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

Filed 10/6/20 P. v. Barajas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH TELEVERA BARAJAS
,

Defendant and Appellant. C0 91695

(Super. Ct. No. 19FE000822 )

While defendant Joseph Televera Barajas was incarcerated, he knowingly and unlawfully possessed methamphetamine in a usable amount. Defendant was charged with possession of meth amphetamine in prison. (Pen. Code, 1 § 4573.6.) It was further alleged that defendant had two prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subd s . (b)

- (i)
, 1170.12.) Pursuant to a plea agreement, the prosecutor amended the complaint to charge the lesser

related offense of violation of section 4573.8. Defendant pled no contest to the charge as

amended and admi tted one prior strike conviction

. The second prior strike conviction

was stricken.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to this code.2

The trial court imposed the low term of 16 months, doubled to two year s eight months for the prior strike conviction. The court ordered defendant to pay a conviction

assessment fee of $ 3 0 (Gov. Code
, § 70373), a court operations assessment fee of $ 4 0
(§ 1465.8), and a restitution fine of $ 3 00 (§ 1202.4 , subd. (b)), with an additional $ 3 00 parole revocation fine , which was stayed pending successful completion of parole
(§ 1202.45). No custody credits were awarded because defendant was incarcerated on

another sentence.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable

cause.
DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to

review the recor d to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People

v. Wende (1969) 25 Cal.3d at p. 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More

than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende , we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we

aff irm the judgment.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. /s/ Robie, J. We concur:

/s/ Blease, Acting P. J.

/s/ Murray, J.
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3580 — CINVEN/CBR)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 252/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

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

(2)  Available on DG COMP website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 20 

To disapprove a final rule of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to the 

importation of cattle and beef. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 3, 2007 

Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. ENZI, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. 

THUNE, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. TESTER) introduced the 

following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To disapprove a final rule of the Secretary of Agriculture 

relating to the importation of cattle and beef. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Sec4 retary of Agriculture relating to bovine spongiform 

5 encephalopathy, minimal-risk regions, and importation of 

6 live bovines and products derived from bovines (72 Fed. 

7 Reg. 53314 (2007)), and such rule shall have no force or 

8 effect. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### § 4002.9 Seal.

The seal of the Corporation must be in such form as may be approved from time to time by the Board.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C ELIA ELIC INIA B ARRIENTOS,

Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-70016 Age n c y No. A070-639-600 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. C e lia Elic i n ia B arrie ntos, a

native an d c itiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing he r a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s orde r de ny ing he r m otion to re ope n de porta tion proc e e dings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion the 

# FIL ED DEC 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n. Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th C i r. 2011). W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing B a rrie ntos’ m otion to re ope n a s untim e ly , whe re B arrie ntos file d the m otion ove r sixte e n y e ars a fte r he r fina l orde r of de porta

tion, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1), a nd she ha s not de m onstra

te d the due dilige nc e ne c e ssa ry to wa rrant e quita

b le tolling of the

filing de a dline , se e Av agy an at 679 (e quita ble tolling is a

va ila ble to a n a lie n who is pre v e nte d from

filing a m otion to re ope n due to de c e ption, fra ud, or e rror, a s long a s the a lie n e xe rc ise s due dilige nc e in disc ove ring suc h c irc um sta nc e s). In light of our disposition, we do not re a c h B arrie ntos’ re m a ining c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 5 - 7 0 0 1 6 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 51 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 51

Supporting ``Lights On Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after 
                            school programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 18, 2007

 Mr. Dodd (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, 
    Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Burr, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Cochran, Ms. 
  Collins, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
    Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. 
   Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
   Inouye, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Carper) 
submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Supporting ``Lights On Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after 
                            school programs.

