alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6714

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GORDON GRAY COCKERHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CR-03-70074-4; CA-05-221-7)

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gordon Gray Cockerham, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gordon Gray Cockerham seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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, 336-38 (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

Cockerham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See also

United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding

that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is not

retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review). 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
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Richard Verma Travels to Guatemala and Colombia

# 									Deputy Secretary Richard Verma Travels to Guatemala and Colombia							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

September 1, 2023

Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Richard Verma will travel to Guatemala and Colombia from September 5-8.  In Guatemala, Deputy Secretary Verma will meet with President-elect Arévalo and senior officials of the Giammattei administration, as well as civil society and international humanitarian partners.

In Colombia, Deputy Secretary Verma will join Homeland Security Advisor Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to engage with Colombian officials and international humanitarian partners to discuss irregular migration, including in the Darien.  The Deputy Secretary’s visit to Guatemala and Colombia reaffirms the United States’ commitment to foster and strengthen democracy, human rights, labor rights, and the rule of law, and to promote safe, orderly, and humane migration in the Western Hemisphere.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsColombiaDeputy Secretary of State for Management and ResourcesGuatemalaOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International Travel

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3572 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 620
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3572

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 1996

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                           September 18, 1996

               Reported by Mr. Chafee, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the 
   Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the 
                     ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the Ohio River 
between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the bridge referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 18, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 620

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3572

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the 
   Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the 
                     ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 18, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 32
                                                               ----------

                CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                    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-QSB
of Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc. (the "Company"),
for the quarter ended July 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Andrew L. Simon, President, Chief Executive Officer and 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, Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc., to the best
of my knowledge, 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.

Dated:  September 14, 2005

                                       /s/ ANDREW L. SIMON
                                       -------------------
                                       Andrew L. Simon, President,
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Touchstone Applied Science Associates,
Inc. and will be retained by Touchstone Applied Science
Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
HomeWanted: Narcotics Rewards Program Targets...Juan Pablo Lozano

# 									Juan Pablo Lozano							

Narcotics Rewards Program: Wanted

April 14, 2023

U.S. Actions Targeting Transnational Criminals for Illicit Fentanyl Activity – United States Department of State

In the campaign of violence currently being waged by the Sinaloa Cartel and other traffickers for territory in Ciudad Juarez, Juan Pablo Lozano, a/k/a “Camaron,” is a major procurer of weapons for the Cartel, its *sicarios*, and Cartel-aligned groups.  He regularly crosses from the U.S. to Mexico with firearms, including machineguns, often with large firearms hidden on his person.  Some of the larger caliber machineguns and grenades smuggled and supplied by Pablo Lozano have been routed for the Cartel’s use in Sinaloa, while some of the smaller caliber pistols smuggled and supplied by Lozano have been routed into the Ciudad Juarez jails for use by imprisoned Cartel *sicarios*.

As an example of how the Sinaloa Cartel imports its fentanyl into the U.S., approximately August 2021, near El Paso, Texas, a high-ranking member of a Chapitos-aligned gang from Ciudad Juarez introduced a corrupt border official and Chapitos co-conspirator (“CC-2”) to Juan Pablo Lozano.  Over the ensuing approximately 12 months, CC-2facilitated Pablo Lozano’s trafficking by permitting Lozano to cross into and out of the U.S. allowing him to smuggle fentanyl pills through the port of entry with “mules.”

On April 4, 2023, a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment against Juan Pablo Lozano and others charging them with engaging in a Fentanyl Importation Conspiracy, Fentanyl Trafficking Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns & Destructive Devices, Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns & Destructive Devices, and Money Laundering Conspiracy.

The U.S. Department of State is offering a **REWARD OF UP TO $1 MILLION** for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Juan Pablo Lozano.

If you have information, please contact the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration via email at ChapitosTips@dea.gov.  If you are located outside of the U.S., you may also visit the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.  If in the U.S., you can contact the local DEA office in your city.

**ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.**

Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsDrug TraffickingMexico

Back to Top
41265.

#### ECHOLS v. TIME MOTOR SALES, INC.

Argued April 6, 1965

Decided April 13, 1965.

