alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1307]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Global Positioning 
Systems will meet in closed session on January 12-13, January 20-21, 
and January 24-25, 2000, at 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, 
Arlington, Virginia 22203.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will receive briefings 
and discuss interim findings and tentative recommendations resulting 
from ongoing activities.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II (1994)), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly these 
meetings will be closed to the public. However, due to critical mission 
requirements for a report by the end of January, the Task force is 
unable to provide timely notice of the above mentioned meetings.

    Dated: January 13, 2000.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-1307 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**


**OF**


**PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND**


**PRINCIPAL
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C.1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








I,
      Albert
      H. Pleus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended September
      30,
      2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.





I,
      Thomas
      V. Butta, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended September
      30,
      2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.





Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.







By:
                /s/ ALBERT H. PLEUS
              Albert
                H. Pleus
              Chairman
                and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
              
              By:
                /s/ THOMAS V. BUTTA
              Thomas
                V. Butta
              Vice
                Chairman, President and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
              
              Dated:
                November 28, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40146

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN GABRIEL ARIZPE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:10-CR-1828-1

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Gabriel Arizpe appeals from his conviction of conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. 

He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress without

holding an evidentiary hearing. He argues that the contentions he raised in his

motion implicitly challenged the state trooper’s reason for stopping his vehicle

and that his implicit, conclusional statement was sufficiently specific and

detailed to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 27, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-40146 Document: 00511768469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2012
No. 11-40146

The motion to suppress contained no detailed factual allegations

suggesting that the reason for the vehicle stop was invalid or that the length of

the stop was unjustified. The district court’s failure to hold an evidentiary

hearing was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of the motion was not

error. See United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2005);

Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530-31 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Harrelson,

705 F.2d 733, 737 (5th Cir. 1983).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-40146 Document: 00511768469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7086

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JAMAR L. JONES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00964-l)

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 30, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamar L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Jamar L. Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Jones argues that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based upon Amendment 706 of the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706. As we recently observed, “Amendment 706 . . . amended § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the offense levels associated with crack cocaine quantities by two levels.” United
States v. Hood , 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009). Jones’s guideline range, because of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, was 120 to 135 months. He was sentenced to 120 months, a sentence later reduced to 108 months for substantial assistance, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and USSG § 5K1.1. The district court correctly concluded that, on account of the statutory mandatory minimum, Amendment 706 “does not have the effect of lowering” Jones’s guideline range. USSG 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A). Accordingly, a reduction in Jones’s sentence is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). Further, the fact that the district court reduced Jones’s sentence for substantial assistance is irrelevant to the applicability of
Amendment 706. Hood , 556 F.3d at 234. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. We dispense with oral

23 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
#### § 528.6 Review.

Any employer and, when appropriate, any apprenticeship agency or responsible school official, who expressed timely objection to the proposed action prior to issuance of an order of annulment or withdrawal may obtain review, limited to the question of whether the findings of fact support the order under the regulations in this part. Application for such review shall be in writing addressed to the Administrator and mailed within 15 days after the order is issued. The Administrator may affirm, modify, or reverse the order, or may remand it for further proceedings. The order under review shall not be stayed in effect pending such review. Any aggrieved person may obtain such review of an order entered in proceedings instituted under paragraph (c) of § 528.3.

[21 FR 5316, July 17, 1956, as amended at 22 FR 5683, July 18, 1957]
#### § 511.1 General method for issuance of wage orders.

Pursuant to authority delegated by the Secretary of Labor, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division publishes the orders that are required by statute to make the recommendations of industry committees effective as wage orders under section 6(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The wage orders issued by the Administrator must by law give effect to the recommendations of the industry committees. All wage order proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the standards provided in the Administrative Procedure Act as interpreted and applied in this part.

[55 FR 53298, Dec. 28, 1990]
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                           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 The Boyds Collection, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jean-Andre Rougeot, Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the
    Company.

<Table>
<S>  <C>                                                   <C>
                                                                      /s/ JEAN-ANDRE ROUGEOT
                                                           --------------------------------------------
                                                                        Jean-Andre Rougeot
                                                                      Chief Executive Officer
</Table>

August 12, 2002
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, James R. Swartwout, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Summa Industries;

 

2.             Based on myknowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual Report;

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this Annual Report;

 

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and we have:

 

(a)           designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this Annual Report is being prepared;

 

(b)           evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this Annual Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           disclosed in thisAnnual Report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a)           all significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)           any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
|   |   /s/ James R. Swartwout |   |
|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   | James R. Swartwout                 |
|   | Chief Executive Officer            |
|   | Chief Financial Officer            |
|   | November 15, 2004                  |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001074544
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST VI


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.15







THIS AGREEMENT IS DATED 31 JULY 2006







BETWEEN








	(1)	Alliance Boots plc whose registered office is at Sedley Place, 4th Floor, 361 Oxford Street, London, W1C 2JL;











	(2)	Alliance UniChem Plc whose registered office is at 2 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY; and











	(3)	GEORGE ROLLO FAIRWEATHER of [ADDRESS] (“The Executive”).