Whereas high quality after school programs provide safe, challenging, engaging, 
        and fun learning experiences to help children and youth develop their 
        social, emotional, physical, cultural, and academic skills;
Whereas high quality after school programs support working families by ensuring 
        that the children in such families are safe and productive after the 
        regular school day ends;
Whereas high quality after school programs build stronger communities by 
        involving the Nation's students, parents, business leaders, and adult 
        volunteers in the lives of the Nation's youth, thereby promoting 
        positive relationships among children, youth, families, and adults;
Whereas high quality after school programs engage families, schools, and diverse 
        community partners in advancing the well-being of the Nation's children;
Whereas ``Lights On Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after school 
        programs held on October 18, 2007, promotes the critical importance of 
        high quality after school programs in the lives of children, their 
        families, and their communities;
Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States have parents who work 
        outside the home and 14,300,000 children in the United States have no 
        place to go after school; and
Whereas many after school programs across the United States are struggling to 
        keep their doors open and their lights on: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress supports the goals and ideals of ``Lights On 
Afterschool!'' a national celebration of after school programs.
                                 <all>
```
§ 37.114 What procedure does the Department follow to distribute WIA Title I financial assistance to an alternate recipient? When the Department withholds funds from a recipient or grant applicant under these regulations, the Secretary may disburse the withheld funds directly to an alternate recipient. In such case, the Secretary will require any alternate recipient to demonstrate: ( a ) The ability to comply with these regulations; and
( b ) The ability to achieve the goals of the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA.
[No. 49943-2-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Welfare of*A.C. Steven Whiting, et al., *Appellants,*v. The Department of Social and Health Services, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-7-03229-0, Patricia H. Clark, J., entered January 6, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary financial  information extracted  from the
Balance  Sheet for Little  Squaw Gold  Mining Company  (a development stage
company) at December 31, 1998 (audited) and the Statement of Income for the
year ended December 31, 1998 (audited) and is qualified  in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          35,376
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     25,681
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,838
<PP&E>                                         431,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                (167,603)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 324,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          241,038
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       846,850
<OTHER-SE>                                    (763,050)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   324,838
<SALES>                                         28,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,311
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,992
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (30,681)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (30,681)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (30,681)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.004)
        








</TABLE>
§ 1911.4 Additional or alternative procedural requirements. Upon reasonable notice to interested persons, the Assistant Secretary may in any particular proceeding prescribe additional or alternative procedural requirements: ( a ) In order to expedite the conduct of the proceeding;
( b ) In order to provide greater procedural protection to interested persons whenever it is found necessary or appropriate to do so; or
( c ) For any other good cause which may be consistent with the applicable laws.
§ 1955.2 Definitions. ( a ) As used in this part unless the context clearly requires otherwise: ( 1 ) *Act* means the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970;
( 2 ) *Assistant Secretary* means Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health;
( 3 ) *Commencement of a case* under section 18(f) of the Act means, for the purpose of determining State jurisdiction following a final decision withdrawing approval of a plan, the issuance of a citation.
( 4 ) *Developmental step* includes, but is not limited to, those items listed in the published developmental schedule, or any revisions thereto, for each plan. A developmental step also includes those items in the plan as approved under section 18(c) of the Act, as well as those items in the approval decision which are subject to evaluations (see e.g., approval of Michigan plan), which were deemed necessary to make the State program at least as effective as the Federal program within the 3 year developmental period. (See part 1953 of this chapter.)
( 5 ) *Final approval* means approval of the State plan, or any modification thereof under section 18(e) of the Act and subpart D of 29 CFR part 1902.
( 6 ) *Initial approval* means approval of a State plan, or any modification thereof under section 18(c) of the Act and subpart C of 29 CFR part 1902;
( 7 ) *Party* includes the State agency or agencies designated to administer and enforce the State plan that is the subject of withdrawal proceedings, the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (hereinafter called OSHA), represented by the Office of the Solicitor and any person participating in the proceedings pursuant to § 1955.17;
( 8 ) *Person* means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal representative, an organized group of individuals, or an agency, authority, or instrumentality of the United States or of a State;
( 9 ) *Secretary* means Secretary of Labor;
( 10 ) *Separable portion of a plan* for purposes of withdrawal of approval generally means an issue as defined in 29 CFR 1902.2(c), *i.e.*, “an industrial, occupational or hazard grouping which is at least as comprehensive as a corresponding grouping contained in ( i ) one or more sections in subpart B or R of part 1910 of this chapter, or
( ii ) one or more of the remaining subparts of part 1910”: *Provided,* That wherever the Assistant Secretary has determined that other industrial, occupational or hazard groupings are administratively practicable, such groupings shall be considered separable portions of a plan.
( b ) [Reserved]
[40 FR 23467, May 30, 1975, as amended at 67 FR 60129, Sept. 25, 2002; 80 FR 49908, Aug. 18, 2015]
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
 
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Visualant, Incorporated on Form 10-Q for
the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley E. Sparks, Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (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/
Bradley E. Sparks
 Bradley
E. Sparks
 Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary-Treasurer
 
   Date:
February 23, 2009
EXHIBIT
32


STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Capitol Federal Financial (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
we, John B. Dicus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kent G. Townsend,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
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 result of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
      included in such Report.














Date:   May
5, 2008  
                                                      By:   /s/ John B.
Dicus


John
B. Dicus, President and


Chief
Executive Officer











Date:   May
5,
2008                                 
                       By:   /s/ Kent G.
Townsend


Kent
G. Townsend, Executive Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer

















<Index>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2260

NELSON L. BRUCE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
T

- MOBILE USA, INC., d/b/a T

- Mobile , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Mary Gordon Baker , Magistrate Judge. ( 2:21

- cv - 00895

- BHH

- MGB )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Nelson L. Bruce, Appellant Pro Se. Loly G. Tor, K&L GATES, LLP, Newark, New Jersey, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2260 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Nelson L. Bruce seeks to appea l the magistrate judge’s order denying Bruce’s motion to amend his civil complaint . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collatera l orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949).
The order Bruce seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss t he appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-2260 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
795 A.2d 374

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. Douglas Gerald KUNKLE, Respondent.

No. 681 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 19, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2002, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated April 1, 2002, it is hereby

ORDERED that DOUGLAS GERALD KUNKLE, be and he is SUSPENDED from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of six (6) months retroactive to August 22, 2001, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217 Pa.R.D.E.

It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.

Mr. Justice Castille dissents and would impose a suspension of one year and one day, as requested by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

	I, Neil F. M. McKay, certify that:

	1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Capitol Federal Financial;

	2.	Based on my knowledge, this 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

	4.	The registrant'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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and	

5.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation 			of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 			registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: August 4, 2005

					By:	/s/ Neil F. M. McKay                           
						Neil F. M. McKay

						Chief Financial Officer

 

<Index>