*555*Bartholomew & White, James A. White, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert Carpenter, A. Tate Conyers,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

The January 4 order sustaining the demurrer, though granting leave to amend within 15 days, did not carry a self-executing provision; that is to say, it did not provide that in default of an amendment within the time allowed the petition should stand dismissed. Absent that provision the petition did not stand automatically dismissed upon expiration of the time allowed, no amendment having been offered. A second order was necessary to effect the dismissal. *Luke v. Ellis,*201 Ga. 482 (1) (40 SE2d 85). Since this was true, the order sustaining the demurrer was not a final judgment from which a writ of error would lie. But there was a final judgment when the petition was dismissed, and a bill of exceptions tendered within 30 days from the date of the order dismissing came within the time required by *Code Ann.*§ 6-902. A different conclusion does not follow because of *Northside Manor, Inc. v. Vann,*219 Ga. 298 (133 SE2d 32), though it would have done so if the first order had carried a self-executing provision. See *Rochester &c. Leasing Corp. v. Christian,*109 Ga. App. 818, 821 (137 SE2d 518). The motion to dismiss is accordingly denied.

The Act of 1952 amending *Code Ann.*§ 81-1001 required that the court enter a second order or judgment on the sufficiency of the pleading after expiration of the time allowed for amendment and that the second judgment should supersede the first. Then an assignment of error as to the second order or judgment was sufficient to obtain a review of the first, which, by the Act of 1952, was superseded by and became merged into the second.

But since *Northside Manor,*holding the Act of 1952 unconstitutional, a different situation obtains. It is true that the first order, sustaining a general demurrer to the petition, was not reviewable until the second order was entered dismissing the petition. But upon the entry of the second order the first became reviewable. In order to obtain a review of it, though, error must *556be assigned not only upon the final order dismissing the petition but, as well, upon the antecedent order sustaining the demurrer.

There being no assignment of error as to the first order, it stands as the law of the case and the only question presented by the bill of exceptions is whether there was error in the entering of the second order dismissing the petition. We find none. When plaintiff offered no amendment within the time allowed, the trial court properly dismissed the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Hitchin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.





/s/ James HitchinJames
      Hitchin
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                August
      14, 2009
HomeAssisted Schools...Suva, Fiji-International School Suva: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Suva, Fiji-International School Suva: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 9, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: 679-3393-300 | Overseas School Fact Sheet | Regional Education Officer: Andrew Hoover 
        -  E-mail: info@iss.school.fj, admissions@iss.school.fj | Website: www.iss.school.fj| Special needs information can be found here. 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly. 

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Suva- 2024 Special Needs-Fiji) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

The **International School Suva** is a coeducational day school, which offers an educational program from early childhood (ECH) through year 12 for students of all nationalities. The school currently has a diverse student body with 55 nationalities. The school year, which comprises of four terms, starts in late January and finishes in early December. International School Suva follows a southern hemisphere calendar with the school year aligned with the calendar year rather than a September-to-June calendar. There are four terms with two-week breaks between Terms one & two, as well as three & four, in addition to a three-week break in June/July.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

FijiOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
# CALIFORNIA OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PESTICIDE ELEMENT ENCLOSURE 3 NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS

### CALIFORNIA STATE OF ._,_"
. f

. ....................

.. 

### 1001

- - . 

### 11111

.........



### STREET ...........-...-....- - - t
. 

### 4TH FLOOR ATTN: SHERYL STILLWELL -.--......-.... - - - 

# PROOF OF PUBLICATION

.................. . .......... 

### SACRAMENTO CA 95814
- 1 .-.-



# COUNTY 

# OF FRESNO STATE OF CALIFORN

The undersigned states:

3, ' I. I' lf!~QU,>~$Y;spedal &(c$np&dahbn ,o( bnp"agd needsr2$l&se n~tify4DPR at 1916~49$-4360.llY/TDD speech-to-speechusen maydial 7-1.1 fbr'thitali6miA kldy Sarvlce: 

## . ,
' (PUB: Pecember 8,9, 1008) FPROOFAD McClatchy Newspapers in and on all dates herein stated was a corporation, and the owner and publisher of The Fresno Bee.

The Fresno Bee is a daily newspaper of general circulation now published, and on all-the-dates herein stated was published in the City of Fresno, County of Fresno, and has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Fresno, State of California, under the date of November 22, 1994, Action No. 520058-9.

The undersigned is and on all dates herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, and is the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of said newspaper; and that the notice, a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit A, hereby made a panhereof, was published inThe Fresno Bee in each issue thereof (intype not smaller than nonpareil), on the following dates.

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1034 Record, order, and effect of prehearing conference. ( a ) *Record of prehearing conference.* ( 1 ) A record is made of all agreements and stipulations entered into at the prehearing conference.
( 2 ) The record may be transcribed at the request of either party or the ALJ.
( b ) *Order and opportunity to object.* ( 1 ) The ALJ issues an order setting forth the results of the prehearing conference, including the agreements made by the parties as to facts not in controversy, the matters to be considered at the hearing, and the issues to be resolved.
( 2 ) Copies of the order are sent to all parties and the parties have 10 calendar days to file objections to the order.
( 3 ) After the 10 calendar days have elapsed, the ALJ settles the order.
( c ) *Effect of prehearing conference.* The agreements and stipulations entered into at the prehearing conference are binding on all parties, unless a party presents facts that, in the opinion of the ALJ, would make an agreement unreasonable or inequitable.
#### § 423.2600 Payment appeals.

If the Part D RAC did not apply its stated payment methodology correctly, a Part D plan sponsor may appeal the findings of the applied methodology. The payment methodology itself is not subject to appeal.
#### Robert L. CHATMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1656.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 20, 1978.

*790Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Harvey R. Schneider, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and John D. Cecilian, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

SCHWARTZ, ALAN R.,

Associate Judge.

Three months before his three year probation imposed for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was due to expire, Chatman’s probation was revoked; he was adjudicated guilty, and sentenced to fifteen, later mitigated to five years imprisonment. Upon our determination that the record does not demonstrate a violation of the terms of the defendant’s probation, we reverse the judgment below.

Chatman was charged with and found guilty of violating two conditions of the probation, those requiring him to “work diligently at a lawful occupation” and to “carry out all instructions” of his supervisor. As to the first, the record shows only that Chatman had held two jobs during the 33 month period in question, the second of which had terminated (a year before the affidavit of violation was filed) because of difficulties with his co-workers which may have been racially related. While Chat-man’s work record may not have been bee-like, the state, in attempting to prove this belatedly-filed technical violation, did not, as was required, establish that the probationer had willfully and not “without fault” failed to maintain employment. *Coulson v. State,*342 So.2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Hence this basis for the revocation cannot be upheld. See also *Page v. State,*363 So.2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); *Jones v. State,*360 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); *Freiberger v. State,*343 So.2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); *Bienz v. State,*343 So.2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); § 948.03(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (1977) (permitting condition that probationer “work faithfully at suitable employment *insofar as may be possible”).*

The other ground is similarly unsupportable. The probationer was found guilty of violating his supervisor’s instructions *to pay $10.00 per month for his cost of supervision.*It is firmly settled, however, that a probationer may not be violated for breach of a requirement imposed, as was this one, by his probation officer, rather than by the court, which has the sole lawful authority to do so. *Barber v. State,*344 So.2d 913 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); *Page v. State,*supra.

The order of revocation and the judgment and sentence are therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.

Reversed and Remanded.

LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
§ 423.1034 Record, order, and effect of prehearing conference. ( a ) *Record of prehearing conference.* ( 1 ) A record is made of all agreements and stipulations entered into at the prehearing conference.
( 2 ) The record may be transcribed at the request of either party or the ALJ.
( b ) *Order and opportunity to object.* ( 1 ) The ALJ issues an order setting forth the results of the prehearing conference, including the agreements made by the parties as to facts not in controversy, the matters to be considered at the hearing, and the issues to be resolved.
( 2 ) Copies of the order are sent to all parties and the parties have 10 calendar days to file objections to the order.
( 3 ) After the 10 calendar days have elapsed, the ALJ settles the order.
( c ) *Effect of prehearing conference.* The agreements and stipulations entered into at the prehearing conference are binding on all parties, unless a party presents facts that, in the opinion of the ALJ, would make an agreement unreasonable or inequitable.