alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1618]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 26, 2000.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551

Status:  Closed.

Matters to be Considered: 1. Personnel actions (appointments, 
promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving 
individual Federal Reserve System employees.
    2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: January 19, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-1618 Filed 1-19-00; 12:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39409-39410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16031]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the National 
Vaccine Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services

    The Public Health Service (PHS) is soliciting nominations for 
possible membership on the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC). 
This committee studies and recommends ways to encourage the 
availability of an adequate supply of safe and effective vaccination 
products in the States; recommends research priorities and other 
measures the Director of the National Vaccine Program should take to 
enhance the safety and efficacy of vaccines; advises the Director of 
the Program in the implementation of sections 2102, 2103, and 2104, of 
the PHS Act; and identifies annually for the Director of the Program 
the most important areas of government and non-government cooperation 
that should be considered in implementing sections 2102, 2103, and 
2104, of the PHS Act.
    Nominations are being sought for individuals engaged in vaccine 
research or the manufacture of vaccines or who are physicians, members 
of parent organizations concerned with immunizations, or 
representatives of

[[Page 39410]]

State or local health agencies, or public health organizations. Federal 
employees will not be considered for membership. Members may be invited 
to serve a four-year term.
    Close attention will be given to minority and female 
representation; therefore nominations from these groups are encouraged.
    The following information is requested: name, affiliation, address, 
telephone number, and a current curriculum vitae. Nominations should be 
sent, in writing, and postmarked by August 30, 2000, to: Gloria Sagar, 
Committee Management Specialist, NVAC, National Vaccine Program Office, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, m/s 
D-66, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone and facsimile submission cannot 
be accepted.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: June 19, 2000.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 00-16031 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
130. 83-468 

IN THE SUPFaME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1984 

STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel., COLONEL 

ROBERT LANDON, Chief of Montana 

Highway Patrol, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsTHOMAS CARL MACEK, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Yellowstone, 

The Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Stephens & Cole; Robert L. Stephens, Jr., 

Billings, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, 

Montana 

- - -" 

Submitted on Briefs: December 22, 1983 

Decided: February 9, 1984 

J b, 1954 Filed: 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Defendant Thomas Carl Macek appeals from the order of 

the Thirteenth Judicial District Court declaring him to be a 

habitual traffic offender under section 61-11-203(2), MCA. 

We affirm. 

The certificate of record from the Montana Motor Vehicle 

Division shows seven speeding violations at three points each 

and one DUI at ten points. One of the speeding violations 

used in the habitual offender calculation was a violation of 

Washington State's 55 m.p.h. interstate highway night speed 

limit. Defendant was driving at a rate of 69 m.p.h. 

The only issue on appeal is whether a violation of a 

sister state's 55 m.p.h. speed limit can be included in the 

calculation of habitual traffic offender points. 

Defendant argues that violations of Montana speed limits 

mandated by the federal fuel conservation conditions may not 

be included in the calculation. Section 61-11-103, MCA. 

Defendant reasons that his Washington State violation is also 

a violation of the federally imposed standard and therefore 

should not be included. We disagree. 

Defendant's Washington violation would also be a 

violation of this state's 65 m.p.h. jnterstate highway 

nighttime speed limit; it would not merely be a conservation 

violation. Section 61-8-303 (2) (c) , MCA. The State of 

Montana has adopted a Driver License Compact that gives 

effect to violations committed in other jurisdictions. 

Section 61-5-401, MCA. Article IV of that compact provides 

in part that, "the licensing authority in the home state 

shall give such effect to the conduct [resulting in 

out-of-state conviction] as is provided by the laws of the 

home state." The violation in Washington would have been a 
violation in Montana. Thus, the Washington State speeding 

violation was correctly treated as a speeding violation 

adding 3 points to the habitual traffic offender calculation. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

We Concur:
No. 11-8618.

#### Henness *v.*Robinson, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STANLEY LEE MOSLEY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 10 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of June, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Filed 5/29/15 P. v. Slaughter CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH F. SLAUGHTER,

Defendant and Appellant. D067246

(Super. Ct. No. SCD242917)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A.

Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Robert H

. Rexrode , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Kamala D

. Harris , Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lynne G. McGinnis and

Eric A. Swenson , Deputy Attorney s General for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

In August 2012, Joseph F. Slaughter possessed cocaine base for sale. In

September

, he entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing cocaine base for sale (Health

& Saf. Code, § 11351.5). 1 In October, the court stayed imposition of sentence and

placed Slaug hter on three years ' probation. In 2013, the court revoked and reinstated

probation. In October 2014, the court revoked probation and sentenced Slaughter to local

custody for " the low term of three years

. " Slaughter appeals, contending he should be

resentenced under the 2014 amend ment to section 11351.5 , effective January 1, 2015,

which replaced the previous lower, middle and upper terms of three, four or five years

with terms of two, three, or four years. (§ 11351.5

, Stats. 2014, ch. 749, § 3, eff. Jan. 1,

2015.) Respondent correctly concedes the point.

The Legislature ' s intent in amending section 11351.5 was to rectify the injustice of

punish ing crimes involving cocaine base (crack cocaine) more harshl y than crimes

involving powder cocaine (cocaine hydrochloride). (Stats. 2014, ch. 749, § 2.) The

amendment reduc es the punishment for violating section 11351.5 ; we presume, in the

absence of any contrary indication, that the Legislature intended the amen dment to apply

to all defendants whose convictions are no t yet final

. Thus, Slaughter is entitled to be

resentenced under the more lenient sentencing scheme of the amended version of section

11351.5. ( People v. Keith (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 983, 985

- 986

, citing In re Estrada

(1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745 ; People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1195

- 1196 ;

People v. Nasalga (1996) 12 Cal.4th 784, 787, 789

- 798 .)

1 Further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The sentence is reversed and the case is

remanded for resentencing under the amended version of section 11351.5

AARON, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.
NUMBER 13-15-00051-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MICHAEL HAVEY, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's third motion for extension of time to 

file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on April 10, 2015, and this 

Court has previously granted appellant two extensions for the filing of appellant’s brief in 

this cause. Appellant has now requested an additional sixty days to file the brief, which 
2

would make the brief due on Saturday, October 10, 2015. 

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's third motion for 

extension of time to file the brief and the extensions previously granted in this cause, is of 

the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's third motion for extension of time to 

file the brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, looks with disfavor upon 

the delay caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter. Appellant's third 

motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED, and the Honorable Coretta 

Graham, counsel for appellant, is ORDERED to file the appellate brief with this Court on 

or before October 13, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED IN THIS 

MATTER. If counsel fails to file the brief within the specified period of time, the Court will 

act appropriately to ensure that appellant's rights are protected. TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(b)(4). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

3rd day of September, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000005588
<NAME> AMERICAN PAD & PAPER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,093
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (497)
<INVENTORY>                                    133,172
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,199
<PP&E>                                         163,834
<DEPRECIATION>                                (19,179)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 584,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,656
<BONDS>                                        349,206
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           274
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   584,524
<SALES>                                        149,834
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,834
<CGS>                                          118,835
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    73
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   154
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,251
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,263
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,988
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,988
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-09-0416 SAT Date: 6/23/2009 Print Date: 3/24/2011

Related cases : CBI : Yes Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments U U1

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation and dermal Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ;

P 2 Rec Comments : Comment: SAT had no comment
Keywords : Keywords: LUNG, UNCERT-IMMUNO/ONCO-LUNG Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: FATE: Solid with MP = 258 EC (M) S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 EC (E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 EC (E) BP > 400 EC (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E)POTW removal (%) = U via U Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = U Sorption to soils/sediments = U PBT Potential: PUBU *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = U

Health : Health Summary: For any particles with a particle size less than 100 nanometers, absorption is poor all routes based on analogs. For those particles with a particle size greater than 100 nanometers, absorption is nil all routes based on physical/chemical p roperties. N ote that the PMN submission states the particle size is 0.15 to 176 microns based on data for There is concern for lung overload if respirable particles are inhaled. For any particles that are less than 100 nanometers, there is also concern for lung cancer if inhaled and immunotoxicity.

Ecotox :

Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value * algal

_ chronic value * Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value

_ Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for esters; SAR chemical class = ester; log Kow very high, i.e., >9 (EPI); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *

SARs esters SAR Class ester
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7952

STANLEY DEMERE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN DAVID BALLARD,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,

Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00083-JPB-JES)

Submitted: April 22, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014

Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Demere, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy 

Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Demere seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Demere has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.3





Sprint - Executive Office




January 18, 2017


Roger Sole-Rafols                






Dear Roger:


I am pleased to inform you that the Compensation Committee approved you to receive a special retention incentive because of your critical role in the company.


This retention incentive consists of one payment to be made on January 27, 2017 totaling $200,000. 


Your signature indicates that you agree to repay the retention incentive if you are no longer employed by the Company (unless employment is terminated by the Company without cause, or is due to death or disability) through the 12-month anniversary of the January 27, 2017 payment date.
 
Please scan and e-mail a signed copy of this letter, confirming your acceptance to me.  I look forward to your ongoing contributions toward the company’s success.   


Best Regards,




/s/ Marcelo Claure
Marcelo Claure
President & CEO






Accepted by:
Roger Sole-Rafols, CMO






                            
Date
MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 30, 2015

TO: Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generating Units; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Zach Pilchen, EPA Office of General Counsel

SUBJECT: May 22, 2015 call with external stakeholders regarding multi-state plans

SUMMARY

A phone call was held between myself and Michael Myers of the New York Attorney 

General’s Office on May 22, 2015 to discuss Mr. Myers’ views on multi-state plans for the 

Proposed Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units. The Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines were proposed on June 2, 2014 

and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLIFFORD BRODSKY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ANTHONY P. KANE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-16804

D.C. No. CV-06-02288-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011 ** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state parolee Clifford Brodsky appeals pro se from the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 6 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-16804

Brodsky contends that because he pled no contest to conspiracy to commit

second-degree murder, rather than conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, his

plea agreement and constitutional rights were violated when the Board of Prison

Terms relied on certain information to deny him parole in 2003.

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that the Board of Prison

Terms was not constrained by the plea agreement was not contrary to, or an

unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the

Supreme Court, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792-93 (2001). 

Brodsky’s due process claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review.

Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011) (per curiam). 

To the extent Brodsky raises a claim that his plea was involuntary, that claim

is belied by the record.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (No.  333-80450 and  333-91863) and Forms S-3 (File Nos.
033-99736-01,  333-03526-01,  333-39365-01 and 333-61394-01) of our report dated
January 17,  2002  relating to the  financial  statements  that appear in Tanger
Properties Limited Partnership's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.
We also consent to the  incorporation  by reference of our report dated  January
17, 2002 relating to the  financial  statement  schedule,  which appears in this
Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 28, 2002