according to 19 CFR part 111, may represent a party for whom they have acted as a customhouse broker before the Bureau with respect to matters relating to the importation or exportation of merchandise under customs or intenal revenue laws.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1512-0418) (18 U.S.C. 203, 205; 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (80 Stat. 383, as amended))
[42 FR 33026, June 29, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 14944, Apr. 16, 1984]
HomeBureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs...Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs  Releases

# Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Releases

2662 items

        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Stewart Travels to Singapore, Qatar	  May 31, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with PRC Executive Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu	  May 31, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Hong Kong’s National Security Law Trial	  Matthew MillerMay 31, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		On the DPRK’s Recent Launches Using Ballistic Missile Technology	  Matthew MillerMay 30, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Designating Cybercrime Network Associated with 911 S5 Malicious Botnet	  Matthew MillerMay 28, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		China Coordinator Mark B. Lambert’s Virtual Meeting with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director-General for Boundary and Ocean Affairs Hong Liang	  May 27, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		United States-Japan-Republic of Korea Trilateral Vice Foreign Minister-Level Dialogue	  May 27, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		The 36th Annual ASEAN-U.S. Dialogue	  May 25, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		PRC Military Drills near Taiwan	  Matthew MillerMay 25, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the Ongoing Conflict in Myanmar	  May 24, 2024 

previous page1234…267next page

Back to Top
#### Hazel A. HENDERSON, etc., Appellant, v. Gregory Neal HARSIN, et al., Appellees.

No. 80-2539.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 1981.

Kuvin, Klingensmith & Lewis and R. Fred Lewis, Miami, for appellant.

Vernis, Bowling, West, Montalto & Goodman and Richard N. Blank, Miami, for ap-pellees.

Before NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of *Martinez v. State,*76 Fla. 159, 79 So. 751 (1918); *Wall v. Little,*102 Fla. 1015, 136 So. 676 (1931); *Lambert v. Higgins,*63 So.2d 631 (Fla.1953); and *Riley v. Jackson,*246 So.2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
695 A.2d 782

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. Liu XIANGRONGO, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 1, 1997.

William R. Bernhart, Reading, for Petitioner.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 1997, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted. The order of the Superior Court is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for consideration of the appeal on its merits.
§ 802.403 Beginning of 30-day assessment period. ( a ) Upon receipt of a declaration submitted under § 802.401, the Staff Chairperson shall promptly inspect the declaration and shall promptly notify in writing all parties to a transaction that have submitted a declaration that: ( 1 ) The Staff Chairperson has accepted the declaration and circulated the declaration to the Committee, and the date on which the assessment described in paragraph (b) of this section begins; or
( 2 ) The Staff Chairperson has determined not to accept the declaration and circulate the declaration to the Committee because the declaration is incomplete, and an explanation of the material respects in which the declaration is incomplete.
( b ) A 30-day period for assessment of a transaction that is the subject of a declaration shall commence on the date on which the declaration is received by the Committee from the Staff Chairperson. Such period shall end no later than the thirtieth day after it has commenced, or if the thirtieth day is not a business day, no later than the next business day after the thirtieth day.
( c ) During the 30-day assessment period, the Staff Chairperson may invite the parties to a covered real estate transaction to attend a meeting with the Committee staff to discuss and clarify issues pertaining to the transaction.
( d ) If the Committee notifies the parties to a transaction that have submitted a declaration under § 802.401 that the Committee intends to conclude all action under section 721 with respect to that transaction, each party that has submitted additional information subsequent to the original declaration shall file a certification as described in § 802.202. A sample certification may be found on the Committee's section of the Department of the Treasury website.
( e ) If a party fails to provide the certification required under paragraph (d) of this section, the Committee may, at its discretion, take any of the actions under § 802.405.
;). 

,; OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF ?TxAf3 

AUSTIN \‘ 

Honornble 1. C. uaVVM.rter 

County nuaitor 

Hunt county 

@reanvllle, Tams 

Dear Sir: Opinion I&l 04974 

Rer 18 it ‘Issal to ;.ag for typewriters and 30rzanant reoord 

books out of the oourthouea 

and jail fund? ‘, 

Your letter of !3eptkbar 13, 1941, rsquentlng an 

apinion of’ this dsportmnt on the abovn, etritlsd question 

reads aa follower 

Tleaue advise 88 to rvhcthor or not Lt. 

is logal to pay for tyDearlters and permanent 

record books out of tho Courthouse end iTal1 

Fund.? 

.Seotion 9, Axlhcle 8 of tho State Constitution 

presorlbea the maxlmm mte of taxee for :-enoral ~ur~osoe, 

for roads anb brldqes, 

manta, respectively* 

far juries end for perrnanaat lr,proveThe noniem orlsin& from tnxt~.e lovied 

and oollected fe. each of the enuwratsd pur:Joooa are oonrstitutlonal funds: ,and the Coromldsionors* Court hea no gowor 

to transfer monap from one fund to anothnr, end to. cxcend 

for ona Furpose Lox zonoy raleod ostenelbly Car enotk3r 

$%lxpoBe. 

The hnaediate puur~aae of the r,roviaion is t.0 li-!it 

the r.aount of taxes that r?ay be rained for thfftne c?oneml 

purpoeea, rsepeotively; but it ie alro deet’ned to lnhlhit 

exaeeoive axpendlturee for any such jrur>ose, nnd to re,Juuire 

that ong and nll ~!onlos raised by taxation for my p.~rpoec 

?$a11 be applied to thyt rcrticular purpose and to no &her. 
(Comlasl:~noro * Court of Headernon County v. 3.mk.e, 232 3. 3. 

94; Ault t. illll. Count.y, 116 S. r?. 359; lJndor~o& v. Horrsrd, 

1 3. W. (ld) 750; Carroll v. YXllSaza, 202 S. ‘1. 504; ‘Texas 

Jurlaprudenoa, Vol. 11, p. 029.) 

T!iB COttrtk\CUSO and j0S1 tucd 1~ tl:e ~?Tl?Eoont lm* 

>rove,mnt fv.nd, or et leaJet, o::netltutas a SortJo? thetreof, 

whloh IQ o. ooxtitotional fund. 

In view of chu lorr~,oln,: outhoritlcs, yoLl r.rs 

reepsctfullp c?drlced thnt :t ia t&o o~lnlon of this Cepart- 

:itcat that tho Comir~nionorn 7 Court l$ne no la~zl authority 

to psy for t~!mmlt~nrs and j%I?nanont! record book8 out of 

l.he ilCK5Z imnt iZji?OVQ "Ujit fWld. 

‘;rugtia,: th:it the foru..yln~ fully anvwtz-8 Bcur 

inquiry, 0 ire
# C_2005222EN.01000301.xml

| 9.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/3

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3752 — Verizon/MCI)

(2005/C 222/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 2 September 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Verizon Communications Inc. (‘Verizon’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking MCI Inc (‘MCI’, USA) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 2 September 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Verizon Communications Inc. (‘Verizon’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking MCI Inc (‘MCI’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | Verizon: a provider of telecommunications services in the United States; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

Verizon: a provider of telecommunications services in the United States;

| — | MCI: a global provider of telecommunications and internet services. |
| --- | --- |

—

MCI: a global provider of telecommunications and internet services.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3752 — Verizon/MCI, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3752 — Verizon/MCI, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 5, 2019

No. 04-18-00715-CV

Kenneth J. THOMAS,

Appellant

v.

ARRIBA APARTMENTS,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CV04988

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On January 18, 2019, we issued an order striking appellant’s brief for noncompliance with 

the briefing rules found in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, 9.5. Our 

order directed appellant to file an amended brief correcting the violations in his initial brief on or 

before February 22, 2019. 

On February 22, 2019, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his amended 

brief. Appellant’s motion does not specify how much additional time he seeks to file his amended 

brief. Appellant’s motion states that he is seeking an extension “to obtain records needed for [his]

brief.” We note that the clerk’s record has been filed in this appeal since October 5, 2018.

Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file his amended brief is GRANTED. We 

grant appellant an additional twenty-one days to file his amended brief. Appellant’s brief is due on or 

before March 15, 2019. Appellant is advised that no further extensions will be granted absent 

extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

on this 5th day of March, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### § 801.206 Investment.

The term *investment* means the acquisition of equity interest, including contingent equity interest.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7208 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY LEE BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (CR-01-6; CA-03-182)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Lee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Lee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000) petition which the court construed under § 2255. An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2991

To require the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing

guidelines to provide that a defendant convicted of a crime receive an

appropriate sentence enhancement if the defendant possessed a firearm

with a laser sighting device during the crime.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 29, 1996

Ms. DELAURO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To require the United States Sentencing Commission to

amend the sentencing guidelines to provide that a defendant convicted of a crime receive an appropriate sentence enhancement if the defendant possessed a firearm

with a laser sighting device during the crime.

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 ‘‘Laser-Assisted Gun

5 Crime Penalty Act’’.
2

•HR 2991 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES TO PRO2 VIDE FOR ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR A DE3 FENDANT WHO COMMITS A CRIME WHILE IN

4 POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WITH A LASER

5 SIGHTING DEVICE.

6 Not later than May 1, 1997, the United States Sen7 tencing Commission shall, pursuant to its authority under

8 section 994 of title 28, United States Code, amend the

9 sentencing guidelines (and, if the Commission considers

10 it appropriate, the policy statements of the Commission)

11 to provide that a defendant convicted of a crime shall re12 ceive an appropriate sentence enhancement if, during the

13 crime—

14 (1) the defendant possessed a firearm equipped

15 with a laser sighting device; or

16 (2) the defendant possessed a firearm, and the

17 defendant (or another person at the scene of the

18 crime who was aiding in the commission of the

19 crime) possessed a laser sighting device capable of

20 being readily attached to the firearm.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6039

SAMUEL BOYD, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LEARNED D. BARRY, Deputy Commonwealth Attorney,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-95-571)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Boyd v. Barry, No. CA-95-571 (E.D. Va. Dec. 21, 1995). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Merisel, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Donald R. Uzzi, as Chief
Executive Officer and Jon H. Peterson as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/
Donald R. Uzzi


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


Donald R.
Uzzi


Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer, and President





/s/ Jon
H. Peterson


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


Jon H.
Peterson


Chief
Financial Officer





May 15,
2009





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as part of the accompanying report.  A signed original copy
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.
#### § 501.747 Procedures on remand of decisions.

Either an Administrative Law Judge or a Secretary's designee, as appropriate, shall reconsider any Department decision on judicial remand to the Department. The rules of practice contained in this subpart shall apply to all proceedings held on judicial remand.