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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

*Decision*: Denied. Applicant has failed to establish that domestic instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument for the intended purposes are not available.                 

*Reasons*: Section 301.5(e)(4) of the regulations requires the denial of applications that have been denied without prejudice to resubmission if they are not resubmitted within the specified time period. This is the case for the following docket.                 

Docket Number: 99-031. Applicant: University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405. Instrument: HVS Video Tracking System, Pool and Platform, Model 2020. Manufacturer: HVS Image Ltd., United Kingdom. Date of Denial Without Prejudice to Resubmission: February 14, 2000. 

Frank W. Creel, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 00-11466 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4629

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL GUTIERREZ-PIZA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-04-432)

Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 22, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Gutierrez-Piza pled guilty to one count of

reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),

(b)(2) (2000). Gutierrez-Piza was sentenced to imprisonment for

thirty-seven months. We affirm the conviction and sentence.

Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there were no meritorious

grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the sentence

imposed by the district court was reasonable. Although

Gutierrez-Piza was informed of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, he did not do so.

After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound

by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United

States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). However, in

determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are still

required to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range

as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).

Id. If the sentence imposed is within the properly calculated

guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v.

Green, __F.3d__, 2006 WL 267217, at *5 (4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2006) (No.

05-4270).

Gutierrez-Piza’s thirty-seven month sentence was both

within the guideline range of thirty to thirty-seven months, and
- 3 -

well within the statutory maximum of twenty years. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2). Because the district court appropriately treated the

guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the

guideline range, and weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we

find the sentence reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his right to 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 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
#### DOUGLAS v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 91-616-CA (Lower Court Case No. 90-8778-MM)

Fifth Judicial Circuit, Citrus County

October 4, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Daniel H. Snow, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Lisa M. Porter, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

Before McNEAL, BOOTH, SINGELTARY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

McNEAL, R. Circuit Judge

James Edward Douglas, appeals the probation order that prohibits him from any contact with his children. Douglas also argues that he did not wilfully violate his probation. We find that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding of willfulness, but we reverse the condition of probation that prohibits contact with the children.

“A special condition of probation is invalid if it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct *19which is not reasonably related to future criminality.” *Forshee v State,*16 F.L.W. 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), *Rodriguez v State,*378 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

The condition that prohibits Douglas from contact with his children has no relationship to the crimes of battery, criminal mischief, and trespass which involved Douglas’s estranged wife. Contact with the children is not criminal. Although the trial judge believes that visitation with the children is related to future criminal conduct directed toward the former wife and her family, there are many ways to provide visitation between the children and Douglas that do not necessitate contact with his former wife or her family. Because of these alternatives, prohibiting Douglas from contact with his children is not reasonably related to future criminality.

For these reasons, the order revoking probation is AFFIRMED, but the trial court is instructed to delete the provision of the new probation order prohibiting contact between Douglas and his children.

BOOTH, J. and SINGELTARY, G., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.15

                [TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO RESORTS, INC. LETTERHEAD]

August 4, 2000

Mr. Mark A. Brown
[ADDRESS]

Re:      Second Amendment of the Employment Agreement dated March 6, 1998
         between Mark A. Brown and Trump's Castle Associates, as assigned to
         Trump Taj Mahal Associates and amended effective as of January 3, 2000
         the "Agreement")

Dear Mr. Brown:

This letter will confirm our agreement to further amend the Agreement as
follows:

1.       This Amendment shall be effective as of July 1, 2000, and the
         Expiration Date shall be July 31, 2003, subject to Trump's option
         pursuant to new Paragraph 13.a. below.

2.       Paragraph 1 is hereby amended to confirm your employment as President
         and Chief Executive Officer of each of Trump Taj Mahal Associates,
         Trump Plaza Associates, Trump's Castle Associates and Trump Indiana,
         Inc. (subject to necessary licensing by the Indiana Gaming Commission).

3.       In consideration for this Amendment, Paragraph 2.a, as previously
         amended, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:

                  a.       During the term of this Agreement, you shall be paid
                           an annual salary at the rate of One Million
                           ($1,000,000) Dollars commencing effective as of July
                           1, 2000, payable periodically in accordance with
                           Trump's regular payroll practices. Said annual salary
                           shall increase to One Million One Hundred Thousand
                           Dollars ($1,100,000) commencing January 1, 2001 and
                           to One Million Two Hundred Thousand ($1,200,000)
                           Dollars commencing January 1, 2002.

4.       Paragraph 13 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the
         following:

                  a.       Trump, in its sole discretion, shall have the right
                           and option to extend the Expiration Date to July 31,
                           2005. Trump agrees to notify you in writing one
                           hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the Expiration
                           Date as set forth herein of Trump's decision to
                           exercise such option. In the event Trump exercises
                           such option, your annual salary shall be
The undersigned hereby agrees to extend the term of the
Employment Agreement dated April 1, 2002 by and between Young Innovations, Inc.
and the undersigned, as amended on May 14, 2002, through December 31, 2004.

                  Agreed and accepted this 28th of March, 2003.


         /s/ George E. Richmond
         ----------------------
         George E. Richmond
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION



18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:



In connection with this quarterly report of PharmaNetics, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his/her knowledge:



1. This 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of PharmaNetics,
Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



Date: November 7,
2003



/s/    John P. FunkhouserJohn P. Funkhouser Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5

        
<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 1st Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>
   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                     0
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       4,200
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                          (525)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         3,675
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  7,725
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               4,200
<OTHER-SE>                                 0                             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           3,675
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         525
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        (525)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                            (525)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                            (525)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.00)


        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 24.1

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


          WHEREAS, the undersigned officers and directors of ITXC Corp. ("ITXC")
desire to authorize Tom Evslin and Edward B. Jordan to act as their attorneys-
in-fact and agents, for the purpose of executing and filing the annual report
described below, including all amendments and supplements thereto,

          NOW, THEREFORE,

          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Tom Evslin and Edward B. Jordan , and
each of them, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution and re-substitution, to sign the registrant's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000, including any and all amendments and
supplements to such Annual report, and to file the same, with all exhibits
thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each
of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their
or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.
<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this power of
attorney in the following capacities as of the 30th day of March, 2001.


Signature                                    Title
---------                                    -----

/s/ Tom Evslin                               Chairman, President and
-------------------------------------        Chief Executive Officer
Tom Evslin

/s/ Frank Gill                               Director
-------------------------------------
Frank Gill

/s/ Edward B. Jordan                         Chief Financial and Accounting
-------------------------------------        Officer and Director
Edward B. Jordan

/s/ William P. Collatos                      Director
-------------------------------------
William P. Collatos

                                             Director
-------------------------------------
Frederick R. Wilson

                                             Director
-------------------------------------
Elon Ganor


                                      -2-
#### HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA v WILCOX

Case No. 91-3239-54

County Court, Pinellas County

July 2, 1991

OPINION OF THE COURT

KARL B. GRUBE, County Judge.

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, with both parties being represented by counsel, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:

The Defendant resides in a publically [sic] assisted housing project and the Plaintiff, Housing Authority, is governed by the Federal Regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The Defendant asks that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for *111a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in that the seven day notice to vacate served by Plaintiff is defective because it is contrary to Title 24, Chapter 9, Section 966.4 of the Code of Federal Regulations as the notice fails to inform the Defendant of her right to make such reply as she wishes and of her right to request a hearing in accordance with the public housing authority’s grievance procedure. Defendant, however, fails to take into account Section 966.51(a) which states as follows: “Provided, that in those jurisdictions which require that, prior to eviction, a tenant be given a hearing in Court containing the elements of due process as defined in Section 966.53(c), the PHA may exclude from its procedure any grievance concerning an eviction or termination of tenancy based upon a tenant’s creation or maintenance of a threat to the health and safety of other tenants or PHA employees.”

In fact, Plaintiff does seek to evict Defendant on the basis of what purports to be a threat to the health or safety of other tenants or PHA employees as is set out in the notice. In addition, the Lease Agreement which is signed by the Defendant indicates in Section 13(d) that “except in cases of the making or keeping of a threat to the health or safety of other tenants or authority employees, you can contest the termination of this lease through the tenant grievance procedure.”

Further, the Court finds that Florida is a jurisdiction in which a tenant is given a hearing in Court containing the elements of due process as defined in Section 966.53(c) and, it is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be and the same is hereby denied and that Defendant shall have three (3) days from the date of this Order to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida, this 2nd day of July, 1991.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

Joel Borovay. Effective November 2002, Mr. Borovay began serving as the Chief
Operating Officer of Insight North America and, in the first quarter of 2003,
became eligible for incentive compensation, in place of previous arrangements
regarding incentive compensation, for an incentive bonus of 0.50% of our net
earnings provided that our net earnings exceed stated minimum amounts. Our net
earnings exceeded the minimum amounts for the quarter ended March 31, 2003.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP98-159-005]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 4, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2000, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, with an effective 
date of May 1, 2000.

Third Revised Sheet No. 117
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 118

    El Paso states that the tariff sheets are being filed to implement 
the settlement approved by the Commission at Docket No. CP98-159-003, 
et al. The tendered tariff sheets are proposed to become effective May 
1, 2000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 
This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11625 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Charles E. Austin, Deceased. Edith E. Austin, Appellant; Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Respondent.

(Argued May 26, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*422
      *Maurice Edelbaum*for appellant.

*Fred L. Gross, Frederick A. Keck*and *Donald J. Turrill*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondent payable out of the estate. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1:00 p.m. and recess at 10:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 24, 2000; reconvene at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 5:10 p.m. on Thursday, May 25, 2000, at the Bridgeport Holiday Inn, 1070 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604. The Committee will hold a community forum on issues dealing with police-community relations and treatment of minority students in public schools in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Invited panelists include local and Federal officials, civil rights advocates, community leaders and citizens. 

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Neil Macy, 860-242-7287, or Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, April 27, 2000. 

Lisa M. Kelly, 

Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 00-10947 Filed 5-2-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P