WHEREAS








	(A)	The Executive is employed by Alliance UniChem Plc under the terms of a Service Agreement dated 28 March 2002 (“the Service Agreement”).











	(B)	On 31 July 2006 the merger of Boots Group PLC and Alliance UniChem Plc was completed and Boots Group PLC changed its name to Alliance Boots plc.










IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS








	1.	On 31 July 2006 the Executive’s Service Agreement with Alliance UniChem Plc terminated by mutual consent.











	2.	With immediate effect thereafter a New Service Agreement commenced between the Executive and Alliance Boots plc (“the New Service Agreement”). The New Service Agreement was agreed to be on identical terms to the Service Agreement save for the removal of the restriction under clause 17.1.1 in relation to Boots. The Executive’s continuity of employment is preserved and all references to Alliance UniChem Plc contained in the Service Agreement shall be construed as references to Alliance Boots plc in the New Service Agreement.










IN WITNESS WHEREOF THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES.







	
 /s/ Marco Pagni

	 
	
For Alliance Boots plc

	 
	 	 
	
 /s/ Marco Pagni

	 
	
For Alliance UniChem Plc

	 
	 	 
	
 /s/ George R. Fairweather

	 
	
GEORGE ROLLO FAIRWEATHER
[Cite as State v. Smalls-Miller, 2024-Ohio-3355.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLERMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

TREVOR A. SMALLS-MILLER,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2024-03-020

D E C I S I O N

9/3/2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. 2022-CR-01005

Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nick Horton, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Christopher Bazeley, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Trevor A. Smalls-Miller, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the 

transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Clermont County Court of Common 

Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record 
Clermont CA2024-03-020

- 2 -

from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the 

rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one 

potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 744; (3) requests that 

this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free 

from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) 

requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is 

wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have 

been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response 

having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error 

prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel 

for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed 

for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
[Cite as State v. Smalls-Miller, 2024-Ohio-3355.]
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 5 

Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States 

posthumously. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2007 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. OBAMA, Ms. MURKOWSKI, and Ms. MIKULSKI) 

introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of 

the United States posthumously. 

Whereas Casimir Pulaski was a Polish military officer who 

fought on the side of the American colonists against the 

British in the American Revolutionary War; 

Whereas Benjamin Franklin recommended that General 

George Washington accept Casimir Pulaski as a volunteer in the American Cavalry and said that Pulaski was 

‘‘renowned throughout Europe for the courage and bravery he displayed in defense of his country’s freedom’’; 

Whereas, after arriving in America, Casimir Pulaski wrote to 

General Washington, ‘‘I came here, where freedom is 

being defended, to serve it, and to live or die for it.’’; 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 5 IS 

Whereas the first military engagement of Casimir Pulaski 

with the British was on September 11, 1777, at the Battle of Brandywine, and his courageous charge in this engagement averted a disastrous defeat of the American 

Cavalry and saved the life of George Washington; 

Whereas, on September 15, 1777, George Washington elevated Casimir Pulaski to the rank of Brigadier General 

of the American Cavalry; 

Whereas Casimir Pulaski formed the Pulaski Cavalry Legion, 

and in February 1779, this legion ejected the British occupiers from Charleston, South Carolina; 

Whereas, in October 1779, Casimir Pulaski mounted an assault against British forces in Savannah, Georgia; 

Whereas, on the morning of October 9, 1779, Casimir Pulaski was mortally wounded and was taken aboard the 

American ship USS Wasp, where he died at sea on October 11, 1779; 

Whereas, before the end of 1779, the Continental Congress 

resolved that a monument should be erected in honor of 

Casimir Pulaski; 

Whereas, in 1825, General Lafayette laid the cornerstone for 

the Casimir Pulaski monument in Savannah, Georgia; 

and 

Whereas, in 1929, Congress passed a resolution recognizing 

October 11 of each year as Pulaski Day in the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•SJ 5 IS 

1 That Casimir Pulaski is proclaimed to be an honorary cit2 izen of the United States posthumously. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS