alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 16-23308 Doc 1 Filed 07/20/16 Entered 07/20/16 14:35:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 9
Case 16-23308 Doc 1 Filed 07/20/16 Entered 07/20/16 14:35:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 9
Case 16-23308 Doc 1 Filed 07/20/16 Entered 07/20/16 14:35:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 9
Case 16-23308 Doc 1 Filed 07/20/16 Entered 07/20/16 14:35:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 9
Case 16-23308 Doc 1 Filed 07/20/16 Entered 07/20/16 14:35:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 9
Case 16-23308 Doc 1 Filed 07/20/16 Entered 07/20/16 14:35:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 9
Case 16-23308 Doc 1 Filed 07/20/16 Entered 07/20/16 14:35:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 9
Case 16-23308 Doc 1 Filed 07/20/16 Entered 07/20/16 14:35:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 9
Case 16-23308 Doc 1 Filed 07/20/16 Entered 07/20/16 14:35:15 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 9
No. 11-5560.

#### Catalano *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Case 16-23308 Doc 8 Filed 07/21/16 Entered 07/22/16 10:39:35 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of August 28, 2006: 

A Closed Meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 at 10 a.m. 

Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a) (3), (5), (7), (9)(ii), and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. 

The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 29, 2006 will be: 

Formal orders of investigation;

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature;

An adjudicatory matter;

Requests for information in an investigative file;

Litigation matter; and

Other matters related to enforcement proceedings. 
      ( print page 50110)    
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: August 22, 2006. 

Nancy M. Morris,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06-7177 Filed 8-22-06; 3:54 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
#### JARRET C. HALLENBECK, Respondent, *v.*COMPANY E, THIRTEENTH REGIMENT, NEW YORK STATE NATIONAL GUARD, Appellant.

*Appeal to County Court*— *when no imdei-takingt required of the appellant.*

"Where a defendant, against whom a judgment for more than fifty dollars has been recovered in a justice’s court, appeals to the County Court upon questions of law only, no undertaking need be given.

An undertaking is only required where a new trial is to be had in the County Court, or a stay of execution on the judgment is desired.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Kings county, dismissing an appeal from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace of the city of Brooklyn, against the defendant for ninety-seven dollars and six cents.

*Henry J.*Oresta, for the appellant.

*John P. Troy,*for the respondent.

Dykman, J.:

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in a court of a justice of the peace for more than fifty dollars, and the defendant apjiealed to the County Court from the judgment, and stated in the notice of appeal that such appeal was taken upon questions of law only. No undertaking was given and a motion *235was made in the County Court to dismiss the appeal for that reason, which was granted, and now the defendant appeals from that order.

By section 352 of the Code of Procedure no new trial could be had in the appellate court on this appeal. Section 355 of the Code provides that when, by the terms of section 352, the appellant is entitled to a new trial in the appellate court, he shall, at the time of taking his appeal, give security as provided in the next section ; and in all other cases he shall give security if he desires a stay of execution of the judgment. In this action, therefore, as the appellant was not entitled to a new trial in the appellate court security was not necessary for the perfection, of the appeal, and was only necessary to stay the execution of the judgment.

The order dismissing the appeal must therefore be reversed* with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., concurred.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Dykman, JJ.

Order reversed, with costs and disbursements.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA Particle and Energy Balance Model of the Orificed Hollow CathodeA particle and energy balance model of orificed hollow cathodes was developed to assist in cathode design. The model presented here is an ensemble of original work by the author and previous work by others. The processes in the orifice region are considered to be one of the primary drivers in determining cathode performance, since the current density was greatest in this volume (up to 1.6 x 10(exp 8) A/m2). The orifice model contains comparatively few free parameters, and its results are used to bound the free parameters for the insert model. Next, the insert region model is presented. The sensitivity of the results to the free parameters is assessed, and variation of the free parameters in the orifice dominates the calculated power consumption and plasma properties. The model predictions are compared to data from a low-current orificed hollow cathode. The predicted power consumption exceeds the experimental results. Estimates of the plasma properties in the insert region overlap Langmuir probe data, and the predicted orifice plasma suggests the presence of one or more double layers. Finally, the model is used to examine the operation of higher current cathodes.Document ID20020090877Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsDomonkos, Matthew T.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2002Subject CategoryPlasma PhysicsReport/Patent NumberE-13609AIAA Paper 2002-4240NAS 1.15:211916NASA/TM-2002-211916Meeting InformationMeeting: 38th Joint Propulsion Conference and ExhibitLocation: Indianapolis, INCountry: United StatesStart Date: July 7, 2002End Date: July 10, 2002Sponsors:American Society for Electrical Engineers,American Society of Mechanical Engineers,American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 755-B4-04Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020090877.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 96.55 Information gathering and retention. ( a ) The SAS shall maintain current information on registered CBSDs, the geographic locations and configuration of protected FSS locations as set forth in § 96.17, and the federal Incumbent User Exclusion Zones and Protection Zones. ( 1 ) For registered CBSDs, such information shall include all information required by §§ 96.39 and 96.45.
( 2 ) SAS Administrators must make all information necessary to effectively coordinate operations between and among CBSDs available to other SAS Administrators.
( 3 ) Upon request, SAS Administrators must make available to the general public aggregated spectrum usage data for any geographic area. Such information must include the total available spectrum and the maximum available contiguous spectrum in the requested area. SAS Administrators shall not disclose specific CBSD registration information to the general public except where such disclosure is authorized by the registrant.
( 4 ) For non-federal Incumbent Users, the SAS shall maintain a record of the location of protected earth stations as well as the all registration information required by § 96.17.
( b ) The SAS shall maintain records not pertaining to federal Incumbent User transmissions for at least 60 months.
( c ) The SAS shall only retain records of information or instructions received regarding federal Incumbent User transmissions from the ESC in accordance with information retention policies established as part of the ESC approval process.
( d ) The SAS shall be technically capable of directly interfacing with any necessary FCC database containing information required for the proper operation of an SAS.
( e ) The SAS shall process and retain acknowledgements by all entities registering CBSDs that they understand the risk of possible interference from federal Incumbent User radar operations in the band.
[80 FR 36222, June 23, 2015, as amended at 83 FR 63097, Dec. 7, 2018]
No. 10-11089.

#### Moore *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

In Re: ) BK No.:

)

) Chapter:

)

)

)

Debtor(s) )

Valarie E Caldwell

16-24051

13

Eastern Division

Honorable Donald R. Cassling

 ORDER MODIFYING THE PLAN POST CONFIRMATION

THIS MATTER coming to be heard on the DEBTOR'S MOTION TO MODIFY, the Court

having jurisdiction, with due notice having been given to all parties in interest, the Court orders as

follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED:

 The Debtor's plan is modified post-confirmation to defer the 2018 unpaid tax refund of $711 to the

end of the plan to account for and cure debtor's failure to turnover her 2018 tax refund to the trustee in

the amount of $711 and the new plan base is thereby increased to $7,361.

Honorable Donald R. Cassling

Enter:

Dated: November 07, 2019 United States Bankruptcy Judge

David H. Cutler, esq.

Cutler & Associates, Ltd.

4131 Main Street

Skokie, IL 60076

Phone: (847) 673-8600

Prepared by:

Case 16-24051 Doc 56 Filed 11/07/19 Entered 11/08/19 06:56:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 11, 2009

Decided February 11, 2009

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 08

‐ 3391

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

DAVID JACOBS,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 07 CR 527

‐ 1

Ronald A. Guzmán,

Judge

.

O R D E R

In 2008 David Jacobs pleaded guilty to disposing of hazardous waste without a

permit and embezzling funds from an employee benefit plan. See 18 U.S.C. § 664; 42

U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A). The district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 46 months’

imprisonment. Jacobs filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel now moves to

withdraw on the ground that he cannot find a nonfrivolous basis for appeal. See Anders v.

California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jacobs declined our invitation to comment on counsel’s

motion, see Cir. R. 51(b), and therefore our review is limited to the potential issue raised by

counsel in his supporting brief, see United States v. Schuh

, 289 F.3d 968, 973

‐ 74 (7th Cir. 2002). 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

‐ 3391 Page 2

Counsel does not explore whether Jacobs could argue that his guilty plea was not

knowing and voluntary. That omission is appropriate, however, given that Jacobs has not

indicated that he wishes to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Knox

, 287 F.3d 667, 670

‐ 71

(7th Cir. 2002).

The sole issue that counsel considers is whether Jacobs could challenge the

reasonableness of his sentence. But sentences within the correctly calculated guidelines

range are presumptively reasonable on appeal. See Rita v. United States

, 127 S.Ct. 2456,

2462

‐ 65 (2007); United States v. Mykytiuk

, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). The only other

requirement for a district court looking to impose a sentence within the advisory guidelines

range is some meaningful consideration of the sentencing factors found in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Laufle, 433 F.3d 981, 987 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, as

counsel notes, the district court correctly calculated the guidelines range, considered

the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Jacobs at the middle of the advisory guidelines range of

41 to 51 months. The court noted the seriousness of both of Jacobs’s offenses, observing,

moreover, that “this was not a one

‐ time occurrence.” The court also emphasized the need to

deter corporate officers from misappropriating employee funds. That is explanation

enough, and any argument to the contrary would be frivolous.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
### `MUTUALMATERIALS' Trusted Since 1900



### Apri119, 2013

Alex.Cristafaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency David 

## Rostker, U.S. Small BusinessAdministration, Office of Advocacy 

## Cortiney Higgins, U.S. Office. of IVlanagement 

## and Budget 

## Dear.Mr. Cristafaro, Mr. 

## Rostker, and Ms. 

## Higgins:
I am writing today 

## as the prresident of 

## a sniall brick manufacturing company 

### that has the potential to be significantly impacted by the upcoming MACT standard for major sources in the brick and structural clay processiag indusiry. We are a formal Small Entity Representative (SER) in the cwrent review panel 

## being conducted under the Sma11 Business Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act (SBREFA). We are not, 

## however,: a member of the Brick Industry Association (BIA). Mutual Materials Company along with all of our industry is working 

### with the BIA on this critical rulemaking process. They are keeping us apprised of the activities on this rule, and we are continuing to provide support to their effort as needed. We consider them to be speaking on the whole industry's behalf; as they work with you. Many brick manufacturing companies, including Mutual Materials, are companies founded by individuals over one hundred years ago. Many of those companies, including Mutual Materials, are still held and operated by those same families as small industries providing quality building materials for construction and jobs to local community members. We appreciate the 

### efforts of all involved with the creation of this standard, and understand that EPA can not technically consider cost of controls in the process of writing the rule. However, as a small business we must shms that the economic impact of this rule has the potential to force a decision that would close our brick manufaciuring facilities. To that point we have provided, under strict confidentiality, production and sales numbers for 2005 and 2012. Using EPA calculations of control cost installation and operation it is clear that our business cannot support such an extreme cost addition potential.

Sincerely,

Joseph Bowen, President Mutual Materials Company www.mutualmatexials.com
PO Box 2009 Bellevue WA 98009 605 119th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005
425.452 2300 office 425.454 7732 fax
No. 11-5229.

#### Hall *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 53726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7611]


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

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


September 21, 2006 Board of Directors Meeting

Time and Date: Thursday, September 21, 2006, 10 a.m. (Open Portion), 
10:15 a.m. (Closed Portion).

Place: Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 
York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: Meeting Open to the Public from 10 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Closed 
portion will commence at 10:15 a.m. (approx.).

Matters to be Considered: 
    1. President's Report.
    2. Approval of July 13, 2006 Minutes (Open Portion).

Further Matters to be Considered:  (Closed to the Public 10:15 a.m.)
    1. Report from Audit Committee.
    2. Proposed FY2008 Budget.
    3. Finance Project--Latin and Central America.
    4. Finance Project--Global.
    5. Approval of July 13, 2006 Minutes (Closed Portion).
    6. Pending Major Projects.
    7. Reports.

For Further Information Contact: Information on the meeting may be 
obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.

    Dated: September 8, 2006.
Connie M. Downs,
Corporate Secretary, Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
[FR Doc. 06-7611 Filed 9-8-06; 11:53 am]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet at the Trinity County Office of Education in Weaverville California, September 25, 2006. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss proposed projects under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

# DATES:

September 25, 2006.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Trinity County Office of Education, 201 Memorial Drive, Weaverville, CA 96093.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael R. Odle, Public Affairs Officer and RAC Coordinator.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meetings are open to the public. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee.

Dated: September 6, 2006.

Susan Jeheber-Matthews, 

Deputy Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

[FR Doc. 06-7606 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0749Bolo Project Bulletin #5: Student-Parent Reunification After a School CrisisEvery day there are approximately 55 million elementary and secondary school students in our nation's public and nonpublic schools. The safety, health, and well-being of these students, along with the millions of faculty and staff, are the number one priority for schools and school districts. Although not typically considered first responders, school personnel are expected to be prepared to respond to school-based emergencies, whether natural (dangerous weather, etc.) or man-made (violent attacks, etc.). This BOLO discusses one critical aspect of crisis response-accountable reunification of students with their parents or guardians in the event of a school crisis or emergency. The example protocol included in this BOLO can make the student-parent reunification process more predictable and less chaotic for all involved, as it provides school and district safety teams with proven methods for planning, practicing, and achieving a successful reunification.Categories: School and Campus SafetyLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0749Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Dec 2014Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 02:14 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive