alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11214 Su m m ar y Cal endar
BRY CE S ON WI L L IAM BR OW N, Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. BA NK O F A M ER I CA ; J EA NI E M AR T I N, D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas N o. 2: 08- C V

- 002
B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Bry c e s o n W i l l i am Br o w n a ppe al s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s s um m ar y j udg m e nt r ul i ng i n favor of t he D ef endant s. The di st r i c tc our tf ound t hatB r ow n’ s sui tw as t i m e - ba r r e d b e c aus e he fail e d t o f i l e s ui tw i t hi n t he r e quir e d 9 0 da ys o f r e c e ivi ng h i s “ri gh tt o sue” l et t er f rom t h e E qu al E m pl oym en tO pp ort u n i t y C om m i ssi on ( “ E E O C ” )
. We A F F I R M. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust3, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 11214

2 T h is C o u r t r e v ie w s a s u m m a r yju d g m e n t d is m is s a l de no vo . I n a de no vo r e v ie w , a n a p p e a ls co u r t a p p lie s th e s a m e s ta n d a r d s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee Willia m s v . W

y n n e , 533 F. 3d 360, 365 ( 5t h C i r . 2008)
. Ti t l e VI I pr o vi de s t hat c l ai m ant s hav e ni ne t y da ys t o f i l e a c ivilact i on af t er r ecei pt of

a noti ce of

a ri gh tt o sue f

rom t h e E E O C
. 42 U
. S .C . § 200 0e5 (f)(1 ); T

aylorv. B ooks A Mi l l i on , I n c. , 2 9 6 F
. 3 d 3 7 6 , 3 7 9 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 )
. Br o wn st ated i n hi s deposi t i on t h at he rec e ive d h i s noti ce f rom t h e E E O C i n t h e f i rst w ee k of Sept em ber , w hi c h w oul d have bee n no l at ert han S ept em ber8, 2007. He file dh is la w s u it o n J a n u a r y4 , 2 0 0 8 , o u ts id e t h e 9 0 -d a yw in d o w re q u ir e db yT itle VI I t o b r i ng a c l ai m . The r e quir e m e ntt o f i l e a sui tw i t hi n 9 0 da ys o f r e c e ivi ng th e “r ig h t t o s u e ” le tt e ris s tr ic tlyco n s tr u e d
. T aylor , 2 9 6 F
. 3 da t37 9
. B r o wn p r e s e n t e dn o e v i d e n c e t o r e f u t e h i s s t a t e me n ti n h i s d e p o s i t i o n. W hil e B r o wn att em pted t o expl ai n aw ay t h e t i m e confli ct i n h i s am en ded an sw er, “ concl u sory al l egati on s orl egal concl u si on s m asqu eradi n g as fact u alconcl u sion s w i l lnot su ff i ce t o pr ev en t a m oti on to dism i ss, ” I d. at 37 8
. W i th n o ev i d en ce to contradi ctB row n ’ s ow n a sser t i on s of t h e date of

rec ei pt of

t h e l et t er, sum m ary j u dg m en tin fa v o r of t h e defen da n t s i s w arran t ed. B ecau se t h e sui ti s t i m eba r r e d, w e ne e d no ta ddr e s s t he o t he ri s s ue s r ai s e d b y Bro w n o n a ppe al
. The ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D
.
#### § 493.1225 Condition: Clinical cytogenetics.

If the laboratory provides services in the specialty of Clinical cytogenetics, the laboratory must meet the requirements specified in §§ 493.1230 through 493.1256, § 493.1276, and §§ 493.1281 through 493.1299.
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 31.1
CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 15D-14(a)

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Brian T. Beckwith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Peoples Educational
Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting;

Date: August 11, 2003

                              /s/ Brian T. Beckwith
                              Brian T. Beckwith
                              Chief Executive Officer
BILLY JACKVERCHER V. THE STATE OF TEXAS NO.03-13-00799-CR INTHE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

STATE'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:
NOW COMES the State ofTexas, Appellee in the above entitled and numbered cause and files this Second Motion for Extension of Time to File State's Brief, and in support thereofwould showthe Courtthe following: I. Appellant was found guilty by ajury ofAggravated Robbery, a First Degree felony enhanced to a 15-99, and the Judge assessed punishment at 30 years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant was granted new counsel on June 27, 2014. Appellant's briefwas filed on December 17, 2014. The State's brief is currently due on February 16, 2015. II. The State has requested one (1) extension in this case priorto this request. III. The State requests this extension of time due to the following: Counsel for the State has been involved in the prosecution of cases including contested hearings, pretrial hearings, grand jury presentation, negotiations with opposing counsel, guilty pleas and other hearings in numerous additional pending felony cases.

WHEREFORE, The Attorney for the State requests an extension oftwo (2) weeks to March 2, 2015, in which to file State's Brief. ACCEPTED 03-13-00799-CR 4120815 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/12/2015 9:45:23 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKRespectful/y submitted,

# ~~1t== nFerg Assistant DistrictAttorney 51st Judicial District 124W. Beauregard, Suite B San Angelo, TX 76903 (325) 659-6583 State Bar No. 24072092

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me by the said Jason Ferguson, this 12th dayof February, A. D. 2015.**~"-** )

## ,~~nt"" CHRISTINE GEORGE N 

### t P br

## ~**(;'f,:iI::~\** Notary Public. State ofTexos 0 ary u IC 

## I'-<i::p;i,/.' My Commission Expires State ofTexas 

### \**;~** 

### ..**i~·OF-:.tt·~i** June 28, 2016**~ ~111"U1\\~**  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension ofTimeto File State's Briefwas this 12th day of February, 2015, delivered to Melvin Gray, Attorney forAppel/ant, through e-file.txcourts.gov.
Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature: Project No.: 0172.08.005.60 3 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: DMR2009 

### CBI?

Yes

No TELEPHONE CALL RECOR D

Incoming

Outgoing Date: 02/24/11 Time: 1 1:53 am

pm

Company Name: Mueller Company ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Landick

Contact Name: Lee Warren Contact Phone Number: ( 334) 271

- 7845

General Subject: 2009 DMR Chlorine Discharges



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On February 24, 2011 at 11:53am I called the Water Division of the Alabama Department of Environmental

Management (334

- 271

- 7826) and left a message for Lynn Sisk. At 1:15pm Lee Warren returned my call and

left a message stating she was the person to talk to for gener al DMR data (334

- 271

- 7845). I returned her call at

1:56pm. She confirmed the values below.

Chlorine Concentrations: 20090630 1.35 mg/L

20091231 NODI=9 (monitoring is conditional)

Flow: 20090630 1.73 MGD

We have 135 mg/L. Recommend changing 135 t o 1.35 mg/L.

Ms. Warren also discussed that for future DMR data requests check their website first. Their files are uploaded

online at: www.adem.state.al.us , eFile, Type in DMR permit number and check water, DMR pdfs should

appear. Additionally online under ADEM programs there is a state listing separated by county and different

contacts for each area. Ms. Warren is the contact for general DMR permits but for specific areas we can contact

the person listed for the area where the facility is located.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – April 2, 2024

# 									Public Schedule – April 2, 2024							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

April 1, 2024

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to France and Belgium from April 1-5, 2024.

**1:00 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken visits Nexter Headquarters with French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu in Paris, France.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT BOTTOM)******

**1:45 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken participates in a working lunch with French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné in Paris, France.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)******

**3:10 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken holds a joint press availability with French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné in Paris, France.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)***The Secretary’s press availability will be streamed live on the **Department homepage** and **YouTube Channel**.*

**4:05 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Director General Audrey Azoulay in Paris, France.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)******

**4:45 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken holds a meet and greet with employees and families of U.S. Mission France in Paris, France.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)******

**7:30 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris, France.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY KURT M. CAMPBELL**

Deputy Secretary Campbell attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES RICHARD R. VERMA**

Deputy Secretary Verma attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS JOHN BASS**

Acting Under Secretary Bass attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS BRIAN A. NICHOLS**

**8:00 a.m.**Assistant Secretary Nichols meets with the Secretary of State for Ibero-America and Spanish in the World Susana Sumelzo at the Central America Working Group in Madrid, Spain.

**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

No Department Press Briefing.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonSecretary TripThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4805

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH STACEY SHEFFIELD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (CR-03-469)

Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 13, 2004

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry M. Anderson, Jr. ANDERSON LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellant. William Earl Day, II, Assistant United

States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Stacey Sheffield pled guilty to wire fraud and was

sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising

one issue: whether the magistrate judge complied with Fed. R. Crim.

P. 11 in conducting Sheffield’s plea hearing. Sheffield was

advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has

not done so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

This court generally reviews the adequacy of a guilty

plea de novo. United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 n.2 (4th

Cir. 1999). But where, as here, a defendant did not move to

withdraw or object to his guilty plea in the district court,

violations of Rule 11 are evaluated for plain error. United

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-25 (4th Cir.) (holding that

adequacy of Rule 11 hearing reviewed for plain error where there is

no motion to withdraw plea), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899 (2002);

United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 286-90 (4th Cir. 2003)

(discussing magistrate judge’s authority to conduct plea hearing).

Our review of the plea hearing reveals no error.

We have examined the entire record in this case in

accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious

issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
- 3 -

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the

client. 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
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.75 Half-mask facepieces, full facepieces, mouthpieces; fit; minimum requirements. ( a ) Half-mask facepieces and full facepieces shall be designed and constructed to fit persons with various facial shapes and sizes, either: ( 1 ) By providing more than one facepiece size; or
( 2 ) By providing one facepiece size which will fit varying facial shapes and sizes.
( b ) Full facepieces shall provide for the optional use of corrective spectacles or lenses which shall not reduce the respiratory protective qualities of the apparatus.
( c ) Apparatus with mouthpieces shall be equipped with noseclips which are securely attached to the mouthpiece or apparatus and provide an airtight seal.
( d ) Facepieces shall be designed to prevent eyepiece, spectacle, and lens fogging.
#### § 85a.6 Provision of suitable space for employee interviews and examinations.

An employer, owner, operator or agent in charge at the place of employment shall, on request of the NIOSH authorized representatives, provide suitable space at the place of employment, if such space is reasonably available, to NIOSH to conduct private interviews with, and medical examinations, anthropometric measurements and functional tests of employees. NIOSH authorized representatives will consult with the employer, owner, operator or agent as to the time and place of the private interviews, medical examination, anthropometric measurements and functional tests and will schedule same so as to avoid undue disruption of work at the place of employment. NIOSH will conduct the medical interviews, measurements, examinations and tests specified under this part at its own expense.

[41 FR 45002, Oct. 14, 1976]
----

            COUNCIL JOINT ACTION 2005/96/CFSP

of 2 February 2005         

amending and extending the mandate of the Special Representative of the European Union for the African Great Lakes Region

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 14, 18(5) and 23(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS JOINT ACTION:

Article 1

The mandate of Mr Aldo AJELLO as the EUSR for the African Great Lakes Region is hereby extended until 31 August 2005.

Article 2

Joint Action 2003/869/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

Article 3

This Joint Action shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Article 4

This Joint Action shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 2 February 2005.

For the Council

The President

J. ASSELBORN            

----

(1)OJ L 326, 13.12.2003, p. 37.

(2)OJ L 234, 3.7.2004, p. 13.

(3)OJ L 367, 14.12.2004, p. 30.

----
41523.

#### JONES v. VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY.

Panneol, Judge.

1. Whether or not the management incentive plan providing for incentive awards to employees constitutes a part of the contract of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant, the provisions of the plan are nevertheless binding on and determinative of the rights of the plaintiff who is asserting the alleged rights to the benefits thereunder. Under the terms of the plan, no employee, even though eligible for an award, is entitled as a matter of right to have an award made to him, or, if made, that it be made for any particular sum. These are matters resting in the discretion of the compensation committee. *Fickling v. Pollard,*51 Ga. App. 54 (179 SE 582); Going v. Southern Mill Employees Trust (Okla.) 281 P2d 762. See also, Parrish v. General Motors Corp. (Fla.) 137 S2d 255; Molburg v. Hunter Hosiery, Inc., 102 N. H. 422 (158 A2d 288, 81 ALR 2d 1063, Anno. p. 1066); O’Madigan v. General Motors Corp., 202 FSupp. 190, affirmed 312 F2d 250. Even should an abuse of discretion or failure to use discretion on the part of the committee be cause for interference by the court (see Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Reich, 131 Col. 407 (282 P2d 1091)), no such charge against the committee is made in the present case. Accordingly, there was no error in sustaining the general demurrer to the first count of the petition. Nothing to the contrary was ruled in *Phillips & Co. v. Hudson,*9 Ga. App. 779 (72 SE 178).

2. (a) The representation by a divisional president of defendant to the plaintiff who desired to voluntarily terminate his employment that plaintiff would be paid “whatever incentive [award] he was entitled to whether he left the defendant’s employ or not” could not be the basis of estoppel to create an entitlement when there was none.

(b) Nor would the letter from the defendant to its employees, in effect stating an award made would not be forfeited by a voluntary termination of employ on the part of the employee, *403inasmuch as no award had been made which could be forfeited; and no forfeiture, therefore, being involved in the present case, it follows that there was no error in sustaining the general demurrer to the remaining count of the petition.

Argued September 10, 1965

Decided September 16, 1965

Rehearing denied September 30, 1965.

*Thomas B. Branch, III,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alston, Miller & Gaines, Francis Shackelford, Lloyd T. Whitaker, Michael H. Trotter,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed,.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
§ 488.26 Determining compliance. ( a ) Additional rules for certification of compliance for SNFs and NFs are set forth in § 488.330.
( b ) The decision as to whether there is compliance with a particular requirement, condition of participation, or condition for coverage depends upon the manner and degree to which the provider or supplier satisfies the various standards within each condition. Evaluation of a provider's or supplier's performance against these standards enables the State survey agency to document the nature and extent of deficiencies, if any, with respect to a particular function, and to assess the need for improvement in relation to the prescribed conditions.
( c ) The State survey agency must adhere to the following principles in determining compliance with participation requirements: ( 1 ) The survey process is the means to assess compliance with Federal health, safety and quality standards;
( 2 ) The survey process uses resident and patient outcomes as the primary means to establish the compliance process of facilities and agencies. Specifically, surveyors will directly observe the actual provision of care and services to residents and/or patients, and the effects of that care, to assess whether the care provided meets the needs of individual residents and/or patients.
( 3 ) Surveyors are professionals who use their judgment, in concert with Federal forms and procedures, to determine compliance;
( 4 ) Federal procedures are used by all surveyors to ensure uniform and consistent application and interpretation of Federal requirements;
( 5 ) Federal forms are used by all surveyors to ensure proper recording of findings and to document the basis for the findings.
( d ) The State survey agency must use the survey methods, procedures, and forms that are prescribed by CMS.
( e ) The State survey agency must ensure that a facility's or agency's actual provision of care and services to residents and patients and the effects of that care on such residents and patients are assessed in a systematic manner.
[59 FR 56237, Nov. 10, 1994, as amended at 77 FR 67164, Nov. 8, 2012]